It was interesting to listen to speeches that preceded the recent decision to approve a new Ukraine aid package in the U.S. House of Representatives. Several proponents emphasized that it is a decision that will change the course of history, which it was. There has been much speculation as to what caused the American elite to finally act. The decision was frozen for months. Why was action suddenly taken?

I believe that U.S. intelligence agencies' situational reports may have had a lot to do with it. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy also said that Ukraine could lose the war without American aid. It is very likely that the leaders of Congress and other influential members were made privy to classified assessments, which suggested Ukraine's resistance could collapse in the near future.

But even more important than intelligence reports are various public polls that are published almost daily in the USA.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recalls in his memoirs how President Barack Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted to him in the Oval Office that the Democrats' opposition to President George W. Bush's wish to send more troops to Iraq in 2007 mainly had to do with entry polls. Gates describes feeling sickened by the fact that such a significant national security decision hinged on a single state's polls, instead of the country's interests.

But U.S. presidential elections are a winner takes all affair. While it is possible for a political party to fail at elections but still make the government in Estonia, in America, executive power will move into the hands of the party that wins, end of story. While it is possible for one party to control Congress and the other the House of Representatives on the legislative level, thousands of executive branch positions will go to the winner after elections.

This means that six months before elections, no one does anything that might help the other side, while every effort is made to harm your opponent's chances. The Republicans are not prepared to take any step that might help Joe Biden get reelected. So why did they agree to Biden's Ukraine policy?

The fact that the decision was made rather suggests a calculation where hesitation might have cost the Republicans at elections. Had Ukraine been left to its own devices and the front collapsed this summer of fall, the Democrats could point the finger squarely at the Republicans, blaming them for blocking aid, giving away Europe and the country losing face.

But it is also possible that potential peace talks and an end to the war may have affected the aid decision.

The U.S. is very cautious about assuming new obligations the goals and benefits of which are unclear following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Many Congress representatives – and not just Trump supporters – have asked about the Biden administration's long-term plan. The answers provided by Biden, his national security adviser Jake Sullivan and other leading Democrats have been vague at best. The desire to leave one's options open and not commit to any high-sounding pledges is obvious.

It cannot be ruled out that influential members of Congress were give a concrete and tangible indication of how Ukraine plans to move forward with peace talks. For talks to start, Ukraine first needs to reinforce its positions and secure the front. Russia needs to understand that it cannot achieve much more militarily and agree to come to the negotiating table.

The Brits estimate that Russia has lost close to half a million soldiers as dead or wounded. Despite his rhetoric, it is not impossible that Putin is also interested in talks, while it will not be at any cost. There have been some signals to suggest this.

It is possible that the Trump camp, which is influential among Republicans, also perceived Ukraine's rapid collapse as a threat. Trump is certainly still interested in being the one to make the deal of the century with Putin of ending the war in Europe. But there will be no deal to make should the Republicans cause Ukraine to lose the war in the meantime.

Negotiating with Trump could be attractive also for the Russian side as a way to demonstrate that Biden's policy, which aimed to hand Russia a strategic defeat, failed miserably. That success favors those who can "engage Russia normally" and as an equal.

Biden has repeatedly referred to Putin as a murderer and madman (in addition to other, less printable things). While Trump has said that Putin is a smart man he can talk to and get along with.

As there are no official and public consultations between the sides, it is more than likely that information exchanges are taking place behind the scenes between Russia, Ukraine, USA and China.

Anticipating the war to end could explain why Western defense industries have still not made considerable investments and ramped up production volumes by leaps and bounds. Well-informed executives are looking at what Western political leaders are doing, rather than what they are saying. The war has been raging for over two years, while Europe still hasn't switched to a wartime economy, in a situation where Russia has.

If a ceasefire is negotiated in Ukraine in the next year to eighteen months, even if only temporarily, the West's willingness to really invest in defense, which requires very unpopular decisions, will become even less.

Defense contractors do not want to risk sitting on massive stockpiles of currently sought-after artillery shells, which might in a year's time be worth as little as surgical masks and coronavirus vaccines were once the pandemic ended.

It cannot be ruled out that both the Democrats and Republicans saw the recent aid package as the last lifeline Ukraine will be extended. It is possible American politicians expect Ukraine to use these resources to ensure a stronger negotiating position for itself.

Here in Eastern and Central Europe, we see the Ukraine war in a more black and white light than it appears in Washington. For us, everything is clear: Ukraine must win, Russia must lose, the occupied territories need to be liberated, and those responsible for war crimes and damages need to be held responsible.

But viewed from afar, the Ukrainian matter is not necessarily existential. A Ukrainian victory could be a case of Ukraine keeping its independence and a part of its territory, while Russia can be painted as having lost if it doesn't achieve its goals in full.

I am still of the mind that Estonian politics must not change in the near future at least. We need to make sure Ukraine gets the necessary military aid and support their recent military and political goals, especially restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, holding war criminals responsible, restitution, including by using Russian assets, but also Ukraine's NATO and EU membership.

One thing the West will need to keep in mind is that Ukraine will decide its own course of action in the end. The Ukrainian people may decide to continue armed resistance even without Western aid and in a much poorer situation. There is nothing we can dictate to the Ukrainians.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!