Image
UA EN

On August 10, 2024, the Intermarium Institute held an online conference

On August 10, 2024, the Intermarium Institute held an online conference on the topic: "Prospects of the Russian-Ukrainian war in the second half of 2024 and challenges for Ukraine, Russia and the world". Leading Ukrainian experts and scientists took part in the conference: Ihor Chalenko, Andrii Martynov, Mykola Volhov, Oleg Posternak, Volodymyr Volia. The moderator of the online conference was the director of the Intermarium Institute Valentyn Haidai.

Speakers discussed current topics related to the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the political situation in the United States on the eve of the presidential elections, in Western Europe, discussed other interesting and unique topics, such as, for example, conflict-causing trends in the Northwest Caucasus. Experts tried to predict the further development of the presidential campaign in the USA, the arrangement of political forces in the leading countries of Western Europe, and the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

 

Political scientist Ihor Chalenko spoke first. His report was about the impact of the American election campaign on the track to achieve peace in Ukraine. In particular, Ihor Chalenko noted:

The United States of America remains a key partner of Ukraine in repelling armed aggression.

As of today, according to the calculations of the Institute of World Economy of Kiel University, direct US aid to our country has reached more than 82 billion dollars, of which 56 billion dollars is direct military aid. At the same time, according to other calculations (the Cato Institute), together with the April budget package of more than 60 billion dollars. by the end of the year, Ukraine will offer assistance in the amount of about 175 billion dollars (direct and indirect). Thus, by the end of the second half of 2024, Ukraine has a clear policy of supporting the US at the level of the military and socio-economic track.

At the same time, the States are in an active phase of the election campaign for the President, the full composition of the House of Representatives, as well as by-elections for the Senate. US elections always have global implications, and this time they could significantly affect our path to the world.

Mostly extends the forecast horizon from the beginning of 2025. In general, two main scenarios of the development of events are proposed. The first is the victory of Kamala Harris in a pair with Tim Waltz from Minnesota. In this case, according to the expanded vision, support for Ukraine will remain at a high level or even increase. In addition, the Democratic Party traditionally supports Ukraine in its struggle for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The second scenario is the victory of Donald Trump along with Jay Dee Vance, who support isolationist views. In this case, it is classically expected that support for Ukraine may deteriorate significantly. Trump has already announced his intention to end the war in 24 years. His words are interpreted in the Western media as forcing Ukraine to make concessions.

However, such forecasting carries with it the flavor of the pre-election struggle with mythologizing the candidates and their steps in case of victory.

In independence from the presidential choice of the American people, the burden on the USA's own budget in terms of supporting Ukraine is reduced. This has already been programmed by the G7 decision to lend Ukraine 50 billion dollars, as well as the launch of NATO operations to prepare and provide assistance to Ukraine.

At the same time, the fate of the peace track will be determined precisely during the second half of 2024.

Ukraine is working with partners, including the United States, on a peace plan that will be presented in November. It is based on the Ukrainian formula for peace, especially the 3 points on nuclear and food security, as well as the humanitarian block discussed in Switzerland. Additionally, this offer! We publish effective consultations within the framework of state diplomacy around the world. It is believed that the current administration of Biden can use this development for preparatory work for further peace negotiations in the Second Global World itself and other formats. In the event that Harris wins the election, the accumulated data will be inherited by her for further implementation in 2025.

Instead, Trump's victory may cause a partial reset of the peace track, emphasizing not the normative-institutional, but the personal format of implementation. Trump believes in the power of personal contacts between the leaders of the state to solve difficult situations. Instead, the Russian Federation hopes that in this case it will be possible to obtain negotiating terms favorable to the Kremlin. Such expectations have no logical basis and contain a large part of fallacy. Also, at the current stage, the team has to change its position regarding Ukraine (Trump's call to Zelensky, Trump's assessment of Russian conditions as rejection, Vance's words about achieving the "accepted Trump of peace", etc.).

In general, Ukraine should use electoral confrontation between both camps in the United States to ensure a pro-Ukrainian vision of de-escalation. Without interfering in the election process, narratives about supporting Ukraine need to be scaled up among the bipartisan US elite. At the same time, Kyiv needs to simultaneously strengthen geopolitical diversification, in particular by strengthening cooperation with Europe in various formats, for example, the Three Seas. After all, the decisive contribution to the support of Ukraine in the future is due to the European part of the world itself.

 

After Ihor Chalenko, the floor for the report was given to Andrii Martynov, doctor of history, expert of the Intermarium Institute.

