Leubsdorf: Fighting on two fronts

But its survival is also a tribute to the leaders of the West, to President Joe Biden and those who followed his lead, lest Putin next target one of their fellow NATO members.

Among them:

• The leaders of Sweden and Finland, who have forsaken decades of neutrality to align themselves with the forces of democracy by finally deciding to join NATO.
• German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who embraced the effort after years of trying to balance economic relations with Russia and political ties to NATO and the U.S.
• And many less-known figures, like Prime Minister Kaja Kallas of Estonia, potentially a prime target if Putin succeeds in Ukraine. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Estonian aid to Ukraine totals 3.8 percent of its gross domestic product — the most of any nation and 10 times that of the United States.

These leaders have not wavered in supporting Ukraine. But Biden acknowledged recently that there may be limits to what he can persuade Congress to do.

That reflected the difficulty Biden has encountered in recent months from the chaotically Republican-led House of Representatives in providing additional aid. First announced last October, a revised version of Biden’s proposal finally passed the Senate on Feb. 13.

But it remains stalemated in the House, where new Speaker Mike Johnson continues to waffle on whether and how he will put the proposal before the full membership. The outcome remains uncertain.

The resulting impasse has prompted apocalyptic warnings from Zelenskyy and other Western leaders of the dire impact on Ukraine of an American failure to maintain the flow of needed assistance.

Underlying this struggle is the potential impact of November’s presidential election. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has made it clear he is no fan of U.S. support for Ukraine — or NATO. He has predicted that if elected, he and Putin could settle the matter in 24 hours.

Trump’s attitude is a key factor behind the House GOP leadership’s refusal to even grant a vote on the proposal. During the recent Senate debate, Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance, a key Trump supporter, warned that the aid package “represents an attempt by the foreign policy blob/deep state to stop President Trump from pursuing his desired policy.”

House Republicans are not the only ones whose plans are being affected by the possibility that Trump will regain the presidency in November. Analysts see no reason for Putin to consider any settlement now if the American elections will, in effect, deliver Ukraine to him.

At the same time, military analysts believe the tides of war have shifted somewhat to the Russians because of Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive last summer and the fact that it could be running short of troops, weapons and bullets.

Reflecting the drive that has put the Ukrainians back on the defensive, Russian forces recently re-occupied Avdiivka, a key crossroads in eastern Ukraine — its biggest military success in a year.

Some weeks ago, there were reports of private talk among Ukraine’s allies — including the United States — of the need to prepare for ultimately reaching a compromise settlement. But Zelenskyy has been no more willing to do so than Putin, still talking unconvincingly of regaining all land lost to the Russians.

So, after two years, the bloody war goes on, a success in terms of Ukraine’s original outlook, but with no certainty of achieving a permanent one.