First some news bits about Ukraine. We will then come to the real issue the war is fought about.
Headlines Politico:
Ukraine is ‘freaking out’ as McCarthy chaos threatens US aid
In Kyiv, officials are at a loss as to what might happen next. Their staunchest military ally suddenly looks unreliable, despite assurances from President Biden and others the U.S. will remain steadfast until Ukraine’s invaders are defeated.
“We are freaking out. For us it is a disaster,” said Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, a senior Ukrainian MP who chairs the committee on the country’s integration with the European Union.
…
The Ukrainian government heavily relies on foreign financial and military aid to keep the economy running and expects to receive $42.8 billion from international donors in the coming year. A big chunk of that would come from the United States.
…
“Unfortunately, some [U.S.] lawmakers found it possible to seek trade offs while further aid to Ukraine is in the air,” Vladyslav Faraponov, head of the board of the Institute of American Studies, told POLITICO. “The key message that Kyiv needs to deliver is that we can win together and do it as soon as possible to save a lot of good men and women.”
So the real problem is that Kiev has no chance to win. See for example The Times which talked with (archived) Ukrainian mortar crews near Robotyne, where the Ukrainian counteroffensive is stuck:
The KAB [glide bombs], as well as mines, underground fortifications and a deluge of suicide drones, have pinned down Ukraine’s assault brigades. It is why last month’s penetration of Russian fortifications failed to lead to a full breakdown in their defences.
All over the Robotyne-Verbove line, Ukrainian forces are bogged down.
The U.S. public is no longer convinced that the gargantuan spending on Joe Biden's private war makes any sense:
The two-day poll, which concluded on Oct. 4, revealed that only 41% of respondents agreed with the statement that Washington "should provide weapons to Ukraine," while 35% disagreed, and the remainder were uncertain.
…
Support for U.S. weapon shipments is down from May, when a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 46% of Americans backed sending arms, while 29% were opposed and the rest unsure.
A few more month and a majority will reject any new money or weapon shipment. But don't fear. Congress critters will find ways to dump more money into a hole:
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said it would take about “$60 or $70 billion” to get Ukraine through 2024, not the $24 billion.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), chair of the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee, said the package they’re considering would fund the war for 15 months, bringing it into 2025. The package would help the Biden administration’s plans to continue supporting an open-ended conflict.
David Ignatius, the CIA's unofficial spokesperson at the Washington Post, reports of two opinions in Kiev:
The conflict is bleeding the country out. Ukrainians I spoke with during a four-day visit know they can’t keep fighting forever seeking what might be an unachievable victory. But they won’t stop, either.
…
Oleksiy Goncharenko, an opposition member from embattled Odessa on the Black Sea, presses members of the ruling party of President Volodymyr Zelensky. “I am very concerned,” he says. “Why? Take a look at the front. It doesn’t change. For a year it doesn’t change. But it was paid for by a huge amount of lives. … Ukraine can’t fight ‘as long as it takes.’ That will be a catastrophe.”
For Ukraine it already IS a catastrophe.
But if Ukraine seriously questions whether it can survive a fight that might take many years, then it needs to think about a way to freeze this conflict on its own terms — with a security guarantee from the United States as part of that deal.
The Ukraine can not freeze the conflict on its own terms. The U.S. can not give Ukraine any reasonable security guarantee.
A security guaranteed would leave the U.S. at the grace of lunatics in Kiev. They would be enabled to launch, at any time, a new conflict with Russia. A conflict the U.S., with nuclear weapons, would then be obliged to join. No Senate will ever approve such a treaty.
Ukraine won’t sue for peace. As many people have told me this week, it’s too personal. As a superpower, the United States can try to steer this conflict toward a settlement that protects Ukraine and doesn’t reward Russian aggression. But don’t ask Ukrainians to give up their cause. They won’t do it.
If the U.S. stops financing Ukraine its people will have no choice.
But the war is about more than Ukraine and the U.S. will finance it because its neoconservative leaders believe in its larger cause.
The war in Ukraine is a proxy-act for the U.S. in support of its quest for global hegemony.
For Russia, China, and much of the rest of the world, the war is thus about the elimination of that quest.
As President Putin explained in his recent Valdai speech in Sochi:
The Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict, and I want to make that clear. Russia is the world’s largest country in terms of land area, and we have no interest in conquering additional territory. We still have much to do to properly develop Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Russian Far East. This is not a territorial conflict and not an attempt to establish regional geopolitical balance. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles underlying the new international order.
Lasting peace will only be possible when everyone feels safe and secure, understands that their opinions are respected, and that there is a balance in the world where no one can unilaterally force or compel others to live or behave as a hegemon pleases even when it contradicts the sovereignty, genuine interests, traditions, or customs of peoples and countries. In such an arrangement, the very concept of sovereignty is simply denied and, sorry, is thrown in the garbage.
That is why the war is going to be a long one.
Putin though has no doubt who will win:
Russia was, is and will be one of the foundations of this new world system, ready for constructive interaction with everyone who strives for peace and prosperity, but ready for tough opposition against those who profess the principles of dictatorship and violence. We believe that pragmatism and common sense will prevail, and a multipolar world will be established.
Will it? I certainly hope so but there is doubt that it will be during the next five or ten years.