Aid to Ukraine without preconditions is supported by 40% of the population of EU countries, but more than half of Europeans already want to limit the flow of Ukrainian refugees ― so that they arrive under certain conditions. The German media company Deutsche Welle made a video piece about the reasons for this, trying to understand why the attitude towards supporting Ukraine has become colвer than it was a few months ago. One of the main reasons is revealed by journalists through the story of Heike, an older Berlin woman who sheltered Irina and her daughter Victoria at the beginning of a full-scale invasion of Russia. They still live in a studio apartment that Heike uses to host guests. Now the woman wants Ukrainian women to leave their homes. For two reasons: firstly, Heike did not expect the refugees to stay so long, and she has her own plans for the apartment. Secondly, it is too small a place for two people, there are many things missing, such as a washing machine. For now, the women live in Heike, and Iryna is trying to find any job to be able to rent housing on her own: she is not yet ready to return to Ukraine. The need to help longer than expected, caused by the war, rising prices and purely psychological fatigue are the main reasons for the decline in support for Ukrainians in Europe, Hans Vorlander from the Mercator Forum on Migration and Democracy, which commissioned the study, assures DW. These changes in the attitude towards support are especially felt in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, in particular in Hungary and the Czech Republic. According to Vorlander, this can be explained by the fact that if in, say, France or Britain the costs of refugees were largely borne by the states, then in the east it was mostly taken care of by volunteers and NGOs and they were exhausted. Although, on the other hand, thanks to their history, Eastern European societies better understand the threat from Russia ― this gives hope that the level of support in these countries will not drop sharply.
"Some conservatives call any foreign policy crisis "Munich". For some left-wing politicians, every war threatens to become "Vietnam". However, for the [large-scale] war in Ukraine, which is confidently entering its second year, another analogy is more natural ― "Korea". This is how columnist Gideon Rachmanʼs article in the Financial Times begins, in which he suggests that the Russian-Ukrainian war may end not with a classic peace agreement, but with a "temporary" decision to lay down arms. In 1953, when the fighting between South and North Korea actually ended, no peace treaty was signed. It is still not there ― formally it is an armistice. A similar scenario is possible in the case of Russia and Ukraine, writes Rachman. For three reasons: none of the countries can now achieve a complete victory, the political positions of Moscow and Kyiv are too different, and both armies are suffering from significant losses. The main thing holding back the ceasefire now, according to the columnist, is that Putin continues to speak in terms of victory and refuses to admit that his invasion of Ukraine has ended in failure. Also, the number of war crimes that they have already committed in Ukraine and for which they will have to answer when the "fog of war" clears doesnʼt allow the Russians to stop. And yet Russian losses continue to mount, so perhaps it makes sense for Putin to actually stop the war at the hands of Russiaʼs military leadership ― for example, generals will order their troops as a "gesture of goodwill" to retreat to certain lines, ceasing fire. On the one hand, Ukrainians cannot stop when the initiative is on their side, Rachman admits. On the other hand, the level of losses is also high, the Russian strikes on energy facilities are painful, and if the months spent abroad for millions of refugees turn into years, they will be less likely to return to Ukraine, which will slow down the development of local society. The liberation of Crimea by the Armed Forces of Ukraine may lead to new, even more painful attacks by the Russians ― and in private conversations, as the journalist assures, Ukrainians admit this. Rachman is sure that after the armistice, the West will not leave Ukraine alone ― having realized what modern Russia is, the allies will use economic and military aid to turn Ukraine into a "porcupine" that the Kremlin will not be able to swallow. After all, South Korea was a broken, poor area after the war. Now it is a flourishing country, although there is still no peace treaty. North Korea has retreated to the backyard of civilization ― the same fate, it seems, awaits Russia.