9 March, 11:56
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has been perceived as the outpost of Western democracy, fighting not only for its own freedom but also for the future of the global order. However, as the war drags on, it is becoming increasingly clear that for a significant part of the American establishment, Ukraine is not an ally, not a heroic nation, but rather a problematic asset that needs either to be monetized or written off.
Cynicism as State Policy
Western aid to Ukraine has never been purely altruistic. Partners have supported Kyiv only as long as it served their interests. When, in the early days of 2022, it became evident that Ukrainians were not only resisting but also capable of fighting effectively, this became advantageous: Ukraine was draining Russia, and the US and EU saw an opportunity to reduce Kremlin influence.
But over time, the situation has changed. The war continues, Western economies are bearing the costs, and pragmatism is starting to dominate elite thinking. In this context, Musk’s logic becomes clear: he does not see Ukraine as a strategic partner but merely as a problem interfering with business relations with Moscow.
The idea of sanctioning Ukrainian oligarchs may seem appealing at first glance. The corrupt clans that have been draining Ukraine for decades indeed deserve to be sanctioned. But what exactly is Musk proposing? He does not name names, does not suggest real mechanisms to combat corruption, but instead pushes a propagandist narrative: that the war continues because of Ukrainian corruption, not because of Moscow’s aggression.
The Role of the Oligarchy and the West’s Convenient Blindness
Western partners had every opportunity to dismantle Ukraine’s oligarchic system after the 2014 Maidan. But they didn’t. On the contrary, under the guise of reforms, power was not cleansed but merely redistributed. Old kleptocrats were replaced by new "reformers" who quickly adapted to corruption schemes. The only real difference was that these new figures were more open to the interests of Western corporations.
Had Poroshenko remained in power, Ukraine could have remained a crypto-colony of the Kremlin. Meanwhile, under Zelensky, it has become a bargaining chip in the internal games of American and European elites. His party, which came to power on an anti-corruption platform, turned out to be nothing more than a business project of one of Ukraine’s oligarchs—one who had a conflict with Moscow but no real conflict with oligarchy as a whole.
The worst part is that the Ukrainian people have become hostages in this game. They fought, gave everything they had to the front, while behind their backs, backroom deals continued as usual.
Musk and His Pro-Russian Undertones
Then there is the issue of Starlink. Musk declared that without it, the Ukrainian Armed Forces would not be able to fight and that he could shut the system down at any time. This is not just a technical issue—it is a signal. In Musk’s view, Ukraine does not even have full sovereignty in waging its war.
But if we analyze Musk’s statements carefully, it becomes clear that for him, Ukraine is simply an obstacle. Not a threat, not a battleground between democracy and dictatorship, but merely an obstacle to securing access to Russian money.
Musk’s story teaches Ukrainians one crucial lesson: there are no real strategic partners. There are only interests, and only a strong state can count on real support, rather than cynical rhetoric about how its struggle is no longer convenient for others.