The process of assisting Ukraine allies continues to become more complicated - now President V. Zelensky's team needs to convince world leaders that this aligns with their national interests. However, achieving this goal is becoming increasingly difficult as the number of global crises increases.
Against the backdrop that the Ukrainian counteroffensive at the front has not yet demonstrated the expected results, discussions are intensifying in the allied countries about the advisability of further funding for Ukraine and a possible reduction in Western assistance. In turn, this becomes a source of information crisis for the team of President V. Zelensky and intensifies attacks on him from foreign media and the opposition within the country. Thus, the Western press increasingly accuses the Ukrainian leadership of inadequately assessing the situation. Therefore, in a new article by T IME, President V. Zelensky plays the role of a hero who deceives himself. The new cover of the magazine emphasizes that almost two years of fighting have passed. However, the Russian Federation still controls a fifth of Ukrainian territory, tens of thousands of people have died, international support is dwindling, and Vladimir Zelensky's efforts to secure it are turning into a lonely struggle.
The pessimistic background of foreign media, in general, demonstrates the assessment of what is happening in Ukraine on the part of Western political elites.
In the United States, the confrontation over allocating new funding for Ukraine continues between the Biden Administration and the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives. They demand that the White House provide them with criteria for effectively assisting Kyiv. So early on, Republicans began to block the Administration's efforts to combine aid to Ukraine and Israel in one package, which increases the likelihood of a reduction in the requested amount. Let us recall that US President Joseph Biden introduced a single bill to Congress to allocate $61 billion to Ukraine (approximately $12 billion is intended for direct budgetary support to Ukraine) for the next year out of a total financial package of $106 billion (of which $14 billion is also proposed for Israel ).
But the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (a supporter of Donald Trump), demanded that aid to Israel and Ukraine be divided.
In response, the White House hinted that President D. Biden might veto the funding law for Israel without assistance to Ukraine.
Then the Republicans demanded that US President D. Biden, together with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, provide Congress with a "victory strategy" that would contain accurate assessments, the ultimate goal, and criteria for ending the war, after which assistance to Ukraine would continue. Republicans are also calling on the White House to provide evidence that authorities are not jeopardizing US military weapons programs, as well as aid to Taiwan and Israel. They also put forward requirements for the Treasury and the Treasury Department, which must report to Congress on the level of application of anti-Russian sanctions. In addition, Republicans are interested in whether the interests of Americans and Ukrainians coincide in the issue of annexed Crimea and whether the United States considers its return to Ukraine to be realistic.
The publication of such a declaration will significantly limit the actions of the Biden Administration and lay the foundation for a future domestic political crisis regarding assistance to Ukraine.
The prescribed criteria for the effectiveness of funding for Ukraine may at the first stage become a reason for criticism of US President D. Biden if the results are not achieved. Also, if the situation does not meet the criteria and plan of the strategy, a refusal or suspension of funding to Ukraine may occur. At the same time, the demonstration of such a program (which will include the goals of the war and its results) will sharply worsen relations between the United States and the Russian Federation (if these plans concern the future of the Russian Federation) or will disappoint the leadership of Ukraine if they do not fully correspond to Ukrainian goals and ambitions.
In particular, the availability of information regarding the delivery of weapons to Ukraine can significantly harm the military-industrial complex lobbyists (who stand behind the Democrats). It will also complicate the actual processes of managing military supplies. And a precise formulation of the question: whether American and Ukrainian interests regarding Crimea coincide will cause either a worsening of relations with the Russian Federation or discontent in Ukraine.
Most likely, The United States will continue to assist Ukraine, but given the situation, one should not expect it to be systemic and in the same volume. In addition, Western partners will only increase control over the use of Western assistance.
If funding decreases, then Ukraine will receive fewer weapons, will not be able to develop an offensive at the front effectively, and will have to switch to strategic defense until 2025 (the completion of the election processes in the United States). Similar processes to reduce aid will then begin in Europe, where these issues are focusing on the United States.
At the front, the counteroffensive in the south of Ukraine stopped; a significant part of the reserves from this area were transferred to Donetsk (in the area of Avdeevka and Bakhmut) and the Kupyansk direction. Overall, the intensity of the fighting has now shifted to the site of Avdiivski in the Donetsk region. Avdiivka may, in the future, become part of the operational environment of the Russian Armed Forces. The loss of Avdiivka could lead to negative consequences for Ukraine, both political and strategic - the value of the city is that it is located on the vital route to Donetsk. There is a slight decrease in fighting in the Liman direction, which is associated with the fact that the Russian forces there are preparing to rush to Avdiivka.
