Double Standards of US and Europe

Developments in the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza in recent months have underscored the ambiguous and contradictory positions of the EU and the USA as the June and November elections approach.

In assessments of the two conflicts, which are now perceived as the most serious in the West, the “time factor” plays a decisive role in determining the changing positions of leaders and governments. In the Middle East, following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli territory, Europeans and Americans did not hesitate to side with Israel, supporting its legitimate right to enter Gaza to achieve the ancient goal of militarily destroying Palestinian jihadist militias.

A goal that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) failed to fulfill on two previous occasions: in 2009 with Operation Cast Lead and in 2014 with Operation Protective Edge, when it was forced to stop under international political pressure defined by numerous civilian casualties. It is hard to believe that this time it would have gone differently, with fierce fighting in an area of 2.2 million people 40 kilometers long and 10 kilometers wide.

Moreover, it was easy to imagine that Hamas, which had carefully planned the October 7 attack, had also prepared a strong defensive mechanism to withstand Israel’s inevitable retaliation. Western support for the Israeli military campaign only continued until Palestinian health sources announced that civilian casualties had exceeded 20,000, a figure that has now risen to 37,000, although no neutral source can confirm this.

A military campaign that many (perhaps even in Israel) thought could have lasted two or three months still continues, more than eight months later, and its extension has, in fact, radically changed the position of the United States and Europe, which has now been determined for many weeks to stop the Israeli offensive.

Much could be said about the now chronic failure of Western politics and society to address the issues of war and its rules based on achieving objectives rather than timelines. But the sudden shift from “no ifs and no buts” support for the Jewish state to pressure for a cease-fire at all costs seems to be related to the impact of this conflict on the European electorate, recently called to vote, and on what Americans can expect in the November elections.

The weakening of Western support for Israel, the veiled US threats to suspend military aid, and the recognition of a Palestinian state by some European countries are clear indications of the internal difficulties of the governments in power amid multiplying demonstrations in universities and on the streets, in the USA and in Europe, in support of the Palestinian cause. Government forces on both sides of the Atlantic risk cutting off large segments of consensus in many sectors of society, both on the right and the left, especially among the young and the increasingly prominent Islamic electorate.

In Washington, the problem concerns primarily the Biden administration and the Democratic Party, which also deals with the Jewish electorate that partly calls for total support for the Jewish state and partly criticizes the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. It is no coincidence that the USA, while continuing to arm the IDF, has allocated $9 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza.

The line imposed on Israel (which cannot afford to lose this war) is clear: peace in Gaza at any cost, so as not to jeopardize the consensus of the American and European governments.

The opposite situation, but with the same motivations, is noted in the Ukraine conflict, where Kiev’s unstoppable attrition and growing Russian superiority, combined with the West’s increasing difficulties in supplying arms and ammunition, may determine the collapse of the Ukrainians’ armed forces.

It is hard to believe that the military situation can change even in light of the collapse of the Ukrainian “home front”: after the futile massacre in Bakhmut and the counteroffensive of 2023, enlistment in the army has stopped, many men are hiding to escape conscription agents, and Kiev is demanding that European countries forcibly send back to Ukraine men fit for arms who left the country with their families immediately after the war began.

As confirmed by the “bellicose” statements of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and EU High Commissioner for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell, the goal of the US and European governments is to prolong Ukraine’s agony at least until after the elections to avoid a collapse that would defeat politically and consensually the leaders and governments that wanted and fomented confrontation with Moscow.

The storm has already hit Europe, where the governments of the countries that have provided Kiev with the most significant military aid and continue to support the need to prepare for war against Russia, have suffered setbacks that are easily linked to the positions taken in the conflict and its economic consequences: from deindustrialization to recession and predictions of significant new increases in energy prices.

In Britain, the vote was not necessary to undermine the Conservative government of Rishi Sunak, who seems destined to lose the next election by promising to reinstate compulsory military service if he defeats the Labour Party, which is currently the favorite. The June 8 and 9 vote had already led to the resignation of the government in Paris (where Emmanuel Macron had just promised to send Mirage 2000 planes and French troops to Ukraine), having an immediate impact on markets, but it also precipitated the economic crisis of the German government of Olaf Scholz (who has donated more arms and ammunition to Kiev than any other European leader), with the SPD largely outperforming not only the CDU but also the AfD.

Confirming the close link between the war and the outcome of the German vote, a poll conducted by the INSA institute found that 51 percent of Germans do not believe Ukraine can win, while 58 percent are convinced that Germany’s support for Kiev puts national security at risk, considering the decision to allow Ukrainians to strike Russia with German weapons “very dangerous.”

From this perspective, it is perhaps no coincidence that the Italian government has been strengthened by the European vote. By supporting Ukraine, Italy denied the use of its weapons against Russia: a decision that allowed many to define Rome as “isolated” compared to its NATO and EU partners, but which bore fruit in terms of consensus because it seemed like common sense. The choice was announced with different tones by Deputy Prime Ministers Antonio Tajani and Matteo Salvini, who repeatedly said during the election campaign that Italy was not at war with Russia and that it was focused on negotiations.

Moreover, the paradox of a Europe that is no longer able to support Kiev with arms, but nevertheless unable to come up with a negotiating proposal in the 28 months of war, underscores the belief that Ukraine will now be fully interested in negotiating with Moscow. This would certainly entail a cession of territory, but perhaps smaller than the Russians might demand in six months.

The United States and NATO (or at least Stoltenberg) have rejected the agreement proposal articulated by Vladimir Putin and demanded an anachronistic withdrawal of Russian troops from all occupied Ukrainian territories, but it is clear that the prospect of Kiev’s defeat will inevitably also represent the defeat of NATO and EU member states, as well as countries such as the USA and Great Britain, which in April 2022 did not honorably end the conflict after a month and a half with an agreement brokered by Turkey.

At the time, the slogan that the war must go on because “it will wear Russia down” was fashionable in NATO circles. Today, when the conflict has worn us Europeans down the most and devastated Ukraine, the goal is to prevent the collapse of Kiev that will destroy the residual credibility of Western leaders. Starting with Joe Biden, whose health condition also came to light at the G7 summit, making his re-nomination for the White House increasingly awkward. But let’s not forget the various heads of European governments, Ursula von der Leyen and Mario Draghi, candidates to head the next European Commission, who have been telling us for two years how sanctions will bring the Russian economy and military apparatus to its knees, while Russian soldiers steal electronic boards from household appliances in Ukraine for use in weapons systems or who fight with shovels and pickaxes for lack of ammunition.

While in Gaza the West seeks peace at any cost, in Ukraine it supports a full-scale war to buy time at least until the US elections. To help the Ukrainians fight back, the escalation was actually raised by authorizing the use of Western weapons against Russian territory in the hope that Moscow does not consider this a “red line” and pretends not to know that the use of missiles, guided missiles, and bombs is only possible because of the presence in Ukraine of military advisers from NATO member states.