In his report, Andrii Martynov emphasized the risks of not supporting Ukraine in the context of elections in a number of Western European countries. Among other things, Andriy Martynov noted:

 A number of early parliamentary elections in key European countries, the uncertainty with Biden's candidacy as a candidate for the presidential elections in the USA, create an additional risky trend regarding the unchanged course of the coalition of democratic states, which since February 24, 2022 has worked with varying success to support Ukraine in neutralizing Russian aggression.

Of course, it is debatable how effective the West's "uncertainty strategy" is regarding Ukraine's victory in the war. The policy of "only preventing victory" of the Russian Federation is costing Ukraine dearly. Most likely, we can expect that this strategy can only become even more obvious.

We have a contradictory situation with medium-term support for Ukraine. On July 3, 2024, the new government of the Netherlands was inaugurated, where the coalition was headed by the former head of foreign intelligence of this country, Dirk Stoff. He declared his readiness to continue assistance to Ukraine, to which his predecessor made a significant contribution, and from October 1, 2024, the new NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte. At the end of the election campaign for the second round of the parliamentary elections in France (July 7, 2024), Marine Le Pen was outraged by the comment of Russian diplomats, who called the vote for her "a request for the return of France's sovereignty and rejection of the dictates of the United States." The expected new Prime Minister of France, the leader of the National Union, Jordan Bordella, during the election campaign, announced the termination of the transfer of French missiles to Ukraine capable of striking deep into Russian territory. But it is clear that the new French government will not support President E. Macron's initiatives regarding the hypothetical deployment of French troops to Ukraine.

Early elections on July 4, 2024 in Great Britain are expected to be won by Labor led by Keir Sturmer. He notes that he will continue to help Ukraine, but the defeat of the Conservatives led by Rishi Sunak delayed the resolution of the Tories' promised restoration of conscription in Great Britain. It is clear that, willy-nilly, Labor will have to deal with strengthening the British armed forces, both naval and land. After all, even Argentina's right-wing populist President Javier Millay, considering the shortage of people willing to serve in the British Royal Navy, is already daring to challenge London regarding the status of the Falkland Islands.

It is clear that the new British government, as well as the new French government, will be forced to modernize their own armed forces and restore cooperation in the European format of NATO allies. The imperative of this is required, in particular, by the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the US presidential election on November 5, 2024. Biden, despite calls to abandon the candidacy after losing the debate on June 27, announced his intention to fight to the end. But Trump no longer hides that "after victory" he intends to put the implementation of American security guarantees to European NATO partners on a commercial basis. Given these trends, we can expect another difficult debate on the US state budget for 2025, where Republicans may not foresee even the current level of support for Ukraine. This poses a serious question of the ability of the European Union to compensate for the deficit of American aid to Ukraine. The experience of the first half of 2024, when the Republicans blocked aid to Ukraine, does not give grounds for excessive optimism about the EU's ability to simultaneously solve the issue of replacing American aid to Ukraine and increasing its own defense spending.

Russian propaganda is already celebrating the expected correction of the level of Western support for Ukraine and the birth of a new world order in agony. A possible counter to this trend could be the Washington NATO summit on July 11-12, 2024, when Ukraine will receive centralized alliance control over the rhythm and volume of military aid, which is seen as building an "institutional bridge" for Ukraine's advancement into NATO.

 

The report of the political consultant Mykola Volhov was devoted to the unique and little-studied topic of the revival of the Kuban Cossacks in the Krasnodar region of Russia.

 

The expert emphasized in his speech:

In the Krasnodar Territory, "zakozachen" is actively being conducted. As a controlled process of local identity formation. But it does not go beyond the permitted imperial worldview and discourse. Moscow is forming a pocket Kuban Cossack Army as a tool of modern empire. This is achieved through the free distortion of historical memory, even in relation to its most tragic pages. And also through the ideological processing of youth and the creation of comfortable conditions for the administrative and managerial elites of the region.

It takes place with the active support of the regional administration. This issue is directly handled by the head of the "KKV" O. Vlasov, who holds the position of vice-governor of the region. However, in other regions that were historically part of the Kuban region, these processes either do not take place, or are of a moderate and not so comprehensive nature.

The ideological pillars of "zakozachen" are myths about "gratitude and loyalty to the Russian Empire", "about the Great Victory" and "SVO". They form a picture of the world of the Cossacks that is convenient for Moscow, where they are both watchdogs of the empire and the fighting vanguard of the "Russian world".

At the meeting of the Council of Chiefs of the All-Russian Cossack Society, Chief of the "KKV" O. Vlasov stated that the Union of Cossack Youth of Kuban has more than 118,500 members of the movement.

