A weary West may push Ukraine to the negotiating table with Russia

Zelensky’s demands certainly have merit but are devoid of realism. None of them will be agreed to by Putin, who has triumphantly annexed four territories, of which two, Donestk and Luhansk, are Russian-speaking and have been controlled by Moscow-backed separatists since 2014.

It would be in Ukraine’s interest to withdraw its claim to these territories, for the sake of lasting peace. Instead, defeating Russia and humiliating Putin would cause more significant harm; as former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger stated, “it could worsen Europe’s long-term stability”.

In conjunction with this, there are emerging signs from Ukraine’s supporters in the West that there can be no military solution to the war, only a perpetual stalemate. If peace talks were to begin, there would be less risk of donor fatigue in the US and EU.

Washington has underpinned the collective galvanisation of the West and its defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Still, it is also facing a logistical conundrum with the depletion of some ammunition reserves to dangerously low levels. Between March and October, the US supplied Ukraine with some 900,000 howitzer artillery rounds, yet production capacity has stayed around peacetime levels of 14,400 rounds per month.

Even with an expected increase in production to 36,000 rounds, the shortfall will take years to replenish and may cause the US operational setbacks if it were to be embroiled in a direct conflict.

Were Ukraine’s war with Russia the sole focus of the US, there would be less worry about munition levels. Yet the potential flashpoint of Taiwan (dependent on similar weapon systems) is bound to stretch current production capacities. In August, Taiwan had to seek alternatives when its order for self-propelled howitzer artillery systems, set for delivery in 2023, was pushed to 2026 due to supply chain stress.

Observers may call for an increase in the peacetime production of munitions, but this overlooks the defence industrial base’s actual capacity. In World War I, for example, the US mobilised its output at the beginning of the conflict but did not reach a proficient capacity until the end of the war, relying heavily on the British and French to arm its soldiers.

Conversely, in World War II, the US was able to export its munitions to equip its allies because it had begun production years before.

It takes years to develop a sizeable inventory in a peacetime setting as overproduction is considered wasteful and maintenance costs can blow out budgets, drawing public scrutiny on military expenditure. As Russia has turned to Iran for military hardware, the US has looked to South Korea to supply 100,000 rounds of howitzer artillery to help ease supply chain issues.

Ukraine’s will to continue fighting and liberating territory is admirable. Unfortunately, this heroism on the front line is poorly aligned with a lack of wisdom from policymakers in Kyiv who fail to look beyond recovering physical territory.

General support is waning due to a global economy in downward spiral, the onset of an unforgiving winter, and a US worried about being battle-ready for the next major conflict. Kyiv needs to consider all stakeholders as this battle is not just about Ukraine any more, but the maintenance of the global order, of which it is now a beneficiary.

Sameed Basha is a defence and political analyst with a master’s degree in international relations from Deakin University, Australia