Consigning Ukraine to Hospice Care

Spooked by the spectre of an Iran-Israel War, the US moves to cut its losses in Ukraine. As they come to terms with their loss in Ukraine, Western leaders will now face the five stages of grief.

Ramstein Summit in 2022

America's abrupt termination of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group summit at Ramstein, Germany is the geopolitical equivalent of placing "Project Ukraine" into hospice care. With the Middle East teetering on the brink of regional war, Western nations' arms reserves are critically low. Should the duelling missile volleys and decapitation attacks between Iran and Israel escalate into open warfare—likely following any serious Israeli counterstrike on Iran—there's no doubt which conflict will take precedence in US ruling class hearts and minds. Ukraine, the "black sheep," will be sidelined in favour of the "golden child" Israel. Recent reports of the U.S. military rushing to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Israel demonstrate that Tel Aviv will always have priority in receiving the West's dwindling stockpile of air defense missiles, leaving only crumbs for Kiev.

Despite President Biden rescheduling his visit to Germany this week, the Ramstein meeting remains annulled. As a result of the cancelled summit, Ukrainian President Zelensky was unable to present his unrealistic "Victory Plan," which naively envisions NATO entering the war and reclaiming all of Ukraine's lost territory. Unfortunately for Ukraine, both the U.S. and Germany remain firmly opposed to Ukraine's accelerated NATO membership, as doing so would obligate the alliance to engage in a direct war with Russia. Some fervent Ukraine supporters, particularly from nations with weak militaries, fail to comprehend this reality, blinded by their emotional investment in Ukraine’s cause. But is this really so surprising? The countries that would bear the brunt of the fighting and financial costs—mainly the U.S. and Germany—are the most hesitant about direct clashes with Russia, while smaller all bark-no bite nations are the most flamboyant cheerleaders for war.

Port of Odessa, scene of increasing Russian missile strikes

Over the past week, Russia has ramped up its attacks on seaborne shipments of Western arms moving from NATO's Romanian port of Constanta to Ukraine's port of Odessa. On October 10th, a Russian Iskander-M ballistic missile hit the Panamanian-flagged container ship Shui Spirit. The strike caused secondary explosions, suggesting that high-value Western weapons systems may have been destroyed. The loss of such crucial cargo—possibly long-range missiles or advanced air defense systems—could have played a role in the sudden cancellation of the Ramstein summit.

But is the US really trying to avoid getting directly entangled in Ukraine? A cynic might argue that the U.S. ruling class is on its best behaviour during the election season, carefully managing the messaging on Ukraine to avoid alienating the voters whose loved ones would have to fight and die on the bleak Eurasian steppes. In this scenario, once November passes and the election results are in, the political climate could shift dramatically. Regardless of who wins, there remains a chance that the next administration may reassess its stance on Ukraine, potentially surging U.S. involvement in ways that were never discussed on the campaign trail.

While a post-election turnaround remains a possibility, for the time being, amid the looming threat of a major Middle Eastern war, escalating belligerence from North Korea toward the South, and alarming Chinese military exercises around Taiwan, the U.S. appears to have decided that the fourth front in Ukraine is a "war too far."

Thus, Ukraine has also been compelled to cancel its ill-conceived second "Peace Summit," which aimed to convene a coalition of world leaders to pressure Russia into "honest" negotiations. Honesty according to the Ukrainians means forcing an immediate Russian capitulation followed by a commitment to pay massive reparations. The summit was designed as a diplomatic spectacle, meant to mobilize global influence to isolate Russia and for the global multitudes to present Ukraine's demands as the only acceptable outcome. However, this plan overlooked the growing reality of Russia's strengthened position, both militarily and diplomatically. Moscow's successes on the battlefield and increased support from non-Western nations, have eroded the already shaky foundation of Ukraine's peace strategy. In the end, Ukraine will come to realize that the losing side doesn't dictate the terms of surrender; they simply sign them.

