Since the beginning of the conflict with Russia in 2014, Ukraine's foreign relations have been characterized by a focus on several international parties, and perhaps the main focus of this focus has been supporting Kiev in the face of "Moscow's aggression."
This is justified, according to Oleksiy Haran, head of the Center for "Democratic Initiatives" for studies, "Ukraine found itself weak in 2014, after Russia's violation of the Budapest 1994 document, and it had to push steps to support building a strong army, as well as political and economic support to confront the aggression."
Haran also believes that this "western duty" was originally due to the Budapest Document, which the signatories to it (Great Britain, Russia and the United States) did not implement the condition to ensure the territorial integrity and integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.
Whether the matter is reliance on Kiev or an obligation on those parties or countries headed by the United States, this may explain part of the American interest in the Ukrainian file since 2014.
Over the past 7 years, Washington has supported Ukraine with about $ 2 billion, which came in the form of military, security and other aid, and there is still talk about Ukraine’s desire to obtain “lethal American weapons” to confront Russia.
And this support goes beyond "duty" to "interests", which represent the biggest role, according to Ilya Kusa, an expert in international relations at the "Ukrainian Institute for the Future," who believes that Washington is more interested than ever in curbing the power of Russian President Vladimir Putin and curbing the growth of Moscow's influence and presence on the regional, European and global levels.
Regarding the Ukrainian file, Kusa believes that the United States sees it as a push towards the West, a threat to its security and the security of the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and an effort to acquire more and larger political and economic pressure papers in the region, in reference to - for example - To the "Nord Stream 2" project to transport gas directly to Europe away from Ukraine, which Washington strongly opposes.
As for the limits of this support, the expert believes that it depends first on the American administrations, indicating that the administration of former President Donald Trump was not interested in the current degree shown by the administration of Joe Biden.
Secondly, the matter is related to Washington building alliances in support of curbing Russian ambitions by force if necessary, but this is widely unlikely at the present time, and for many reasons, according to the expert.
Third, the American support is related to the nature of the agreement, and the size of the concessions that Biden and Putin may make to stop the Russian escalation, and keep it within the framework of an undeclared cold war between the two sides on the Ukrainian arena.
Since 2014, NATO has emerged as a party that Ukraine is actively seeking to obtain its support and full membership, with the support and blessing of its bordering countries, and the support of the United States as well.
Legislatively, Ukraine abandoned the trait of "non-alignment" and approved constitutional amendments at the beginning of 2019, according to which it set a stable approach towards membership of NATO and the European Union.
In the past years, and within the framework of the "Eastern Partnership" program with Ukraine and Georgia, relations with NATO witnessed remarkable activity, with periodic political summits and wide joint military exercises, which reached in mid-2020 the alliance's inclusion of Ukraine in the "enhanced opportunities for cooperation" program.
But the issue of NATO's support for Ukraine is more complicated, according to many experts, who may agree that the alliance is not at all interested in annexing a country that is inflamed in parts, and igniting a direct and widespread confrontation with Russia, the largest power in the region.
International relations expert Andrey Bozarov believes that "the complexity here stems primarily from a fear of a direct confrontation that may be difficult, long and costly, and then from the fact that many countries in the alliance oppose, openly or implicitly, to Ukraine, led by Hungary and France, and link this (traditionally) to weak reforms. And distance from the standards of the alliance, "he said.
A previous meeting between the Ukrainian president (right) and his Turkish counterpart (Reuters)
Here, Turkey may be ranked third in the issue of relying on support, especially as it is a major country in NATO, and concerned with the Ukrainian file, more than perhaps others.
In this regard, the past months in which the military cooperation relations between the two countries have reached the level of "strategic partnership" have been witnessed in the framework of more than 30 deals and joint industrialization projects.
Peter Dickinson - an expert on Ukrainian affairs at the "Atlantic" Center for Studies - says, "Turkey rejects the occupation of the Crimean peninsula and the persecution of the Tatars in it, whom it considers an ethnic extension of it, and it is also not pleased with the growing influence of Russia in the Black Sea in the north, and in Syria in the south."
He added, "Turkey is a gateway through which Ukraine wants more rapprochement with NATO, and it, apart from the alliance, has become in recent years a regional power that is not to be reckoned with, which has proven its presence in Syria, Libya and the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan."
But Dickinson reduces the limits of direct Turkish support to Ukraine, saying that "the partnership between the two countries is more economic than military, and I think it is subject to very careful Turkish calculations, especially with regard to the purchase of Turkish drones, as Ankara is keen - despite the differences - to have bigger and broader relations with Moscow. "
European Union and Britain
Since the beginning of the last crisis between Russia and Ukraine in 2014, the European Union has emerged as a major supporter of Ukraine, by rejecting Russian aggression, imposing sanctions, providing financial aid, and efforts to solve the political settlement within the framework of the "Normandy Quartet" (Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany), among others.
However, the past few years have witnessed a shift in this position, especially between the main countries of the Union (Germany and France), with hints to the importance of normalizing relations with Russia again, and several measures in this regard.
"Europe was also affected by its sanctions and Russian sanctions," says Ilya Kusa, an expert at the Ukrainian Institute for the Future. "With time, interests have preceded over the principles that played the largest role in the beginning."
But he pointed to a European split regarding the Ukrainian file, saying that "the Baltic countries and Poland are more strict than other European countries, and Britain (before and after their exit under" Brexit ") is also in their betrayal, because they all view Russia as an aggressor country, which does not stop the limits of its aggression and interference. Only with Ukraine. "
He explained that "these countries have concerns about Putin's endeavor to restore the glories of the Soviet Union, as well as Britain has a barrier and an obsession that prevents it from Russia, especially after the poisoning of the double agent Sergey Skripal in Salisbury in 2018."
In recent years, a remarkable position of military support from Canada has emerged in the form of military cooperation agreements, joint training and maneuvers.
And the limits of military support, according to the expert here, will not go beyond the NATO framework, or coordination with the US administration, especially if Washington is serious about stopping Russia at its limit, by force this time.