US support for the continuation of the war in Ukraine is dwindling, posing major questions about President Joe Biden’s declaration to back Kyiv “for as long as it takes”.
According to a new Reuters-Ipsos survey released this week, a rapidly growing number of Americans across the political divide are opposed to the US supplying additional military aid to Ukraine.
The latest poll shows that only 41% of Americans agreed that Washington should continue to provide weapons to Ukraine. This is a sharp decline from 65% support for “arming Ukraine” in a Reuters poll conducted in June.
Among the ruling Democratic Party base, the decline for continued military support for Ukraine has markedly declined from 81% in June to 52% this week.
In the opposition Republican Party, support for US military aid to the President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration has dropped from 56% in June to 35% currently.
Continued aid to Ukraine has become a hot political potato in the US Congress.
Legislators continue to wrangle over a long-term spending package to avert a costly government shutdown before November 17.
Recently, the Republicans succeeded in removing the Ukraine funding from legislation following the earlier inclusion of aid masterminded by Biden’s Democratic Party.
These developments are of high importance in the greater scheme of geopolitics as the US has been playing the role of the protagonist in the support for Kyiv.
A federal budget crisis is highly likely to impact the US-led Nato support for Ukraine – financially and militarily, among others.
Should the US lawmakers fail to reach a deal by the November 17 deadline, dynamics for the continuation of Nato’s proxy war against Russia will most likely change drastically.
Although Biden has publicly made an impassioned plea to the Americans to back his Ukraine agenda, arguing that “it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the United States of America that Ukraine succeeds” – the public buy-in is waning worryingly.
So far, Washington has led Nato – with the EU in tow – in Kyiv’s financial backing to the tune of no less than $45 billion in less than two years. This was over and above the concurrent supply of a plethora of war needs such as tanks, artillery, air defence systems, drones and munitions.
Nato’s other member-states have also participated in the megaphone diplomacy against Russia, and collectively contributed military and financial support to Ukraine.
Moscow has vehemently condemned foreign arms transfers to Kyiv, warning that the move would only serve to prolong the war than to end it.
But then again, Nato and the West have not indicated any desire to persuade Ukraine to the negotiating table. Instead, they have maintained an enthusiastic support for Kyiv, particularly in the so-called “counter-offensive” that has failed to yield the desired result thus far.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that Moscow was prepared to end the war, but the US-led Nato was least interested in ending the conflict that has taken a toll on the Ukrainian population.
Kyiv is currently drafting legislation to draft the youth into the compulsory military conscription as the country runs out of fighters.
But the elephant in the room becomes what if the US government does shut down on November 17 and aid to Ukraine grinds to an abrupt halt? That is the question.
The bad news for Nato is that Russia – a major nuclear power – has exhibited an appetite to stay the course in the conflict.
That must be a poser. And, to complicate matters, the bulk of the global south led by China, India and Africa has maintained their non-aligned stance in the conflict. In fact, they have continued to do business with Russia as usual.
A few months ago a Russia-Africa summit was held in St Petersburg to much acclaim. Putin has visited Beijing in a show of growing bilateral ties between the two major nuclear powers.
India, the world’s most populous nation after China, has become Russia’s major buyer of oil and gas in spite of the Western sanctions that South Africa has condemned as politically motivated and “unbinding” as they are not UN-sanctioned.
The dilemma for the American public and Nato and the EU in general is the growing impact of BRICS Plus, which has recently expanded from five countries to 11.
And now, following the inclusion of the UAE, Iran and Saudi Arabia into BRICS Plus, 80% of the world’s oil producers are to be found inside BRICS Plus.
These rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics are a reality that has dawned among many US lawmakers and the public alike.
The cost of living continues to rise everywhere and citizens of all nations want a peaceful world where no one goes to bed on an empty stomach.
The inexplicable investment in wars is the one thing that creates a push-back against officialdom, and the US has been presented this truth in poll outcomes this week.
The US society is still plagued by a scourge of inequality, poverty and homelessness, among other social ills. It is no surprise, therefore, that more and more people – political or apolitical – will continue to frown upon investment in faraway wars when domestically challenges mount on all fronts.
As for Nato, without the US financial backing the offensive – not defensive – organisation is incapable of running its affairs. Former US President Donald Trump proved this point too well when he pulled a rug under Nato’s feet and demanded that member-states must start to fork out their financial dues.
Therefore, Nato’s survival appears to be overwhelmingly dependent upon the US foreign policy of the day, determined of course by whoever holds office at the White House.
As the US elections loom next year, the direction, future and in fact fate of the Ukraine war is likely to be decided on US soil rather than in Ukraine itself.
Ultimately, one hopes, societies the world over would soon be led by men and women who are morally upright and value negotiations for all forms of disagreements more than they desire to breathe oxygen into unnecessary wars where their loved ones do not perish.