This Ramstein cancellation comes at a time when the geopolitical landscape is evolving rapidly. Russia, having maintained strong ties with key global players like China and India, has managed to counter Western sanctions and solidify its influence within the BRICS+ alliance. Moreover, the West’s unwavering support for Israel amid its attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon has created additional friction with many nations, further driving leaders in the Global South towards Russia. The diplomatic fallout from the Middle East conflict has only strengthened the perception that Western powers selectively apply international norms, leading more countries to distance themselves from the West's position on Ukraine.

America’s "no limits" support for Israel is fast becoming a geopolitical "millstone" around the superpower's neck. As the U.S. increasingly finds itself defending controversial Israeli actions, such as the use of cluster munitions in Lebanon or attacks on UN peacekeepers, its unwavering stance is beginning to alienate important regional powers. Eventually, U.S. policymakers may face a critical crossroads: either continue with unqualified and self-sacrificial support for Israel at the risk of further isolating itself or recalibrate its approach to better align with America’s broader strategic interests. Failing to adapt will further weaken America’s influence in a world that is steadily rejecting unipolar US power and shifting towards multipolarity.

Finding itself all but abandoned in their war against Russia, Ukraine is quickly realizing that in war, there are no unilateral "time-outs." It is true that if both sides come to a mutual agreement, as seen in the Korean Peninsula in 1953, a ceasefire or pause in hostilities can take place. But there is no imaginable scenario where an increasingly victorious Russia is going to lay down its arms short of a clear victory.

The only way for Ukraine to unilaterally end the war is by surrendering to Russia’s terms, effectively ending the conflict through an armistice. This armistice would halt the fighting based on preliminary agreements, with the details of a formal peace treaty being worked out and signed later.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently reiterated Russia’s preliminary conditions for such an armistice, which would lead to the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine:

Russia has been waging a war of attrition for the past two years, and the long-awaited fruits of this strategy have just begun to ripen. The Ukrainian front lines have weakened, making it easier for Russian forces to break through. Despite persistent Western narratives, Russia's human losses remain relatively low, though the loss of even one life is a tragedy, especially for the soldier’s loved ones. The key point is that, from Russia's perspective, despite the human costs, continuing the war is in its best interest, as they slowly but steadily advance while Ukraine suffers crippling shortages in manpower, morale and ammunition.

Critics from the West argue that Russia's progress has been too slow to make meaningful territorial gains in the short term. However, this overlooks the fact that wars of attrition don't necessarily follow a linear progression. As Ukraine’s ability to defend dwindles, Russia's territorial gains may accelerate rapidly rather than maintaining the slow pace seen in the past. The exhaustion of Ukraine's capacity to resist could lead to a tipping point where Russia's advances become much faster and more substantial, overturning previously overly optimistic Western views on the war's trajectory.

In Ukraine’s information space, rumours are emerging that Russia is gathering strike groups and may be preparing a large-scale strategic offensive along the entire contact line. At first glance this seems less than plausible given the imminent onset of Rasputitsa—the infamous season of heavy rains that turns fields into mud and makes off-road movement extremely difficult. However, confining Ukrainian troops to roads during this time could present Russia with another tactical advantage, allowing their superior forces to exploit Ukraine's limited mobility and continue their recent advances. One possible goal of this offensive would be a headline-grabbing Russian dash to the Dnieper River.

Five Stages of Grief

The Western powers' response to their impending defeat in Ukraine can indeed be viewed through the lens of the five stages of grief, originally introduced by psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. These stages—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—describe the emotional process individuals undergo when facing loss, particularly in the context of terminal illness or death. Denial represents the refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation, while anger stems from frustration at the perceived injustice or helplessness. Bargaining involves trying to negotiate a way to avoid the loss, depression sets in as the weight of the situation is fully realized, and finally, acceptance is the stage where the individual comes to terms with the loss.

Kübler-Ross made clear that these stages are not necessarily linear; people may move back and forth between them, and not everyone will experience all five. What is crucial, though, is that the framework has been expanded beyond personal loss to apply to major life changes, including geopolitical events. As the Western powers grapple with the reality that the Ukrainian war effort is entering its terminal stage, their reactions mirror this grieving process. From initial denial of the war's trajectory to the current phase of bargaining—seeking ways to mitigate the impact or find a negotiated settlement—Western leaders appear to be moving through these emotional stages as they confront the unravelling of their Ukraine strategy.