The third round of negotiation consultations regarding a peaceful settlement in Ukraine took place, which took place in Malta on October 28-29, 2023. The meeting was held at the level of national security advisers and diplomatic advisers on the implementation of the Ukrainian "Peace Formula" and the organization of the Global Peace Summit. Ukraine, Western allies, and countries of the Global South attended it. Previously, meetings of this format were held in Denmark - Copenhagen (in June 2023) and Saudi Arabia - Jeddah (in August 2023).
Representatives of the Russian Federation, as at the two previous meetings, were not invited. The PRC refused to attend the consultations in Malta (as opposed to the meeting in Jida). The PRC probably does not yet see the feasibility of them. Many other countries, such as Brazil or the UAE, participated remotely. It is noteworthy that the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, Jake Sullivan, who was present at the previous meeting, did not fly to Malta from the United States. His absence is associated with the war in Israel, which the US Presidential Administration is currently focusing on.
Ukraine planned that at this meeting, the future holding of the Global Peace Summit would be detailed, but this issue was never resolved. The Allies also sought to enlist the support of the countries of the Global South in promoting a "Peace Formula" to end the war (it implies the surrender of the Russian Federation and the return of all territories of Ukraine within the 1991 borders). Representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, among other things, used new consultations on a peaceful settlement to return the center of world attention to Ukraine, which in recent weeks has shifted towards Israel. At the same time, Ukraine's support for Israel jeopardized all efforts to win the support of Muslim countries in the war against the Russian Federation. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, which sometimes supported Ukraine, accused Western allies of double standards about Gaza.
Based on consultations in Malta, improvements and deterioration in dynamics can be noted for Ukraine. A positive aspect is the increase in the number of participants, including representatives from 66 countries, which indicates continued interest in resolving the Ukrainian conflict and the willingness of many countries to cooperate on this issue. The process is also structured, and the work moves to the level of working subgroups, contributing to forming concepts and draft documents.
But it cannot be said that the meeting in Malta ended with great success. The countries of the Global South remain on the periphery of discussing the 10 points of V. Zelensky's "Formula for Peace." They are testing Ukraine's readiness for compromise, putting forward their ideas and alternative positions. That is the difference in positions on the one hand of Ukraine and its allies, and on the other, of the countries of the Global South, remains. It is important to note that at this stage, the participants in the consultations have yet to reach a consensus and have yet to form a common position or memorandum on the principles of a peaceful settlement.
The very format of such consultations faces a choice: either promote the Ukrainian peace plan with the risk of losing the interest of a large part of the countries of the Global South or continue to search for compromise solutions that will allow the countries of the Global South to be involved in the process.
Some countries in the Global South suspect that Ukraine could use the Malta consultations to prepare for a Global Peace Summit, which would be a platform for promoting the Ukrainian vision of ending the war. However, third countries, including China, Arab, African, and Latin American countries, believe that the conflict in Ukraine can only end based on compromise conditions and no one can impose exclusively their point of view. Therefore, they use these consultations to establish contacts with the Ukrainian leadership and study its position but remain skeptical about its realism.
The allies faced a new problem - how to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to rebuild Ukraine.
According to the World Bank, the cost of damage to Ukraine is estimated at $411 billion. This figure is approximately twice the value of the entire Ukrainian economy before the outbreak of the armed conflict. Recall that the European Union has proposed a four-year support program worth 50 billion euros, and the United States has already sent about $45 billion in support. At the same time, the EU abandoned the idea of using the frozen 300 billion dollars of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, considering it legally unfeasible.
In the long term, it is unlikely that Ukraine's Western allies will be able to raise sufficient funds to cover the required amount.
Experts from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the World Bank analyzed Ukraine's capabilities in attracting private investment, considering scenarios with and without reforms. The "no reforms" recovery and investment scenario for Ukraine can potentially attract more than $73 billion, approximately 18% of the total recovery needed.
In contrast, if Ukraine implements and accelerates economic reforms, improves sector regulation, and deepens integration with Europe, it could potentially attract $130 billion in private sector investment, roughly 30% of the total needed to rebuild the country.
The reforms could attract an additional $282 billion in private-sector investment.
