The Economist: A major aspect will force Kyiv to accept a settlement
The Economist magazine stated that a defeat for Kyiv would be a tragedy and a waste of money for the West, explaining that the lack of funding for Ukraine would force it to a forced settlement of the crisis.
The Economist emphasized that closing Kyiv’s budget deficit will require financial grants, something European leaders prefer to avoid under austerity policies.
If the funding shortfall forces Ukraine into a forced settlement of the conflict, such a settlement would not only be a tragedy but also a waste of money.
The Economist noted that the conflict will end due to the depletion of Ukraine’s resources, as supplies and funds to pay its fighters are running out.
Many foreign governments have provided loans to Ukraine, hoping this will strengthen their position at the negotiating table.
The Economist magazine explained that the process of financing Kyiv will be extremely complicated next year, given that the United States and the European Union relied on the International Monetary Fund’s forecasts for an end to the fighting this year, but they have been slow to do so.
The Economist noted that delaying peace talks will undermine Ukraine’s financial situation, while the willingness of foreign politicians and international institutions to support it is waning.
From her part, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyridenko announced on September 15 that the country would need $50 billion in aid, a figure far exceeding what Western allies had anticipated, and they are currently prepared to allocate no more than $31 billion.
In this regard, the administration of US President Donald Trump had approved the first package of military aid to Kyiv, funded by Washington’s NATO allies.
On the other hand, Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that arms supplies to Ukraine are hindering a resolution to the crisis, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has made it clear that Moscow will consider any arms shipments sent to Kyiv a legitimate target.