Denial: Wishcasting Victory

The war in Ukraine has exposed the financialised West’s inability to produce arms in quantities sufficient to sustain the Ukrainian war effort. Despite lofty promises of military aid, Western nations have struggled to ramp up manufacturing to meet the demands of attrition warfare. This industrial shortfall stands in stark contrast to the West’s remarkable success in the media sphere, where it excels in shaping public perception. In the production studios, propaganda is churned out effortlessly, crafting a narrative that not only seeks to manufacture consent but also to construct an alternative reality for global audiences. The West’s most salient wartime efforts are directed towards the realm of information manipulation rather than on the front lines.

All-time masterpieces of wartime propaganda during the Ukraine conflict include a series of wildly improbable and sensationalized stories. The "Ghost of Kiev," a mythical fighter pilot allegedly downing multiple Russian jets, captivated early war narratives despite being pure fiction. Equally absurd was the tale of a Babushka who supposedly downed a Russian drone by throwing a jar of pickled tomatoes. Reports of Russians being reduced to fighting with shovels further fuelled the portrayal of a desperate and floundering Russian military, as did claims that they were scavenging microchips from washing machines and refrigerators to build military equipment. These stories were accompanied by repeated assertions that Russia had run out of missiles—despite destructive volleys of evidence to the contrary—and constant proclamations that the latest Western "wonder weapon" would turn the tide of the war. These narratives have been central in obscuring reality enough to maintain public support for Ukraine, and to ease the anxiety that a looming defeat brings.

Despite the Western narrative that Russia suppresses dissent and doesn't tolerate criticism of its government, Russian Telegram tell a different story. These channels, many of which are highly popular, are filled with dissident voices that openly criticize the Russian war effort in general and the Ministry of Defense in particular. Often these sites are wrong, for example in exaggerating the extent of the Kursk invasion in its first days. Other times they hit the mark, as in lambasting the ill-fated frontal attacks on Ugledar in 2022, which resulted in significant Russian losses. These critiques cover a wide range of issues, from poor logistical planning to leadership failures, and have sparked intense debates among Russian commentators. This widespread, open criticism shows that, despite the country's reputation for authoritarianism, there are significant forums for internal debate and dissent regarding Russia’s performance in the Ukraine conflict.

The standard for evaluating Russia’s performance in the Ukraine conflict should be grounded in reality, rather than propaganda or exaggeration. A recurring Western narrative claims that Russia is suffering massive casualties from "meat assaults" on Ukrainian fortresses. However, even Mediazona, a well-known anti-Putin Russian outlet working with BBC News Russian service, estimates Russian dead at around 80,000. Rounding up generously brings that figure to 100,000. The highest losses occurred during the battle for Bakhmut in late 2022 and early 2023, but since then, Russian casualties have been relatively low throughout 2024. While every loss is tragic, the notion that Russia will suddenly collapse under the weight of unbearable losses is not supported by the available data. Such claims seem rooted more in “wishcasting” and denial of defeat rather than in a sober analysis of the conflict’s realities.

The war is turning into a success for Moscow because Russia has a winning military strategy, while Ukraine and NATO are losing because they rely on a public relations strategy based on denial.

Lashing out in Anger

The anger stage is classically manifested through a "stab-in-the-back" myth, exemplified most famously by post-World War I Germany, where many Germans believed that their army had been betrayed from within rather than defeated on the battlefield. Similar narratives have emerged in other historical contexts, such as after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, pro-war commentators pointed fingers at anti-war protesters and political agitators as the culprits behind the perceived collapse.

As European settlers in Algeria, called pieds-noirs, suffered defeat in the Algerian War, they blamed French President Charles de Gaulle for their abandonment, fuelling resentment and ultimately leading to the formation of the Organisation Armée Secrète (OAS) group which carried out terrorist attacks in Algeria and France. The OAS is famous for more than 25 assassination attempts on Charles De Gaulle, all of which failed. While stab-in-the-back myths often contain a grain of truth, for example De Gaulle certainly did betray the pieds-noirs, they tend to be amplified as a way of deflecting the psychological trauma of loss.

