European security officials believe that Ukraine is slowly losing. That doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see Kyiv fall overnight, or the country-at-large occupied. The fear is that on the current trajectory Russia can continue its war of attrition and, over time, force its way deeper into Ukraine.
Nato sources worry this could mean unpredictable, guerrilla-style violence breaking out across the country, as Ukrainians cling to territory. Those in Ukraine paint a bleaker picture. “Honestly, I think it’s more likely that Russia obliterates cities, so Ukrainians have no choice but to flee, giving up even more of their country,” says a source in Kharkiv.
That would be a dire outcome not just for Ukraine but for its European allies. Russian forces would be free to creep closer to Nato’s borders, taking Ukrainian assets as they do—including its impressive military industrial base. It would also mean a mass exodus of refugees. It would be a political and economic nightmare for a continent that is already struggling.
Given the severity of these dangers, European capitals should be doubling down on their support for Kyiv. However, western officials fear that Ukraine fatigue is finally hitting European leaders just as a knife-edge US election looms over the continent’s future.
That fatigue, sources say, is driven by political and economic instability.
Some examples: in France, President Macron was humiliated at the recent parliamentary elections, in which he lost his majority to a range of parties, many of which, including Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise, oppose supporting Ukraine. In Germany, Chancellor Scholz is fixated on combating a resurgent far right which, unsurprisingly, has pro-Russians among its ranks.
Across the continent, the cost-of-living crisis has put huge pressure on governments to decide where and how they spend money. Everyone’s health service needs money. Everyone’s border forces need money. The case for sending billions of euros to Ukraine will inevitably become harder to justify if public opinion—broadly supportive of Ukraine but still fragile—cools.
Jade McGlynn, a researcher in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, says that for too long western governments have made a morality-based case for supporting Ukraine. “We like to take the line we are the good guys who don’t like dictators when we should be telling people how much worse things become for us if Ukraine loses.”
The first and most obvious danger if Russia wins is the territory it could take—and what is in that territory. The most recent example of this is Russia’s targeting of Pokrovsk and Kurakhove, cities that are thought to be of strategic importance, having served as logistics hubs since the start of the invasion.
More lost territory would also mean more people leaving Ukraine. Mass migration always creates a security concern as criminals exploit overwhelmed borders. If Russia can create a land bridge between Odesa in Ukraine and the breakaway state of Transnistria in Moldova—understood by security to sources to be one of the Kremlin’s key aims—Europe has a new problem.
The sheer level of organised crime in the region leaves it vulnerable to human traffickers, arms smugglers and all manner of delinquency. According to the US State Department, Transnistria is “a predominate source for sex trafficking victims in neighbouring countries”. Russia has a history of using migration as a weapon against Europeans and it’s hardly a stretch to imagine a triumphant Putin happily serving the west a brand new platter of nightmares.
Finally, if Russia wins, the cost-of-living crisis in Europe could get worse. The more land Putin controls, the more he controls grain prices or ways for energy sources to enter the continent. For all the talk of diversifying energy sources, Europe is still thirsty for Russian gas and energy prices remain one of its most pressing domestic problems.
The moral case for supporting Ukraine is strong. From the start, western governments said they were with Kyiv till the bitter end. But backing Ukraine is also the selfish and easiest option for Europeans. Ukraine has become Nato’s front line, and supporting it means paying someone else to fight on that front line. It is the most likely way of keeping America at the table, regardless of who the next president is, so that Washington continues to bankroll European defence.
Europe must stop dragging its heels on sending more weapons to Ukraine. It must listen when Kyiv asks for specific help and stop hiding behind the risks of provoking Russia further—it’s hard to see how any single act could make Putin any more hostile.
Yes, it is costly. Yes, it is risky. But, allowing Russia to win is a demonstrably worse option than sticking with Ukraine.
As one Nato diplomat says: “If you think it’s expensive now, wait until Russia is on our borders, which have people pouring through them at a pace impossible to monitor and has control of Ukraine’s weapons and agriculture. Seeing this through to the end still is the cheaper option.”