Financing of the Ukrainian budget from Western partners until the end of the year will be carried out at the lower level of budget needs. Earlier, representatives of the Ukrainian government stated that to cover the budget deficit, it is necessary from 3 to 5 billion dollars.
Ukraine's budget revenues for October 2023 amounted to UAH 282.7 billion, of which internal resources collected UAH 180.2 billion of external receipts for September amounted to $2.8 billion (almost all of this was $1.6 billion from the EU, $1.2 billion from the USA). In total, this is 102.5 billion UAH.
Thus, the percentage ratio of external and internal revenues is 36% and 64%, respectively. In general, external assistance compared to September ($2.9 billion) changed slightly (-3.4%).
Ukraine's budget has already been financed by international donors by almost $35 billion in 2023. (expected to be $40 billion by the end of the year). That is, by the end of the year, Ukraine will receive less than $3 billion.
Regarding the currency interventions of the National Bank. In October 2023, currency sales became one of the largest in two years: -$3.3 billion were sold. Since the beginning of the war, there was more only in June 2022 (-$3.9 billion). Considering that external resources amounted to $2.8 billion, we can expect a slight reserve decrease.
There is also some war fatigue in Ukrainian society and a decrease in trust in the leading institutions of the central government. A recently published survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI) (conducted by the Sociological Group "Rating") demonstrates that from April 2022 until September 2023. The rating of absolute trust in the President decreased by almost half (from 74% to 42%). The trust rating still needs to act as an electoral one. But it is the level of absolute trust that is closest to the indicator of voters' readiness to vote in elections.
Military situation
Warfare
The situation in the Kharkiv region: In the Kupyansky direction, there were no significant changes. The fighting took place in Sinkovki and the settlement of Ivanovka.
In Donbas, clashes of lesser intensity are observed in the areas of Bakhmut, Maryinka, and Avdiivka.
The situation in the Southern direction: In the Zaporizhzhia region, positional battles are taking place in the settlement area of Rabotino.
Black Sea-Azov direction: without significant changes.
Combat map.
Economic situation.
The allies faced a new problem - how to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to rebuild Ukraine.
According to the World Bank, the cost of damage to Ukraine is estimated at $411 billion. This figure is approximately twice the value of the entire Ukrainian economy before the outbreak of the armed conflict.
Recall that the European Union has proposed a four-year support program worth 50 billion euros, and the United States has already sent about $45 billion in support. At the same time, the EU abandoned the idea of using the frozen 300 billion dollars of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, considering it legally unfeasible.
In the long term, it is unlikely that Ukraine's Western allies will be able to raise sufficient funds to cover the required amount.
Experts from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the World Bank analyzed Ukraine's capabilities in attracting private investment, considering scenarios with and without reforms. The "no reform" Ukraine recovery and investment scenario could attract more than $73 billion, approximately 18% of the total recovery needed.
In contrast, if Ukraine implements and accelerates economic reforms, improves sector regulation, and deepens integration with Europe, it could potentially attract $130 billion in private sector investment, roughly 30% of the total needed to rebuild the country.
The reforms can potentially attract an additional $282 billion in private-sector investment.
The report specifies sectors with high potential:
Agriculture: Reforms in this area could attract $30 billion in private investment.
Food and Beverage: Implementing reforms in this industry could attract approximately $16 billion in private investment.
Transport and Logistics: Recovery in this sector could attract $7 billion, with additional expansion and development needs reaching $41 billion.
Energy and Mining: Energy sector reforms could attract $36 billion in private investment, while mining could draw up to $132 billion.
Rehabilitation and new housing/construction: Rehabilitation of infrastructure and facilities could attract $30 billion in private investment, while new housing and new construction projects could potentially attract $60 billion.
Financing of the Ukrainian budget from Western partners until the end of the year will be carried out at the lower level of budget needs. Earlier, representatives of the Ukrainian government stated that to cover the budget deficit, it is necessary from 3 to 5 billion dollars.
Ukraine's budget revenues for October 2023 amounted to UAH 282.7 billion, of which internal resources collected UAH 180.2 billion. External receipts for September amounted to $2.8 billion (almost all of this was $1.6 billion from the EU and $1.2 billion from the USA). In total, this is 102.5 billion UAH.
Thus, the percentage ratio of external and internal revenues is 36% and 64%, respectively. In general, external assistance compared to September ($2.9 billion) changed slightly (-3.4%).