As Ukraine faces the prospect of a similar defeat, an emerging stab-in-the-back narrative may start to take hold, posing significant risks both domestically and internationally. As military failure looms ever larger, much like the OAS did, radicalized Ukrainian factions may seek revenge on both the Zelensky regime and their perceived Western "betrayers."

Should such a Ukrainian version of the OAS emerge, it could bring with it the spectre of terrorist attacks on European and American soil, particularly given Ukraine's adeptness in drone warfare. This hard-earned expertise in crafting and deploying drones against Russian forces may be repurposed to target those in the West seen as having betrayed Ukraine's cause. The thought of drone terrorism against civilian and government targets in Western cities is a chilling possibility, and one that would drastically alter the security landscape for NATO members. The ramifications of such actions would be catastrophic, undermining Western unity and pushing nations toward increasingly draconian security measures.

Western intelligence agencies may seek to instead channel partisan Ukrainian forces into continued operations against Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine rather than letting them turn their sights on the West. However, as Russia solidifies its control over significant portions of Ukraine, this will become increasingly challenging. Supporting a Ukrainian insurgency within Russian-occupied territories might seem a low-cost, low-risk option for NATO, reminiscent of Cold War-era "Stay Behind" concepts like Operation Gladio. Yet, this tactic could backfire spectacularly, as Russia might retaliate by sponsoring insurgents or terrorists to strike within wide open European or American borders. In such a scenario, both sides could become locked in a grim cycle of mutual insurgency and terrorism.

Bargaining: Splitting Ukraine 80-20

A recent Financial Times article reveals the bargaining stage currently surfacing among Western political leaders in their handling of the Ukraine crisis. The article subtly hints at behind-the-scenes discussions, where the possibility of bargaining with Russia, or at least dialling back Western expectations, is emerging. Additionally, within the article, elements of the denial stage persist, particularly in the exaggerated portrayal of Russian losses. Furthermore, the anger stage is manifested in the effort to plant the seeds of a "stab-in-the-back" myth, particularly by laying the groundwork for blaming political figures like Donald Trump for future setbacks in Ukraine:

Ukraine is going into its third winter of war with the mood darker than ever. In the east, its troops are losing ground to the grinding advance of their Russian adversaries — albeit at vast cost to Moscow’s forces. With half its power generation shattered, Ukrainians face spending hours a day without light or heat in the coldest months. In Washington and some western capitals, meanwhile — and in the corridors of Kyiv — the mood is shifting: from a determination that the war can end only with Russia’s army driven from Ukraine, to the reluctant recognition that a negotiated settlement that leaves the bulk of the country intact may be the best hope. Yet Kyiv is not being given the support it needs even to achieve that scaled-back goal.

Ukraine’s prospects are clouded above all by the danger that Donald Trump wins next month’s US election and seeks a swift end to the war, as he has pledged. Some US and European officials hope Trump could at least be dissuaded from forcing Kyiv into an adverse deal with Moscow that would pose grave risks for future European and American security.

Yet grappling simultaneously with an escalating Middle East war, even some western capitals that previously insisted on the need to defeat Russia’s Vladimir Putin militarily are recalibrating their goals. Some Kyiv officials, too, fret in private that they lack the personnel, firepower and western support to recover all territory seized by Russia. There is talk behind closed doors of a deal in which Moscow retains de facto control over the roughly one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied — though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognised — while the rest of the country is allowed to join Nato or given equivalent security guarantees. Under that umbrella, it could rebuild and integrate with the EU, akin to West Germany in the cold war.

NATO emerging from the war controlling 80% of Ukraine would represent an extraordinary instance of snatching military victory from the jaws of defeat, arguably the greatest in human history. If such a deal was ever consummated, NATO could build a gleaming new regional headquarters in Kharkov, just 650 kilometres from Moscow, as the missile flies. Which is exactly why this 80-20 split in favour of NATO is a psychological coping mechanism and will never happen in real life.

