Wars and Ceasefires Today Are Largely Tuned to Electoral Calendars

The question is how and when World War II would have ended if British wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill had subordinated war plans to party interests and elections. It is not excluded that in that case, the Soviet Red Army would have ‘liberated’ Europe to the shores of the English Channel. That did not happen. However, just two months after a great war victory, in July 1945, Churchill convincingly lost the elections.

But times have changed. Wars and ceasefires today are largely tuned to electoral calendars, including the two most heated conflicts: Russia’s war against Ukraine and Israel’s war against Hamas. In the American election year, it is almost imperative to reach a ceasefire in these two major war hotspots by summer and to achieve some agreement – the implementation of which will be left to the next American administration.

Positioning Ahead of the Ceasefire

In this context of forced pre-election ceasefires, it is necessary to observe Western political moves regarding both the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza in the coming period. In recent days, Israel has received very clear warnings from Washington that it is time to stop its offensive in southern Gaza, along with Biden’s message that the suffering of Palestinian civilians in that operation has ‘exceeded all measures’. Several witnesses confirmed that in a closed meeting, the American president referred to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as ‘that jerk’.

Of course, the new political direction was immediately recognized: the Dutch (technical) government has banned the export of parts for combat aircraft to Israel, and EU foreign policy minister Joseph Borrell, known for his pro-Palestinian stance, which is also aligned with Spanish foreign policy, called on the ‘international community, especially the U.S.’, to stop supplying weapons to Israel due to the significant suffering of Palestinian civilians, asking: ‘How many (deaths) is too many’? French President Emmanuel Macron recognized the moment for (yet another) broader and deeper French peace initiative and immediately sent a French proposal for a de-escalation agreement to Israel, Lebanon, and the Iranian-backed Islamist organization Hezbollah along the Israeli-Lebanese border… In short, it is primarily about positioning ahead of the expected ceasefire.

Messages that it is time for some compromise with Moscow have been received by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky from American Republicans for some time, especially from former American President Donald Trump, who is convincingly marching towards another Republican presidential candidacy. This is, after all, in the spirit of his slogan ‘America First’, and it sounds good to more conservative voters who are not inclined to excessive American global engagement.

And they do not understand, or pretend not to understand, that this is not a waste of resources, but that the U.S. builds its strength and development on that global engagement, that the weapons donated to Ukraine are a minimal cost compared to the gains of the American war industry from the Russo-Ukrainian war and the increased Russian security threat to Europe. In short, Trump primarily addresses his voter base when he criticizes Zelensky and advocates for an end to American aid to Ukraine, just as Biden addresses his voter base when he calls out Israel for civilian casualties in Gaza and refers to Netanyahu as a jerk. A ceasefire before the conclusion of the American presidential campaign is a primary goal in both cases.

Disobedient Netanyahu and Zelensky

However, this time the smaller allies did not immediately comply. After Biden’s warning, Netanyahu intensified the offensive in southern Gaza, defiantly stating that he would not stop until he destroys Hamas and that there are four battalions of Hamas fighters among the civilians. In response to Trump’s announcements that he would suspend military aid to Ukraine, Zelensky responded by dismissing the current chief of the army, General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who had a more realistic assessment of Ukraine’s military capabilities than the president. He replaced him with the Moscow-educated war hawk Oleksandr Syrskii, thus sending a message that he intends to fight – to victory.

I believe that both Netanyahu and Zelensky know that this final victory is not possible. But they are also positioning themselves politically for talks about a forced ceasefire and addressing their voter base. They too will go to elections after the ceasefire and the freezing of the war. However, while it is unknown in America who will be in the White House after the elections, in Israel and Ukraine, it seems likely that both Netanyahu and Zelensky will become former leaders. It is known that for every future American president, both Israel and Ukraine will be countries of strategic interest. Even if he does not know or no longer remembers exactly where these countries are located.