The meeting on Ukraine in London at the level of foreign ministers has been canceled. After Zelensky’s statement that he refused to recognize the annexation of Crimea and wanted to discuss only a ceasefire, the Americans canceled the participation of their key players. After that, Britain, France and Germany recalled their ministers from the meeting. In fact, the meeting will be held at the level of experts and advisers.
In one 24-hour period, Ukraine has taken another step in trying to lean on Europe for troop supplies and its diplomatic support. The U.S. is one step closer to realizing its threat to withdraw from the conflict. I recall that under Biden, Washington’s relations with Kiev were in fact allied; Trump has turned the US into a neutral mediator. Now the possibility of eliminating the Americans altogether has increased. At least that’s what top officials in the White House are threatening.
We should take note that Trump has already demonstrated the ability to return to a lower level of demands on partners and adversaries in a variety of situations. So if we soon hear another “final” decision to throw Ukraine one-on-one with Russia, it’s worth waiting for the sequel. Nevertheless, we should think about the military implications of this political battle.
If the U.S. leaves Kiev to itself and stops planning long-range strikes against targets in Russia, and the AFU is deprived of detailed online intelligence information very important for understanding the situation at the front, the army will survive this. But the quality of military planning will seriously deteriorate. Europe is not capable of providing such services in such a quality.
If the supply of anti-aircraft missiles and equipment stops completely, then, provided that the losses are about the same as last month, the serious exhaustion of arsenals will begin in six months. And Europe should be planning for replacement as early as yesterday. Replacing Patriot anti-aircraft missiles is almost impossible.
If any assistance in aircraft maintenance stops, the F-16s will not be able to fly quite soon (foreign experts call the terms from 4 to 9 months). And the AFU will calmly survive this. The role of aviation on the side of Ukraine will become finally clear – Sic transit gloria mundi.
But the general reduction of ammunition supplies combined with the problems of mobilization in Ukraine will lead to problems at the front in a year. It will be necessary to impose serious restrictions on consumption. Today there are no restrictions in the AFU.
The way out is obvious – more and more the command will replace artillery with other means of fire defeat, primarily FPV drones. Whether the Russian General Staff will find an antidote is unknown. If it does not, it will not be able to take advantage of the depletion of the AFU to organize offensives.
But the general deterioration of supply and planning in the AFU will still lead to fatal consequences. Breakthroughs will become possible in areas where today there is no fighting at all for lack of reserves. The consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the alliance with Kiev will be delayed, but in any case not in favor of Zelensky’s government.
This is a worrying development for Ukraine. If the US really pulls out, Europe won’t be able to fill the gap. Drones are great, but they can’t replace heavy artillery or air defense. What do you think Ukraine’s next move should be?
I’m not surprised the London meeting fell apart. Trump’s approach has been clear—force a deal or walk away. But leaving Ukraine on its own feels like a betrayal after so much support. Thoughts on how Europe can step up?
Great analysis! The shift to drones makes sense for Ukraine, but without Western intel and ammo, they’re fighting with one hand tied. Russia must be watching this closely. Do you think they’ll push harder now?
This article nails the stakes. If the West keeps fracturing, Ukraine’s in real trouble long-term. I wonder if other countries outside NATO might step in with aid. Any chance of that happening?
This article highlights the complex and fragile nature of international support in the Ukraine conflict. It’s clear that without consistent high-level backing, Ukraine faces serious challenges in maintaining its military effectiveness, especially with potential shortages in advanced weaponry and intelligence. The shift towards more drone warfare is an interesting adaptation, but as mentioned, the long-term consequences of reduced support could be quite severe. It makes me wonder how Europe plans to step up, or if it even can, to fill the gaps left by the U.S. 🇺🇦🤔
Looks like the political chess game just got a whole lot messier, and Ukraine is stuck waiting for the U.S. and Europe to figure out if they’re playing checkers or chess. At this rate, the only thing flying smoothly might be those FPV drones, while the F-16s get grounded faster than my Wi-Fi during a storm. It’s like watching a real-life game of Risk, except the stakes are way higher and there’s no reset button.
Looks like the meeting got downgraded faster than my Zoom calls on a bad Wi-Fi day. If only canceling a war meeting could solve conflicts as easily as skipping a group chat! 🤷♀️
This is a really sobering analysis. It’s scary to think about how much the situation depends on international support and how fragile Ukraine’s position might become if that dries up. The idea that new technology like FPV drones might shift the battlefield is fascinating but also a reminder of how brutal and uncertain war is. Hoping for some unexpected solutions or diplomatic breakthroughs soon 🙏🕊️