The Depression of Defeat

Ukraine’s “Formula for Peace”

As the conflict drags on and the bargaining efforts fail to yield the desired outcomes, the Western powers are likely to enter the depression stage. This stage will be characterized by widespread disillusionment as the scale of their strategic defeat becomes undeniable. Ukrainian losses number at least 400,000 meaning half a million Slavic men have been killed on the battlefield. Economic strains, political divisions, and war weariness will intensify, as the financial and military costs of supporting Ukraine grow untenable. Western leaders will face internal backlash, especially as the social and economic toll of the conflict becomes more apparent to their citizens. German deindustrialization, stoked by the Ukraine crisis, will damage the economic potential of the entire European Union for decades that follow.

It’s likely that establishment politicians who have aligned closely with U.S. foreign policy, positioning their countries as eager vassals in support of America’s Ukraine agenda, could face political backlash when the war ends in a clear Ukrainian defeat. The economic strain on Europe, driven by sanctions on Russia, high energy prices, and massive financial commitments to Ukraine, has already caused discontent among many European citizens. Establishment politicians who remain steadfast in their support of America's approach may be punished at the ballot box as populist and nationalist movements, which have been gaining ground in recent years, capitalize on public frustration.

Populist and realist politicians, such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, may indeed be rewarded for their stance. Orbán has consistently opposed much of the EU’s hard-line support for Ukraine, calling for peace talks and pragmatically prioritizing Hungary's economic and national interests. As the pro-war narrative collapses, Orbán and similar leaders could gain support for their "correct" reading of the situation. They will likely highlight how their refusal to follow the mainstream European political course protected their nations from deeper economic harm.

With Ukraine’s war effort stuck in its terminal stage, these populist leaders may find themselves in a stronger position to influence European politics more broadly. They could rally other EU nations that are disillusioned by the costs of the Ukraine conflict and sceptical of U.S.-led foreign policy. A rising populist tide, built on realism and national sovereignty, could challenge the current liberal democratic order in Europe, potentially reshaping the EU’s foreign policy direction, alliances, and relations with both the U.S. and Russia.

Acceptance: Coming to Terms

In rejecting both the Minsk Agreements and the 2022 Istanbul Agreements, Kiev effectively jettisoned any chance of ever becoming a part of Western Europe. Just like a man in hospice care who daily smoked three packs of non-filtered Pall Malls, Ukraine will soon realize that the hand of time has no reverse gear.

It was Kiev’s unrelenting desire to become an American vassal that has led to their catastrophic condition today. Ukraine faces of a bleak winter of energy shortages due to Russian strategic bombing of the energy infrastructure. Depleted manpower on the front means even more Draconian mobilisation efforts, increasingly aimed at young adult and teenage boys. The flows of Ukrainians seeking safer pastures in Europe will only increase as the harsh realities of defeat manifest themselves.

The sad fact is that Ukraine’s future can now only be secured by accepting a vassal-like relationship with Russia. The sooner Ukraine rejects its Western dreams and fully embraces a future tied to the BRICS+ alliance, the better its post-war outcomes will be over time.

Volodymyr Zelensky acquired his wealth and oligarchic status through his career in television. After the war broke out, he leveraged his ability to transcend reality to inspire the nation in the early days of the conflict. However, as the situation becomes increasingly dire, it remains to be seen whether he possesses the wherewithal to navigate Ukraine towards a painful peace. The geopolitical fantasies he once sold to the Ukrainian people have now been exposed as illusions. Moreover, powerful nationalist forces within Ukraine will resist any compromises or capitulations. With Israel setting the example by conducting decapitation strikes on the leaders of adversary groups, Zelensky could soon find himself similarly targeted for assassination by disgruntled Ukrainian factions.

In the meantime, Russia appears intent on keeping the current Ukrainian regime on life support for as long as possible. While Russia has been gradually pushing Ukrainian forces out of the Kursk region, it is in no hurry to conclude that battle. As long as Ukrainian troops occupy parts of Russia, a genuine peace remains elusive. But given Zelensky’s dilemma: make a deal with Russia and risk getting killed or couped by radical nationalists, there is currently no hasty conclusion in Ukraine on the horizon. As the Ukrainian war machine increasingly falters, the likelihood of a favourable outcome for Russia only increases. The longer the conflict persists, the more advantageous the situation becomes for Moscow.