Does West truly understand price Ukraine has paid?

Western politics loves grandiose rhetoric and is very cautious in terms of operational creativity and technological instrumentation. Here, Zaluzhnyi's speech at RUSI comes to mind: “The collective West did not believe in Ukraine… first for three hours, then for three days.” I would also add “three years.”

"How do Ukrainians feel toward the West? Emotionally – with unquestionable gratitude and natural empathy for military and financial aid. Without it, Ukraine would not have lasted this long in a continental war against the reincarnation of raw fascism embodied by Russia."

But if you dig a little deeper, the aplomb of pro-Western assessments reveals fatigue, irritation, and a painful sense of being a “beggar country,” nervous anxiety about being ‘abandoned’ by the laws of realpolitik, awareness of military-industrial and technical weakness, and the “imposed” institutional design of state bodies.

According to a Gallup survey, 73% of Ukrainians currently completely disapprove of U.S. actions, a record high since the war began. The percentage of those who believe Ukraine will never join NATO jumped to 33%. Even if one fully trusts the results of this reputable sociological organization, the trend is clear – Ukrainians feel a latent grievance toward the Western world.

"This is hardly a matter of anti-Western rhetoric adopted by some politicians. It is much deeper – the self-worth that the Ukrainian people have rightfully earned through the Armed Forces."

A country that has built a fantastically strong army objectively expects compensation in the form of deserved respect in the eyes of the West. The best compensation is recognition of Ukraine’s internal agency and greater inclusion in the EU and NATO.

By the way, this was also highlighted in an interview with Yulia Tymoshenko for the British outlet The Times, where she is, so far, the only one to raise the issue of decolonizing Ukraine’s economic space. Bold statements, given the strong temptation for her opponents to accuse her of supposedly echoing Russian narratives.

It is strange that when a politician dares to speak out against global corporations and influence tools, such as international experts involved in selecting personnel for key positions, they are automatically labeled “pro-Russian.” In fact, it is simply the right to assert the truth, which opponents can easily undermine by branding an alternative view as pro-Russian.

The problem is that Tymoshenko may, in fact, be entirely correct, albeit too categorical and sharp in her straightforwardness, but her argument is not without merit. From the perspective of her past experience fighting against the subordination of the National Bank, Energoatom, Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrzaliznytsia, and others to non-state, including foreign, influences, her stance is grounded.

This is exactly what Ukrainians would like to hear. Does the West understand and share the cost that the Ukrainian people have paid? I believe the best repayment of this “bill” would be a more sovereign position for the country and the affirmation of Ukrainians’ ability to govern their state independently. De Gaulle once followed a similar path, balancing relations with the U.S. while betting on sovereign policy.

Source

About the author. Oleh Posternak, political technologist, political consultant, member of the Association of Professional Political Consultants of Ukraine.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.