Recent elections in France and the UK, mark a pivotal shift in Ukraine-Europe relations, ushering in a new era in the dynamic between Europe and Russia.
As NATO countries gather in Washington, their stance toward Ukraine will be a good indication of where the West will be positioned vis-à-vis the powers trying to undermine it.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Signed with much fanfare, the June 2024 US-Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement is the current promise from the leaders of the free world to those fighting for independence from Russian servitude. Yet, as US political tides shift, the agreement’s durability and future remain uncertain, as does America’s global standing. The agreement was heralded by some as an unbreakable promise by the US to Ukrainian sovereignty, and to others as a repeat of the Budapest Memorandum. Without overwhelming support for Ukraine to provide safe skies, let alone a decisive victory on the battlefield, it is pertinent to question the value of these promises and what other signatories of the Budapest agreement might see in them.
The US-Ukraine Bilateral Security Agreement, signed by Presidents Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is designed to enhance Ukraine’s military capabilities and support its economic recovery. This 10-year pact includes joint military exercises, the provision of defense articles, and efforts to integrate Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures. Additionally, it promises aid for energy security and the development of a transparent economic infrastructure. The agreement also emphasizes institutional reforms to align Ukraine with European Union and NATO standards, which are essential for Ukraine’s aspirations for EU accession and deeper integration into Western alliances.
Don’t Say Purge: One More Russian General Arrested on Corruption Charges
The volatile nature of US politics, especially with the November 2024 elections approaching, raises questions about the stability of its commitment.
However, as an executive agreement, it bypasses Congressional approval, making it vulnerable to changes in the US administration. Future presidents could amend or even cancel the agreement, influenced by shifting political priorities or fiscal constraints... or whims. The volatile nature of US politics, especially with the November 2024 elections approaching, raises questions about the stability of this commitment. After President Biden’s underwhelming performance in the CNN Presidential debate, the specter of a potential Trump administration looms large, with think tanks like the America First Policy Institute suggesting a framework that could pressure Ukraine into peace talks with Russia. This proposal, which involves leveraging US aid to force Ukraine into negotiations, risks undermining its sovereignty and damaging US global standing.
The UK leads the way
Contrasting the US commitment is the UK-Ukraine Security Cooperation Agreement , signed on January 12, 2024 by the Conservative Government, notable for its comprehensive approach, addressing both military and non-military security. This agreement underpins a 10-year commitment, including provisions for economic recovery, infrastructure protection, and resilience against cyber threats. It emphasizes joint training, intelligence sharing, and alignment with NATO standards. The UK’s agreement also explicitly outlines support mechanisms for critical infrastructure, which is less emphasized in the US document.
While Number 10 Downing St. has welcomed a new tenant of the opposite political persuasion to the Conservatives, the UK commitment to Ukraine remains unshakable and visibly stronger. With the new government coming into power, and the current Defence Secretary on his trip to Odesa promising to provide the support package announced by the Tories in April within the next 100 days, it looks like we should experience a greater level of support for Ukraine from the UK.
In April, more than 400 vehicles, including protected mobility and armored vehicles, nearly 4 million rounds of small arms ammunition, and over 1,600 strike and air defense missiles were promised by the Tories. Additionally, the package included 60 boats equipped with maritime guns and drones. All arms are much needed in Ukraine, especially air defense, as indicated by the Russian strike on the Ohmatdyt pediatric hospital on June 8th.
The UK commitment and reassurances could not have come at a more crucial time, as France, never fully committed in terms of overall value or as a percentage of their GDP to Ukrainian self-defense, as shown by the Kiel Institute tracker, is under visible pressure.
The China Factor
The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Astana highlighted the pressure applied to Kazakhstan.
The America First Policy Institute’s proposals, if implemented, could force Ukraine to negotiate with Putin under threat of reduced US aid. This strategy, while aiming to end the conflict, risks damaging Ukraine’s sovereignty and the US’s international reputation. Such a move would also challenge the unity of NATO countries, as other allies would need to maintain their support for Ukraine independently. The plan, which involves a conditional approach to US aid, is already drawing criticism from analysts who argue it would embolden Russian aggression rather than contain it.
A reduction in US support for Ukraine or a decrease in pressure on Russia could significantly alter global alliances, notably increasing China’s influence in key regions. One critical example is Saudi Arabia, where US disengagement could prompt Riyadh to strengthen its ties with Beijing. Saudi Arabia’s Neom project, a $500 billion futuristic megacity, has already seen interest from Chinese investors as US investment wanes. This shift is part of a broader strategy by Saudi Arabia to diversify its economic partners and reduce dependency on the US, potentially moving away from the petrodollar system and adopting the Chinese yuan for oil transactions. Such a move would weaken the dollar’s global dominance and signal a broader realignment towards China, which is already the kingdom’s largest oil customer. This transition, which presents a very real danger in the already visible shift from the US as the regional mediator of choice after the Chinese involvement in negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and future potential resolutions with the Houthis, could serve as a template for other countries in the region, enhancing China’s economic and geopolitical clout.
Furthermore, China’s efforts to fill the void in Central Asia and Africa underscore its strategy to capitalize on reduced Western influence. In Central Asia, China is expanding its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to build infrastructure and foster economic dependencies that previously leaned towards Russia and, to a lesser extent, the West. Similarly, in Africa, China’s post-Covid-19 investments in mining and infrastructure aim to secure critical minerals and establish a robust foothold. If the US and UK reduce their engagement with these regions, it would only accelerate this trend, reinforcing China's role as a pivotal global power.
Such a shift would also resonate in Latin America, where China’s influence is growing through significant investments and partnerships in countries like Argentina and Brazil. Collectively, these developments could lead to a significant geopolitical realignment, diminishing Western influence while positioning China as the central global power.
Chinese President Xi Jinping was very clear in his message to Kazakhstan: with Chinese investment in the country, a historic friendship between the two states and proximity to Russia, China and Iran, the Kazakhs have to choose who they remain friends with. The West promised dire consequences for Russia if they were to invade Ukraine in January 2022, the West announced extreme sanctions and increasing support for Ukraine ever since the February 2022 invasion.
However, over two years down the line, as France is politically shaken and the US is poised to end support, the Labour reassurances could not have come at a more critical time for Ukraine, for Europe, and for those countries that find themselves at the crossroads between doing the right thing and attempting to ride the wave of pragmatism amidst news reports of child deaths at Russian hands.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