The leaders of the region prefer not to mention the leading role of Moscow in the repression against the Kuban people, so as not to destroy the picture of the world created by Russian propaganda for the contemporaries of their compatriots.

The same applies to Kuban Ukrainians. Which is reduced to ethnographic and folklore manifestations. Here, the State Academic Kuban Cossack Choir under the leadership of loyal Putinist Viktor Zakharchenko becomes the flagship of the "sharovarshchyna". The 50th anniversary of his creative activity as artistic director and chief conductor was widely celebrated at the highest regional level. Thereby honoring his contribution to the transformation of a glorious creative team into a propaganda tool.

A powerful regional military cluster is forming in the Kuban. Its foundations are state-owned pro-Moscow Cossack ideology, material incentives and "showing off" on a territorial basis. Not a single important event in the life of the military units located in the Krasnodar Territory will be celebrated without the Vice-Governor of the Krasnodar Territory, the Kremlin chieftain of the "Kuban Cossack Army" O. Vlasov. With his presence, he is meant to personify the belonging of any people in uniform to the Cossack military tradition.

Mykola Volhov makes the following conclusions on this issue:

However, this process carries significant risks and conflict-causing factors, which Ukraine must take advantage of. "Order" will begin to threaten imperial integrity at a time when the following features will begin to manifest in it:

  1. Politicization. In the form of Cossacks voting only for "their own", demands for the expansion of quotas in party lists, the creation of a political party. Increasing the influence of Cossack organizations on the decisions of the relevant authorities.
  2. Chauvinism. As a privileged class, the Kuban Cossacks will increase the level of aggression towards representatives of other ethnic groups and migrants from other Russian regions.
  3. Creation and legalization of the Cossack power structure. It will become a tool for solving economic, ethnic, and other disputes and will lead to the growth of appetites of local elites.
  4. Finding oneself in the existing system of relations between the federal center and the regions and the desire to change it. The growth of self-awareness, which will be based on a wide resource base, will lead to the need to readjust relations both with the central government and with subjects neighboring the Krasnodar Territory. First of all, under the pretext of collecting the historical lands of the KKV and protecting the interests of the Cossacks who live there.

 

The next was the report of political technologist Oleg Posternak. He, like Ihor Chalenko, touched on the topic of the presidential elections in the USA. Specifically, Oleg Posternak in his report talked about the so-called electoral "civil war" in the USA:

 

Donald Trump's strategy.

The bet is on white Americans of suburbs and towns in a state of industrial resentment; especially on conservative groups prone to foreign policy isolationism, economic protectionism, frustration and conspiratorial thinking, this is mainly a religious population, intolerant of migrants, abortion rights, gender equality and sexual minorities.

In 2016, according to Politico, Trump's victory was the "revenge of a rural voter" who hates the establishment (hence the slogan "drain the Washington swamp").

The focus of the Trump campaign is the economy and migration. His economic successes during his first presidency. This is no longer the situation in 2016, when Hillary Clinton-frightened voters seriously considered moving to Canada in the event of Trump's victory, sobbed at rallies, smashed windows at anti-Trump rallies. Trump needs "shaky states" now.

Hitting hard on Kamala Harris for fixing the threats and fears associated with her coming to the office of President. Trump lashed out at her over race, intelligence and laughter. Information about the increase in Kamala's ratings is needed by Trump's staff in order to keep in the electoral tone and charge of their voter, who may think that Trump's victory is already in hand. Trump beats Kamala because she is weak and has not shown herself in any way. That she lost the presidential race in 2020. On the Truth Social network, he called her a "crooked Kamala", "dumb" with a "low IQ" and a lack of "mental ability". But it's one thing to beat Hilary Clinton (Trump called her a "disgusting woman"), who already had a large anti-rating, and another thing to beat Harris, who had a "honeymoon" with the electorate.

 

Problems of the Trump campaign:

  1. Derailment of the campaign due to the loss of primacy in the agenda after the assassination attempt on Trump. There was a sharp shift in the presidential race towards Kamala Harris, which forced him to take a defensive position. Now Donald is trying to restore the offensive strategy and dynamics, wanting to get into the trends of discussions and attention of social media with outrageous statements.
  2. Focusing on the culture wars makes electoral expansion impossible. After the assassination attempt, Trump proposed the slogan "Unite America!" as a successful framework for repositioning with an emphasis on expansion. However, after the appearance of Harris, he slipped back into his usual role. It is beneficial for the Democrats that the Republican candidate digs in his swamp and does not look adequate and moderate.
  3. Trump has to some extent achieved a certain saturation in electoral expansion. The swing really added to him. However, his current number of voters who are ready to vote for him is a ceiling. It's enough to win, but Biden has it, not Harris. Trump desperately needs to win over independent voters, Republican voters he's scared off (like Haley's electorate), voters who don't plan to go to the polls.

