Almost six months after an astonishing mobilization against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe has drastically reduced the sending of resources to the country. That’s what recent data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy show, which tracks military, financial and humanitarian donations to Volodymyr Zelensky’s campaign since the beginning of the conflict.
According to the German institute, six of the main European countries — the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland — did not commit to making new donations to the front in July. It’s quite a fall compared to the more than €4 billion (R$20 billion) sent by these same nations in April.
The fall does not mean, however, that Europe has stopped sending resources to Ukraine. Two-thirds of the total €1.5 billion (R$7.6 billion) in international funds sent to the invaded territory in July came from a European nation, Norway, and other countries remitted part of the previously announced aid throughout the month.
Furthermore, in early August, Zelensky’s western allies left a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, with promises of new support in the amount of another €1.5 billion (R$ 7.6 billion).
But the more modest amounts of these remittances, as well as the irregularity in their shipments, reflect the fatigue of these countries with the conflict, the biggest security crisis on the continent since the Second World War.
Fresh from a pandemic, they face crises in food and energy prices that tend to only worsen in the coming months, with the arrival of winter in the Northern Hemisphere. The effects of the boom on the population have led to the decline in popularity of many of the continent’s leaders, ultimately eroding their bases and forcing them to resign – as was the case, among others, of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a of the spearheads of the union of Europe against Russia at the beginning of the war.
Meanwhile, the media appeal of the figure of Zelensky erodes, replaced on the news by images of the brutal war his people are fighting.
If the Europeans are tired, the Americans still seem to be betting on a potential victory for Zelensky. According to Kiel’s database, Washington did not last month pledge new donations to the invaded country. But in August, the month in which Ukraine’s independence is celebrated, they announced the sending of another US$ 3 billion (R$ 15.2 billion) in military aid, coming from the billion-dollar assistance package approved by Congress. In armaments alone, the US has already remitted more than US$ 10 billion (R$ 50.6 billion) to Kiev, which is equivalent to three times Ukraine’s military budget.
For Pedro Costa Júnior, political scientist and researcher at the University of São Paulo (USP), the explanation of this scenario is divided into three parts. First of all, he says, the US cannot risk another military defeat after the embarrassment of withdrawing from Afghanistan a year ago. Even if indirect, its presence in Ukraine is a testament to American military power and influence. An especially important show of force in the midst of the Cold War 2.0 between the US and China.
Costa Júnior says that the economies of Moscow and Beijing are increasingly closer, a link reinforced by the sanctions imposed on Russians by the West at the beginning of the conflict and by the “unlimited” friendship treaty signed by the rulers of the two nations shortly before the war. “So, by fighting Russia, the US is also weakening its main hegemonic rival, which is not it, but China,” he explains.
Second, the researcher continues, as impressive as the billions sent to Ukraine are, the war takes place there far from US territory, without the participation of its soldiers. It is a different situation from the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, for example, which impacts the way it is seen by the American people and media.
Finally, the continuation of the conflict is profitable for the American arms industry, concludes Costa Júnior. “The gun lobby is very powerful. It’s bipartisan, with Democrats and Republicans.”
The long-term effects of this mass shipment of weapons to Ukrainian territory have analysts worried. After all, you never know into whose hands this equipment will end up after the conflict. One of the fears is that they will end up being sold to civilians, or even under the control of paramilitary organizations such as the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi paramilitary group that is now part of the Ukrainian National Guard.
While Costa Júnior declares that exiting the war is not an option for the US, he says the Biden administration could feel more strongly the consequences of the war in the coming months. Especially with the approach of the midterm elections, the midterms, which could put an end to the current Democratic majority in Congress.
The view is close to that of Rafael Gomes, an internationalist who taught at the Federal University of the Urals in Russia. “Of course, such aid is applauded, but Americans themselves question whether this excessive spending on foreign policies in Ukraine is valid.”
As the conflict continues, European aid is likely to be even more scarce, say the two analysts. Even because these nations need this money to solve their internal crises, according to Gomes. “We hope that Europe is not only the one that supports and helps Ukraine, but also the one that demands an end to the conflict.”