Ukraine's budget has already been financed by international donors by almost $35 billion in 2023. (expected to be $40 billion by the end of the year). That is, by the end of the year, Ukraine will receive less than $3 billion.
Sociology.
According to data from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) (conducted in October 2023). 81% of respondents believe that elections in Ukraine should occur after the war, and now they are not timely. 16% believe that elections should already take place despite the war. 65% have a negative attitude towards remote voting via the Internet and are worried about fraud risks. 29% support the idea. 88% insist that a developed democratic system should be built in Ukraine by the norms of the European Union. 7% are in favor of limiting the rights of citizens during the recovery period after the war.
Thus, most citizens believe it is right to postpone elections during a war. At the same time, they insist that a developed democratic system must be built in Ukraine by EU standards. The idea of introducing remote voting via the Internet faces distrust.
According to another KIIS survey (September 30-October 13, 2023)
Between May 2022 and October 2023, from 68% to 60%, fewer people believe things are moving in the right direction in Ukraine.
From May 2022 to October 2023, among the institutions on the list, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and volunteers retain unconditional trust.
• Thus, 94% of Ukrainians trust the Armed Forces of Ukraine (in May 2022 – 98%)
• and 87% trust volunteers (in May 2022 – 87%)
At the same time, during this period, there has been a decrease in trust in the institutions of the central government:
• from 91% to 76%, fewer people trust the President
• from 74% to 39% – to the government
• from 58% to 21% – to Parliament
For the period from May 2022 to October 2023, there is a decrease in trust in the United News Telethon from 69% to 48%
In general, KIIS sociologists note a decrease in trust in the leading institutions of the central government in Ukraine. In particular, from May 2022 to October 2023, the President's rating decreased by 15% (from 91% to 76%).
But in the same vein, we can consider the recently published survey of the International Republican Institute (IRI) (conducted by the Sociological Group "Rating"). According to its results, the situation has become even more interesting from April 2022 until September 2023. The rating of absolute trust in the President decreased by almost half (from 74% to 42%). The trust rating still needs to act as an electoral one. But it is the level of absolute trust that is closest to the indicator of voters' readiness to vote in elections.
The situation around Ukraine.
Third round of negotiation consultations regarding a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.
, the third round of negotiation consultations regarding a peaceful settlement in Ukraine occurred in Malta. Ukraine and Western countries attended it with countries of the Global South. Previously, events of this format were held in Denmark - Copenhagen (in June 2023) and Saudi Arabia - Jeddah (in August 2023). Representatives of the Russian Federation, as at the two previous meetings, were not invited.
In particular, representatives from 66 countries took part in the consultations in Malta in person or via the Internet.
Ukraine and its allies are primarily seeking to enlist the support of countries in the Global South in promoting a “Formula of Peace” to end the war ( it implies the surrender of the Russian Federation and the return of all territories of Ukraine within the borders of 1991). Representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, among other things, used new consultations on a peaceful settlement to return the center of world attention to Ukraine, which in recent weeks has shifted towards Israel. At the same time, Ukraine’s support for Israel jeopardized all efforts to win the support of Muslim countries in the war against the Russian Federation. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, which sometimes supported Ukraine, accused Western allies of double standards about Gaza.
The PRC refused to attend the meeting in Malta (as opposed to the consultations in Jeda). The PRC probably does not see this as advisable. Many other countries, such as Brazil or the UAE, participated remotely. It is noteworthy that the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, Jake Sullivan, who was present at the previous meeting, did not fly to Malta from the United States. His absence is associated with the war in Israel, which the US Presidential Administration is currently focusing on.
The meeting was held at the level of national security advisers and diplomatic advisers on the implementation of the Ukrainian peace formula and the organization of the Global Peace Summit.
Ukraine planned that at this meeting, the future holding of the Global Peace Summit would be detailed, but this issue was never resolved. As the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, A. Ermak, said, it was agreed to " take the necessary steps to prepare for this event ." That is, there are no specifics about the time of its holding. The participants "discussed the key principles on which a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine should be achieved and based." The following areas were also discussed: "Nuclear and radiation safety," "Food security," "Energy security," "Release of all prisoners and deportees," and "Restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine." But what was decided needs to be reported.