 

Risks of the Trump campaign:

  1. Trump's main risk is the turnout of his nuclear electorate. Trump needs all the votes of white Americans as much as air. According to psychologists, at least 58% of their votes. And he now has a "white border". Trump lost 7 million votes in 2020 compared to 2016. Therefore, the best way out for him is to fill the turnout. In 2016, he won due to the fact that his voter came, and Clinton did not. The overall turnout was 55.7%. Trump's advantage is that in a presidential campaign it is always a referendum on the current president. Therefore, Trump should connect Harris with Biden as much as possible. And Harris needs to distance himself from Biden's negative legacy as much as possible.
  2. Postal voting. In the USA, a large part of voters do not vote on election day, but in advance by mail. Historically, voters of the Democratic Party, that is, Trump's opponents, tend to vote by mail.
  3. Trump's mistakes related to his eccentric personality. In an interview with the National Association of Black Journalists, he said of Harris, “I didn't know she was black until she became black a few years ago. And now she wants to be known as black." Another mistake he made during a speech at a meeting of conservative Christians. He declared that they would not have to vote again in four years.

 

Strategy of Kamala Harris.

The basic signal to the voter that will come from Kamala's company will be that she is a safe choice. A moderate, respectable, responsible choice. The task of technologists is to make it clear that Kamala is a competent top-level business woman. This is evident in her women's costumes.

The bet is made on four groups: African-Americans (skin color), Latin Americans (father's origin from Jamaica), women (fighter against the ban on abortion), young people (lively dancing, memplex in social networks, registration in Tik-Tok). At this stage, the dynamics of Kamala in these groups is gradually ascending. It is clear that Harris is raising enthusiasm among minority voters, but this very fact could block the prospects for expansion at the expense of white Americans, who are focused on an economic agenda.

Another group of voters that Harris can count on are "double haters." These are the ones who were negative about both Biden and Trump. With Harris taking the stage, they had an alternative.

Democrats' campaign focus: values. A looming disaster is a Trump victory that threatens democracy and freedom. It could be packed into Kamala's message box: "I'm the one who's more like America than Trump." It is clear that Harris will focus territorially on the Blue Wall. Harris needs a valuable electoral war. How can we not mention the recently released film "Civil War", which simulates a new civil war in the United States.

The Democrats clearly hope for a vote multiplier effect through the nomination of the vice president. The future Democratic vice-presidential candidate must be more moderate, white and palpably masculine. This will make it possible to "grease" the barriers to voting for a woman with a non-white identification.

 

Kamala Harris campaign issues:

  1. There is no clear and distinct electoral "image" of Kamala. She is generally electable and motivated to prove that she is not weak and mediocre, as, by the way, some Democrats believed, but nevertheless time is very short. Voters do not have a clear understanding of her vision of economic processes? How will it curb inflation? Just like Biden?

 

  1. From here, the question remains whether Harris will be able to "take over" the electoral field of white voters - representatives of the working class and trade unions in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, as Biden once managed. Harris does not have the background of an economically-centric candidate, and one rhetoric about the protection of the right to abortion cannot overcome the expectations of this contingent of voters.

 

  1. Harris needs to overcome the great prejudice of voters regarding the possibility of electing a woman to the post of President. The United States has never been led by a woman. Republicans could use the message that it was the vice president's race and gender that helped her, not competence and intelligence, as a negative technique. Trump can further bolster his advantage by saying that women have experienced greater economic support in his first term as president. If black and Latina women support Harris, it's a separate question who white women will support. In 2016, a poll showed that white women favored Trump over Clinton.

 

Risks of the Harris campaign:

  1. The campaign will descend into a cosplay of the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012, when the emphasis will be on people of color and the left-leaning electorate. However, Obama was elected in a post-stress situation after 2001 and Bush Jr.'s anti-terrorist wars, where there was a demand for domestic political stabilization and minimization of foreign policy aggressiveness. Now the situation is different, because the USA lost its positions during the time of Biden (withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, Russia's brazen attack on Ukraine, Iran's direct strikes against Israel). There is a demand for a strong imperial America. And that request is more consistent with Trump's "Make America Great Again" persona than with Harris.
  2. It will be difficult for Harris to recover from the legacy of Biden and his failures. Trump will successfully attach the label "queen of borders" to Kamala, since she was appointed coordinator of the solution to the migration problem at the start of Biden's administration. Therefore, Harris will try to form a list of his own initiatives to get out of Biden's shadow. For example, regarding preschool education and care for the elderly. These topics are not directly associated with Biden. At the same time, it is important to attribute to her the most important successes of Biden: the reduction of child poverty by 20% at the expense of the child tax credit, the program of investments in renewable energy sources, the infrastructure project, etc.
  3. A particular problem for Harris is Robert Kennedy Jr., who is pulling some of the union vote, especially from the working class of the industrial Midwest.

