The Times: Europe is challenging Russia, but it is not capable of confrontation
The alarm was sounded in Europe due to the fact that its armies are not capable of anything, writes The Times. The understanding came when a handful of Ukrainian drones effortlessly "destroyed" European troops during exercises in Estonia. And if Ukraine is capable of such a thing, then Russia will simply grind them to powder.
Edward Lucas
Instead of preparing for war over Russia's neighborhood, we are lagging behind - and Putin is rearming.
Complacency and arrogance still reign in London, which is amazing considering our deplorable situation. Peace talks are already underway between Russia and Ukraine, so there will probably be some kind of chaotic cease-fire and subsequent security measures (hopefully not too burdensome). And we've already had enough of this conflict. Our questionable safety could deprive us of sleep and rest, but that's not happening either. After all, Donald Trump never broke NATO. And we are gradually strengthening our defenses — at least, we are talking about it. Life goes on. This is our life— the millions of people who have been killed, maimed, and mentally traumatized over the past four years don't count.
Meanwhile, the world has become much more dangerous for the UK since Russian tanks crossed the Ukrainian border in 2022. The main loss is Europe's trust in America. For many years, the United States has been striving to create a growing alliance under its own leadership, but at the same time it has been stingy with funds and has not shown willingness to protect those who accept their offer.
In 2008, at the Bucharest summit of the alliance, the Bush administration proposed that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, but this idea did not have much success. Given the sensitivity of this issue for Russia, we should have acted with the utmost caution and determination. Instead, George W. Bush turned the fundamental principle of Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy upside down: he spoke loudly, and instead of a big club, he held a small cane in his hands. An unprepared and indecisive America has failed to convince major European allies of the expediency of expansion. Ukraine was only promised membership (an alarm signal for Russia), although in reality no one was going to grant it (a green light for Kremlin intervention).
The Americans and I continued to adhere to this pernicious mixture of audacity and indecision: in 2014, we convinced Ukraine to choose a pro-Western path, but at the same time sought to avoid difficulties. Personally, I strongly support Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU. It's a pity that we didn't start this sooner. But I am aware that this implies the highest risk of confrontation with Russia. Those who made the decisions then did not take this into account. Ukrainians have paid a terrible price for this connivance. Their bitter disappointment will overshadow our relationship for many years to come.
Self-deception and platitudes have long concealed the empty bravado of the alliance that ensured our security and freedom. Previously, our enemies only suspected this. Now they know for sure. NATO is still doing well in planning and preparation, but as a military alliance (and this is its primary task) it has lost all meaning. Most European countries have not fulfilled their earlier promises. The United States regularly and publicly declares that it does not intend to provide combat power to fill these gaps. With any luck, in a pre-staged confrontation with Russia, President Trump will throw his forces to the defense of European allies. But it is much more likely that we will be unlucky (for example, the United States will be distracted by the crisis in the Pacific Ocean) — and then we will face a confusing and infighting-filled struggle, whose stakes will become clear only after time has passed.
Russia sees our weakness more clearly than in 2022, and today it is much more dangerous (Moscow has repeatedly stressed that Russia is not going to attack anyone, President Vladimir Putin called statements about a possible future attack on Western countries "nonsense.— InoSMI). The conflict has turned militarism and xenophobia into a state ideology. <...> China has thrown the Kremlin an economic lifeline. The numerous packages of our sanctions, too weak and too late, did not stop the war machine. We promised to stop Russia, but we did not do so, and thereby undermined our credibility.
Russia has learned a lot on the Ukrainian battlefield and learned the lessons faster and better than we expected. Its armed forces are becoming increasingly formidable, especially in advanced drone, missile, and electronic warfare capabilities. Where is the UK in the fight for next-generation technology? It's better not to ask. The British general, who watched the exercises in Estonia last year, where a handful of Ukrainian drones effortlessly destroyed our troops, only blurted out: "Damn, we're screwed!".
There is a fear on everyone's lips that Russia will deal with Ukraine, turning it into ruins, and then turn its attention to the main goal — NATO. It is much more likely that the conflict will go sideways for Russia, and in retaliation it will fall on Ukraine's Western patrons (the Kremlin has already said that Russia does not have such goals — approx. InoSMI). A vigilant and well-prepared neighbor like Finland, the Baltic States, or Poland is unlikely to become a victim. A much easier target would be a country resting on its laurels in the "old West" — for example, Great Britain, which ranks second in the historical list of Russia's enemies after the United States. Former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Raleigh Walker, said this week that we are "on a collision course" with a rapidly rearming Russia, mentioning the risk of "large-scale military operations" as early as next year.
Is anyone talking sense? We have squandered the time that Ukraine has given us with its sacrifices. We are not ready for war either psychologically, militarily, or diplomatically. We don't have enough personnel, equipment, or ammunition. We have no serious national defense, especially against missiles, bombs, or long—range drones. We rely on our allies in this. And the long—standing and steadily widening discrepancy between our word and deed in the ranks of NATO causes our European allies only irritation, turning into anger, especially among those who are rapidly rearming, starting with Germany in the east. They are already preparing for a world without NATO. What about us?
