Ian Proud
The truth is that Russia has the money to fight on for as long as it takes and Ukraine does not, Ian Proud writes.
In yet another shift from European leaders, the strategy now towards the war is 'keeping Ukraine in the fight'. However, the outcome - Russian occupation of all of Donetsk - appears inevitable, whether that's now or in the future. So if the Eurocrats can't strong arm Belgium in allowing the illegal expropriation of Russian assets, then it will be ordinary European tax payers who have to pay for Zelensky's fight.
Having been rebuffed by Donald Trump in his latest effort to obtain tomahawk missiles, Zelensky quickly turned up in London on 24 October, where the red carpet was rolled out by Keir Starmer and a handful of like-minded leaders, including NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and the Prime Ministers of the Netherlands and Denmark. Since that time, I have repeatedly heard a new line from European leaders; that the west should do everything 'to keep Ukraine in the fight'.
It isn't made clear why Ukraine would want to continue to fight. It is still losing small amounts of land each day.
The truth is that, under Zelensky's leadership, Ukraine has to fight on, backed by European leaders, out of a refusal to accept the terms of a peace deal with Russia that would involve Ukraine giving up its remaining towns in Donetsk.
Yet, one certainty in all of this is that Donetsk oblast is lost to Ukraine, either sooner, in the currently unlikely event that a peace deal is struck now, or later if Russia maintains the war for as long as it takes to claim it. President Putin has set himself a goal to take all of Donetsk and as of now, the greatest likelihood appears that he will eventually succeed.
If Ukraine and Russia's positions do not shift, and there is no evidence that they will, then that consigns Ukraine to staying in the fight for at least one more year or until the Russian armed forced occupy all of Donetsk, whichever is sooner.
The lie at the heart of 'keeping Ukraine in the fight' is a belief - or rather a pretence - in Kyiv that the Ukrainian Armed forces can prevent the complete occupation of Donetsk.
And Zelensky has clearly persuaded the ever gullible Keir Starmer and others of this. During his London meeting, Zelensky spoke about Putin not wanting peace, but the truth is that he does not want peace. Because peace for Ukraine means political suicide for Zelensky.
Perhaps his gamble is that if Ukraine delays the complete take-over of Donetsk for one or possibly two more years, then he can go to Ukrainian voters and paint himself as a heroic wartime leader who fended off Russia for up to six years with fairly limited territorial losses. It seems a better option for him, politically, that giving up Donetsk now.
And as he increasingly clamps down on domestic political opponents by sanctioning them or removing their citizenship, it may be the case that he can eventually put himself forward for election in the future with barely any competition.
But therein lies the conceit. Because Zelensky is making himself bigger than Ukraine itself by only thinking of his personal ambition.
And despite the ongoing repression of political opponents, it's not clear that the patience of ordinary Ukrainians will hold on for another bruising one or two more years of war when all they see are losses by the Ukrainian military. Of course, open reporting about Ukraine's performance on the battlefield is heavily censored inside of Ukraine. Yet the blogosphere remains alive with more accurate and critical analysis of how badly Ukraine is suffering.
Kupiansk and Pokrovsk nudge closer to complete occupation by Russian forces after over a year of bloody battle. Headway is being made in other parts of the frontline. Nowhere does it look likely that Ukraine will be able to deliver a decisive military blow. And, as I have said before, Ukraine's energy infrastructure and, now rail network, will be pummelled with winter on the doorstep and the tempo of ground fighting eases temporarily.
So, what benefits are there to Ukraine itself of staying in the war? There are none.
The obvious negatives are potentially hundreds of thousands of military casualties and a continued erosion of Ukraine's already catastrophic demographic outlook. Further destruction of towns, energy and transport infrastructure, causing hardship for and casualties among ordinary people. Ongoing bankruptcy for a country that is now completely dependant on handouts from western sponsors. And further delay to Ukraine's putative aspiration one day to become a European Union Member State (even if that prospect looks increasingly unachievable, as Zelensky alienates some EU members such as Hungary, and as European governments turn increasingly nationalistic).
And, of course, the big risk is that if the west decides to further escalate its economic warfare against Russia in the intervening period between the complete occupation of Donetsk, will President Putin escalate again, and continue to fight with a view to occupying all of Zaporizhia and Kherson? My assessment is that he would.
All of this piles the pressure back on Europe itself. By committing to keep Ukraine in the fight, Europe is committing to pay for Zelensky's determination to delay the inevitable outcome of the war: that Russian and Ukraine settle when Donetsk has fallen.
Despite the regular doomsday that Russia's economy is about to implode, the truth is that Russia has the money to fight on for as long as it takes and Ukraine does not.
So, all eyes fall back on Belgium as the European Commission scrabbles desperately to confect a legal justification for the illegal expropriation of Russia's immobilised assets in Euroclear. $140 billion dollars would indeed enable Zelensky to keep fighting at least for another two years.
Yet, as Belgium's Prime Minister Bart de Wever has recently made abundantly clear, his country does not agree to this. And unless Rutte, Von der Leyen or any other of the other pro-war Eurocrats strong arm him into backing down, it will fall to the European tax-payer to keep Zelensky in the fight. And that will only accelerate the demise of the internationalist elite across the continent.