War fatigue was a prominent theme at the Price of War conference in London today, during a panel discussion exploring both new geopolitical risks and more enduring ones.
During the the one-day symposium, hosted by CERGE-EI Foundation and Reaction, panelists explored the risk that escalating conflict in the Middle East could increasingly mean that war in Ukraine is forgotten.
Yet Marie Chatardová, the Czech Republic’s ambassador to Britain, was unwavering: “We must continue to support [Kyiv] by all means possible…Ukraine’s security is our own security.”
Prague, she pointed out, is the fifth largest donor of military assistance per capita to Ukraine and has taken more Ukrainian refugees per capita than anywhere else.
Chatardová was equally clear that peace can never be achieved on the aggressor’s terms. Offering Moscow concessions which undermine Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty will simply embolden Putin. Here, she drew a historical parallel with Czechoslovakia – which was once under pressure to hand over large chunks of land to Hitler in order to achieve peace. Such concessions didn’t work.
Yet there is a growing risk that the outcome of next year’s US elections will mean concessions are indeed made to the Kremlin, warned Professor Jan Svejnar, of CERGE-EI and Columbia University. Donald Trump has boldly declared that he could end the war in Ukraine in one day if he returned to the White House. “If he sticks to his word, this would mean him accepting Putin’s terms.” There is no other way to achieve such an aim, said Svejnar.
Even if Washington – Kyiv’s biggest military funder – did withdraw its support for Ukraine in light of a Trump victory, Ukrainians will continue to fight, insisted Dame Melinda Simmons, the Former Ambassador of the UK to Ukraine. This is an existential fight for the people of Ukraine. If supply of US weapons dry up, it will not stop them.
Ukraine, Simmons predicted, is going to be at war with Russia for a long time. But that won’t necessarily mean consistent fighting all the time. “This is a hybrid war,” she pointed out, with cyber warfare, weaponisation of energy, abduction of children and so on all in the mix.
Simmons agreed with Chatardová that, in spite of concerns about war fatigue from Kyiv’s Western allies, countries with a big national security interest in seeing Ukraine stave off Russian aggression won’t stop caring.
That said, crisis in the Middle East risks playing into Putin’s hands, warned Chatardová. It acts as a useful distraction, diverting attention from Russian aggression. “A low intensity war in the Middle East is what Putin is hoping for. Not a full blown conflict but one lasting long enough to have the West sidetracked and divert sources away from Ukraine.”
As for the risk of war in the Middle East spiralling into a wider regional conflict, panelists seemed to agree that it is difficult, at this moment, to predict the likelihood of such an escalation.
Perhaps we can take some comfort from the fact that there are times over the past week when things could have spilled out into a wider war but did not, noted Anna Rosenberg, of Amundi Asset Management. For now, “it seems likely this will remain as a localised conflict with skirmishes along the Lebanese border and violence in Gaza and the West Bank.”
But, she added, we should pay close attention to a big speech expected tomorrow from the leader of Hezbollah. His words will shed more light on the risk of a wider war. If Hezbollah intervenes, it is increasingly likelihood that Iran gets drawn in too. After all, Tehran cannot risk losing its largest and most prized proxy militia.
If a feared escalation does take place, it will look different to the 1980’s or even a decade or two ago, says Peter Frankopan, Professor of Global History at Oxford University. In many respects, western nations are less dependent on the Middle East as a region that they used to be.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life