Based on the results of this meeting, both improvements and deterioration in dynamics can be noted for Ukraine. A positive aspect is the increase in the number of participants, including representatives from 66 countries, which indicates continued interest in resolving the Ukrainian conflict and the willingness of many countries to cooperate on this issue. The process is also structured, and the work moves to the level of working subgroups, contributing to forming concepts and draft documents.
It is important to note that at this stage, the participants in the consultations have yet to reach a consensus and have yet to form a common position or memorandum on the principles of a peaceful settlement.
It cannot be said that the meeting in Malta ended with great success. The countries of the Global South remain on the periphery of discussing the 10 points of V. Zelensky's "Formula of Peace." They are testing Ukraine's readiness for compromise, putting forward their ideas and alternative positions. That is, there is still a difference in roles between Ukraine and its allies about the countries of the Global South.
It is important to note that the statements of the event co-chairs, Ukraine and Malta, do not represent the position of all participants and should not replace the official views of all countries.
The very format of such consultations faces a choice: either promote the Ukrainian peace plan with the risk of losing the interest of a large part of the countries of the Global South or continue to search for compromise solutions that will allow the countries of the Global South to be involved in the process.
Some countries in the Global South suspect that Ukraine could use the Malta consultations to prepare for a Global Peace Summit, which would be a platform for promoting the Ukrainian vision of ending the war. However, third countries, including China, Arab, African, and Latin American countries, believe that the conflict in Ukraine can only end based on compromise conditions and no one can impose exclusively their point of view. Therefore, they use these consultations to establish contacts with the Ukrainian leadership and study its position but remain skeptical about its realism.
Republicans demand that the White House provide them with criteria for the effectiveness of aid to Ukraine.
In the United States, the struggle continues to allocate new funding for Ukraine.
Recently, the work of the US Congress was unblocked after the newly became Speaker of the House of Representatives. Mike Johnson is a Donald Trump supporter who voted against aid to Ukraine. M. Johnson demanded that aid to Israel and Ukraine be divided. " Our consensus among House Republicans is that we must separate these issues," the Speaker said.
Republicans are effectively blocking White House efforts to combine aid to Ukraine and Israel in one package. And this increases the likelihood of a reduced amount of assistance requested.
Let us recall that the White House proposed combining assistance to Ukraine and Israel. US President Joseph Biden has introduced a bill in Congress to allocate $61 billion to Ukraine (about $12 billion in direct budget support for Ukraine) next year out of a total $106 billion financial package (of which $14 billion is also proposed for Israel). According to data from the Pentagon, Ukraine received $44.5 billion from the United States throughout the war.
The White House hinted that President D. Biden may veto the law and may veto funding for Israel without Ukraine. John Kirby of the National Security Council said the Republican proposal does not meet US national security and " the president would never do something that does not meet national security needs ."
To this, the Republicans, for their part, demanded that US President D. Biden, together with President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky, provide Congress with a "victory strategy" that will contain accurate assessments, the ultimate goal, and criteria for ending the war, after which assistance to Ukraine will continue. Republicans are also calling on the White House to provide evidence that authorities are not jeopardizing US military weapons programs, as well as aid to Taiwan and Israel. They also put forward requirements for the Treasury and the Treasury Department, which must report to Congress on the level of application of anti-Russian sanctions.
Republicans are also interested in whether the interests of Americans and Ukrainians coincide in the issue of annexed Crimea and whether the United States considers its return to Ukraine to be realistic.
The publication of such a declaration will significantly limit the actions of the Biden Administration and lay the foundation for a future domestic political crisis regarding assistance to Ukraine.
The prescribed criteria for the effectiveness of funding for Ukraine may, at the first stage, become a reason for criticism of US President D. Biden if the results are not achieved. For example, if the situation does not meet the criteria of the strategy plan, there may be a refusal or suspension of funding to Ukraine. At the same time, the demonstration of such a program (which will include the goals of the war and its results) will sharply worsen relations between the United States and the Russian Federation (if these plans concern the future of the Russian Federation) or will disappoint the leadership of Ukraine if they do not fully correspond to Ukrainian goals and ambitions.
In particular, the availability of information regarding the delivery of weapons to Ukraine can significantly harm the military-industrial complex lobbyists (who stand behind the Democrats). It will also complicate the actual processes of managing military supplies. And a precise formulation of the question: whether American and Ukrainian interests regarding Crimea coincide will cause either a worsening of relations with the Russian Federation or discontent in Ukraine.
Ruslan Bortnik, Oksana Krasovskaya, Andrey Timchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
