The stalemate in Ukraine is a critical moment for Western aid

Critics of American and Western support for Ukraine in its defensive war against the Russian invasion have long argued that the war has reached a stalemate, with the Ukrainian counteroffensive failing to achieve its goals and both sides stuck in so-called positional warfare, in which no one can make significant progress and often ferocious fighting continues over tiny scraps of land.

Now, the same depressing reports are coming from some Ukraine supporters and even from Ukraine’s own defenders. The new cover story in Time magazine depicts Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as angry and embittered by lack of progress in the war and by what he sees as inadequate Western support, battling domestic problems of widespread corruption, and surrounded by advisers and generals who no longer believe victory is possible. Meanwhile, in an essay for the British magazine, The Economist, the commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, acknowledges that “the war is now moving to a new stage” of positional warfare and that this potentially poses a serious danger to Ukraine.

Is the pessimistic narrative prevailing? Does this mean that critics of Western support for Ukraine — and advocates of a peace deal in which Ukrainians cede currently occupied lands to Russia in exchange for peace — are right? No, but it means that Western support for Ukraine needs to be smarter, more effective, and more realistic. In the U.S., this will require deft political maneuvering; new House Speaker Mike Johnson ostensibly supports denying Putin a victory but is also a Ukraine aid skeptic.

The Time article by Simon Shuster has caused a firestorm among Ukrainian politicians, commentators and social media users, with reactions mostly ranging from anger to distress to ridicule. Some have decried its reliance on anonymous sources in Zelenskyy’s entourage. Some have even attacked Shuster because of his Russian background (an American born in Moscow, his family emigrated when he was a child), accusing him of anti-Ukrainian bias and poor understanding of Ukraine. But Shuster has spent extensive time in the country and has written sympathetically about its resistance to the invasion. A little over a year ago, he even received an Order of Merit from Zelenskyy for his contributions to international support for Ukraine.

It’s entirely possible some of Shuster’s anonymous sources have grudges that reflect infighting among Ukraine’s top officials. But some Ukrainian analysts say the article is a needed if bitter dose of realism.

Zaluzhny’s article in The Economist is not written in a pessimistic tone. But he does acknowledge that if the current situation continues, Ukraine will find itself mired in a war of attrition which ultimately helps Russia because of its far greater human and material resources. His point is that Ukraine needs to improve its warfare with more “innovative approaches” — but the West also needs to step up deliveries of ammunition and state-of-the-art technology and give Ukraine more access to intelligence.

While Ukraine critics are likely to embrace Shuster’s article as evidence that further aid to Ukraine is futile, Zaluzhny’s article provides a good blueprint for further support. There is evidence that the recent delivery of long-range ATACMS missiles has already improved Ukraine’s position.

Calls for peace negotiations with Russia remain misguided because the Kremlin, under Vladimir Putin, cannot be trusted to stick to any peace deal — and can be expected to use any pause in the fighting to rebuild and improve its position. Ukraine’s war may turn out to be a long and difficult one. Western commitments need to be strong and solid in the long term.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.