Even for a country at war for more than 1,000 days, the last month has been rough for Ukraine: Her opponent, the Russiaadded 11,000 soldiers from North Korea and mercenaries from Yemen to the ranks of its army, as James Nixey, head of the Russia-Eurasia program at the Chatham House think tank, notes in an opinion piece for the Guardian. Russia has slammed Ukraine’s energy grid as temperatures plunge below freezing and has test-fired medium-range missiles as it continues to advance in the east. As if all this were not enough, the candidate preferred by Moscow has been elected president of the USApromising to end the war in “24 hours,” and not on pro-Ukraine terms.

And yet, after all this, the question that is often asked lately is whether the West is escalating the war. The question concerns the lifting of certain restrictions imposed on Ukraine, which prohibited Kiev from using Western missiles for attacks inside Russian territory.

Western politics

Western policy on the war in Ukraine, however, is more cautious, slowly releasing further arms shipments, with Ukraine struggling to defend itself but unable to expel Russia from its territory. The reason why this happens is twofold.

First, the costs would be much higher – in defense spending, arms donations, and keeping the Ukrainian economy and society running, as wars are expensive. Democratic governments that depend on their constituents don’t want to be told that. As the US election showed, when taxes and commodity prices rise, those in power are usually voted down.

The second reason why the Western world did not give Ukraine all it could have brought us back to the issue of escalation. As much as Russia has escalated, most recently with the launch of an “experimental” ballistic missile, the US has largely been unwilling to respond. The Biden administration is clearly disturbed by Russia’s nuclear threats and the updating of its nuclear “doctrine” (despite the fact that dictators don’t bother to consult manuals on when to use nuclear weapons). This is an illustration of how nuclear blackmail works.

Prior to the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’s Donbass in 2014, the West refused to provide Ukraine with any military aid or impose meaningful sanctions on Russia, despite its history of aggression, destabilization and starting wars elsewhere. In the eight years between that incident and the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the West provided negligible amounts of military hardware and its sanctions on Russia were light. When the invasion began, Germany only offered helmets. Her tanks did not arrive until a year later. The F-16 fighter jets did not begin flying until August of this year. And the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles could not be fired into Russian territory until last week. Anti-personnel mines have now been approved but have not yet arrived.

Ukraine needs immediate – without delay – help

If the equipment had been given before the invasion as well as permission to use it immediately, Ukraine would certainly be in a better position now. One cannot say with certainty that Ukraine would have expelled Russia from its territory. But equally one cannot say with certainty that Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had been better equipped. What one can say, however, is that it would have been a fairer battle and that fewer Ukrainians would have died – both on the front lines and in the big cities.

Their blood is primarily on Russia’s hands. But to some extent it is also in the hands of the West, Nixey points out, as we could have prevented some of the losses.

It is repeatedly heard that Ukraine cannot (and in some cases should not) win this war. Certainly British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and US President Joe Biden say no such thing (preferring instead the more confusing and now offensive “We stand by Ukraine as long as necessary”). If Ukraine is not given the tools to win, it will not be able to win.

What Ukraine needs to have any chance of continuing to be a sovereign state is to get more direct aid.

This includes the use of Russia’s frozen reserves of 300 billion. dollars – the tightening of sanctions (especially against the shadowy Russian oil-carrying fleet) – the sending of stockpiles of equipment and ammunition (especially air defense systems) – the investment in the defense industries of European member states with the specific aim of supplying Ukraine, removing any existing restrictions on the use of weapons to target Russian troops, supplies, supply lines or infrastructure within Russia – intercepting Russian missiles over Ukrainian territory, as is done for Israel – deploying NATO troops in western and central Ukraine to help with logistics, supplies and training to reduce pressure on Ukraine’s own military and drawing up a plan to join the NATO for future security.

And others are at risk from Russian aggression

There is another reason why the West has not done all it could. And he is that we are talking about Ukraine. Because if it were Portugal or France, surely the West would have done everything to protect them, argues James Nixey. Ukraine, however, is not considered part of Europe and is easier to ignore.

There’s only one problem with this (two, if you count the moral of the issue). Ukraine is at the forefront. Moldova, also once part of the Kremlin’s empire, is leaving Russia’s sphere of influence and is certainly at risk. Poland and the Baltic states are also in tension with Russia as they move independently of Moscow’s control.

“At what point will the Western world decide that enough is enough and realize that this war must be fought and won, not lost?” asks James Nixey.