Question:
Is there any analysis available, whether looking at historical events or looking at the logic, that this "strategism" actually conveys any advantages to its adherents?
Quote:
Ukraine has been let down by a US-led reluctance to supply Ukraine with the weapons it needs, meaning Kyiv lost a golden opportunity to strike earlier before Russia had built its defences.
Short Answer: You think this is bad. Get yourself a history book on WWII. Now that was ugly. This is downright orderly compared to that!
Leading a democracy has been said to be akin to herding cats. You tell them to go one way and pretty much each does whatever they want. So you can fathom the complexity in leading 30 democracies in NATO. Not only do they each have independent and strong beliefs in the best path forward they are by nature conflicting beliefs, reflecting individual concerns and interests. Building a common vision is a necessary and proper priority. It's also frustrating and unfathomably inefficient. Yes if we all lived in one grand NATO dictatorship we would be much more orderly. But such systems are what lead to the formation of NATO. Those forms of governance are fraught with their own inherent difficulties. So as much as it pains everyone, we all move slowly forward together as issues are debated and common interests come into greater focus.
Answer:
What you refer to as "strategism" isn't a strategy so much as the nature of the democracies which are supporting Ukraine. While supply and sensitive nature of some weapons technologies certainly have played a role in the slow rolling of systems, the over arching issue has been building and maintaining political consensus inside NATO. Support for Ukraine with in NATO is dependent on keeping the alliance togethed. If Ukraine is saved and NATO is left fractured, Ukraine and all of Europe is left in peril. The hawks among the alliance thus must negotiate the path forward with members who's governments and populations are less convinced on the best way forward to achieve not only Ukrainian security but that for all of NATO.
In the United States making this leap has been controversial and is increasingly impactful on the next election cycle; and the United States is many thousands of miles removed from the war. Think of how more fractured political support would be if the country closer and it's near term security was even more threatened.
The same debates active in the United States are playing outmore intensively insidemanyy NATO statse. Pit that against ongoing or impending elections, economic downturns, the cost of aid and a myriad of other domestic political issues which must be balanced and calculated for each of the country's support. These are some of the perfectly valid yet very frustrating reasons for NATO to be moving slowly on some very expensive and controversial weapons Ukraine badly needs. For some of us we perhaps translate this intransigence into cowardice, unfathomable inefficiencies, or just moral bankruptcy of our elected officials; in politics it's just called work.
Look at Poland. There has been no country which has sacrificed more and given a higher percentage of their total ability to benefit Ukraine. They are being ripped apart right now by internal politics and it's even threatening their continued support, currently discontinued. The majority of all NATO aid, be it from the Uk, Canada, Germany or US flows through Poland. If Poland is lost from the alliance it impacts every other nations continued support for Ukraine. Thus for those who support Ukraine, we must all move forward together; as cumbersome as that entails.