The Russia-Ukraine War in the Shadow of Gaza

Since the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas targeting Israel and Israeli civilians, Israel's ongoing military operations in Gaza have caused even greater concern for a country other than the parties to this conflict, due to the fear that its own struggle will be pushed into the background. That country was, without a doubt, Ukraine.

As mentioned in previous articles, there is growing questioning in the Western press as to whether a dead horse is being flogged. Zelensky is described in terms that oscillate between being a lone hero fighting alone and being stubborn in continuing a futile struggle.

The conflicts in Gaza have, at least for now, both pushed the Ukraine issue to the background and created a climate where doubts about whether to continue the strong military and financial support being provided to this country are being voiced at a higher volume.

Military conflicts, which were already set to enter a lull due to the approaching winter, may see this issue and any new decisions regarding it remain in the background for at least five or six months. Nevertheless, calls for a new strategy regarding this issue have already begun to be voiced by organic intellectuals of the US leadership.

Of course, it can be argued that the Gaza crisis has only played a triggering role in reaching this point in the Ukraine issue. Otherwise, the main factor is that, despite the long-term resistance performance of Ukraine—which surprised many observers—in response to Russia's invasion attempt, the desired result could not be achieved with the counter-offensive expected of it at the end of the day, and the situation on the front has become locked in a stalemate.

Although the Russian economy took a heavy blow from sanctions initially, Russians, accustomed to a war economy, had no difficulty finding other markets where they could sell natural gas, even if at a lower price. Furthermore, where the Russian war industry fell short, they did not hesitate to turn to Iran and North Korea.

Moreover, looking at the whole picture, Russia had already seized much more territory than Ukraine had reclaimed over the past year. Finally, it still possesses many reserve military forces that it can use to deploy to the front when necessary. It also appears that Vladimir Putin has maintained his control over the state apparatus following the short-lived Wagner crisis.

On the other hand, for Ukraine, despite its much-heralded counter-offensive, the picture is still less than bright. First, its economy is not in good shape, and it is heavily dependent on Western financial and military aid. It is also far from being able to show any sign that it can break through the fortified Russian defensive lines on the front. While it had mobilized a significant portion of world public opinion in its favor with the legitimacy provided by being subjected to an invasion attempt and had leaned on this wind for a long time, it now paints the picture of a country that is constantly demanding more for goals that seem impossible to reach.

The opinion piece published a few days ago in Foreign Affairs, the important foreign policy journal of the CFR, by Richard Haass, who served as president of the CFR for a long time, and Charles Kupchan, also from the CFR and a diplomat from the Barack Obama administration, is titled "Redefining Success in Ukraine: A New Strategy Must Balance Means and Ends."

Haass and Kupchan advocate for Ukraine to demand a ceasefire for the very reasons we have listed. Of course, they do not neglect to soften this proposal by adding that this would also put Russia in a difficult position diplomatically, and by stating that this does not require Ukraine to abandon its claims over the former territories seized by Russia. Otherwise, they argue that supporting both Israel and Ukraine militarily may become unsustainable. RAND, an influential think tank linked to the US military, also argues that this is a "sunk" defense strategy.

Haass and Kupchan offer few reasonable explanations as to why such a ceasefire might be acceptable to Russia, other than the fact that Russian blood, as well as Ukrainian blood, would stop flowing for a while. However, they see the United Nations or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe as authorized to implement such a ceasefire.

On the other hand, they also argue that while eighty percent of the desired Ukraine is already in hand, prosperity should be increased in these territories, and by strengthening the remaining defense of Ukraine, the country should be honored with a protection similar to NATO protection and a light form of membership with the European Union. Furthermore, they state that it must be clearly stated that the sanctions imposed on Russia will definitely not be lifted without it leaving the territories it has occupied.

Much like rumors of amnesty that cannot be stopped once they enter a prison, once talk of a ceasefire falls behind the front lines, it is nearly impossible to wipe out its effect. Both are hope, but as their arrival is delayed, hope can give way to despair. Indeed, on the Ukrainian front, despair seems to have arrived long before the ceasefire rumors. Fortunately, just one day after the calls by CFR analysts that have the potential to increase despair on the Ukrainian front, an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on behalf of US President Joe Biden was articulated with a title and content that would make Zelensky happy.

The article, titled "The US will not back down in the face of Putin and Hamas's challenge," also placed Putin ahead of Hamas, which is likely not just for the sake of diplomatic courtesy, as the former is a head of state. Since the first day the recent Gaza crisis broke out, Zelensky has been in an effort to seek Israeli support and to be identified with Israel in his country's struggle. There were even reports that he would visit Israel, but it was later claimed that this was abandoned because reporting it exposed such a visit to security vulnerabilities.

It is highly probable that this article written on behalf of Biden has relieved Zelensky, and it is understood that the Biden administration, despite all its dilemmas, does not yet find a retreat on the Ukraine issue to be correct. Nevertheless, the call by CFR analysts points to the serious difficulties in maintaining this stance.

No change has been announced in the Biden administration's Ukraine policy yet, but it is understood that searches in this direction have begun. The analysis of the frameworks and lines that Biden has been trying to draw toward Israel for a long time, through the opinion piece written on his behalf, will be the subject of the next article.