 

The final report was made by Volodymyr Volia, strategic research coordinator of the Intermarium Institute: "How the military-political situation in Russia and Ukraine will develop until the end of 2024".

Volodymyr Volia noted:

I would call the main event of this year the fact that Putin began to realize the threat and danger to himself, from the way the military situation is developing and what is happening with finances in Russia itself, with the economy, with reserves, etc. All these stories that sanctions do not work turned out to be a myth. Putin himself began to control where budget funds go, what is the situation with the defense sector, that is why he made appropriate personnel decisions - Belousov was appointed the chief "accountant" of the funds of the Russian army and the chief "cleaner" of corruption in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. In other words, we see that Putin, who tried to maintain his bravado last fall, is now calculating the costs of the war himself and, in fact, does not trust anyone.

Undoubtedly, the resources for the war are also decreasing, first of all, the stocks of military equipment - this is evidenced by the data of analysts who carefully study the situation at the front, analyze photos and videos of damaged and destroyed equipment, etc. It can also be concluded that the Russian military-industrial complex cannot qualitatively scale production so that the existing advantage in equipment and weapons is preserved. Financial resources are mostly directed towards war and are also being depleted. There is a colossal burden on both the federal and local budgets, as the number of contract workers decreases and new soldiers are motivated and incentivized with higher payments. Therefore, it is possible that Putin will have to announce another partial mobilization.

Destructive processes in Russia mean that the Russian economy cannot produce much of what is needed for the domestic market, showing its dependence on imports, which has also been greatly complicated by new sanctions from the US, which are increasingly supported by China, for example, by making transactions more difficult for the purchase of agricultural products, increasingly refuses loans, there are difficulties with calculations, etc. What is the Russian GDP today? This is, in fact, the transfer of funds from the federal budget to the military industry, this is the pouring of crazy sums into the pockets of contractors, this is overheating of the economy and provoking inflation, which Russian officials are already directly talking about. Thus, Russia spends more and more and earns less and less.

Psychological aspect. War fatigue is growing in Russia. The Russian Empire fell not so much because of economic exhaustion as because of moral fatigue. And now, Russian soldiers and Russian society are growing weary of war. Russians go to war for money, and after receiving it, they want to stay alive and spend the money they earn. But it doesn't work, because the losses of the Russian army are colossal and Putin has no plans to end the war now. In addition, the war is increasingly and on a larger scale coming to the territory of Russia. During the 2.5 years of war, Ukraine demonstrated that, at least in the European part of Russia, there is little that is beyond the reach of Ukrainian weapons. With the situation that is currently developing in the Kursk region, one can draw at least one clear conclusion that this operation is a strong psychological blow to Russian society: Russia is vulnerable, Russia cannot defend its territory, Russians will suffer and the authorities will not help them.

August 24 will mark 2.5 years of the war. Russia still has not achieved strategic success, however, the war itself has already come to Russia itself. Therefore, a Russian citizen may have a logical question: "what's next and how long will this war last?". This, of course, demoralizes Russian society.

Another destabilizing factor that is maturing in the Russian Federation is the conflict in international relations. We see that the factor of Islamic radicalism is gaining momentum. This is clearly visible in the situation in Dagestan.

In my opinion, the confrontation with the Muslim community is the biggest threat to the integrity of Russia. So far, Kadyrov shows loyalty to the Kremlin, but we see that the processes in the North Caucasus are not controlled by the FSB, not controlled by the central authorities in Moscow. We see a tendency to create, in fact, national proto-armies on the example of the North-West Caucasus and the Kubans. In addition, after the terrorist attacks in Moscow this year, we see a new wave of national intolerance of Russians towards people from Central Asia, who, by the way, are the main labor resources for the Russian economy.

By and large, at the end of the year, Putin will have this picture: foreign trade has fallen, profits have decreased, significant funds have been spent on the military campaign, but there are no significant results, three years of war have passed, but what's next? This will be evidence of the defeat of Russia, the miscalculations of the Russian authorities. All this will be burdened by the fatigue of Russian society and the disappointment of Putin's actions.