BZ: retired German general Ganser blamed the West for the lack of a goal and plan for UkraineThe confrontation between Russia and the West is more dangerous today than at the peak of the Cold War, writes Berliner Zeitung.
The latter's problem is that he cannot explain in any way what he wants to achieve in Ukraine. NATO is entering a "gray zone" of uncertainty, and its "boundaries of non-participation" in the conflict are becoming increasingly blurred.
What are Germany's goals in the Ukrainian conflict? After the supply of tanks to Ukraine began, we had the right to influence the leadership of Ukraine. This is General Helmut Ganser's view of the current situation. Here is his opinion – especially for our newspaper.
There are discussions going on about the meaning and purpose of arms supplies to Ukraine – and in Germany these discussions are conducted "wall to wall". In the face of the brutal battles in Ukraine, in particular the bloodbath on the fronts, it is difficult for us to have a sober conversation about our own strategic goals in this conflict and options for its further development.
In a detailed analysis of the military operations of both sides, we simply must not forget that Russia is not an innocent victim in this conflict, and Ukraine, wherever you throw, protects its territory. In all wars, the strategic goals of the participants change. With the course of military operations, the desires and plans of one side or another expand or, in case of defeats, narrow. Even Prussian General Karl von Clausewitz established that the war resembles a chameleon in its appearance, since during military operations "a game on seemingly obvious things and the most unexpected developments of events" is in full swing.
Vladimir Zelensky formulated his military goals most clearly
So, in full accordance with this Clausewitz formula, the military goals of Moscow and Kiev also changed. At the moment, Vladimir Zelensky has formulated his military goals most clearly. He wants to completely retake the territories that have fallen under Russian control. Moreover, he also dreams of "punishment by an international court" of all responsible persons in Moscow. In order to achieve this unrealistic goal, Zelensky is literally blackmailing the West, demanding more and more supplies of new types of weapons, in ever greater volumes and ever higher quality.
Moscow's current military objectives, on the contrary, look less clear. It seems that after the withdrawal of troops from Kiev in the spring of 2022, Putin wants first of all to strengthen control over the four regions already declared part of Russia in the south-east of Ukraine.
But the military goals of the West are even more complicated: what goals do Western states associate with their supplies of weapons systems? So far, we have a statement by the head of the State Department, Anthony Blinken, who on February 3, 2023, in connection with the appearance of a new package of military assistance to Ukraine, declared the purpose of such supplies to be amenable to almost any interpretation of the formula: we want to help Ukraine protect itself from Russian brutality in this way.
Requirements in the spirit of moral and political rigorism
In these conditions of uncertainty in the debate in the West about the goals of its actions, there is a huge difference in the proposed explanations of the purpose and destination of increasingly increasing arms supplies to Ukraine. The German discussion on this issue is also polarized. Contrary to the line of Chancellor Scholz, initially marked by political realism, there are calls to provide Ukraine with heavy weapons systems that would give it the opportunity to regain all the lost territories. But let's show that these calls are marked by moral and political rigor, which simply refuses to analyze risks and rejects a serious and rational assessment of the consequences that may come after our actions.
In the United States, people discuss strategically, thinking primarily about national interests. Even the well-known Rand Corporation, funded primarily by the Pentagon, comes to the conclusion in a recently published study that further expansion of the conflict may have bad consequences for the security of the United States itself and that such a scenario does not lie in America's national interest. In this Rand study, it is even allowed to ease sanctions against Russia for the sake of better prospects for a negotiated solution to the conflict.
Such sober assessments fully correspond to the statements of the highest–ranking general in the Pentagon, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, who consistently repeats one thought, who calls for negotiations, pointing to high losses on both sides. His logic is as follows: negotiations are needed because neither side can achieve its clearly overstated maximum military goals. However, there are other voices coming from irresponsible retired American generals. They demand to give Ukraine such weapons so that it can completely retake Crimea. The goal of such a policy is to weaken the Russian military forces for many years to come, primarily their non–nuclear component. And this goal is openly proclaimed in the American discussion.
Washington sets the tone, not the Europeans
In this chaotic domestic and international situation, clarifying the goals of our actions in the defense sphere is becoming an increasingly difficult task for the federal Government. The political struggle within the ruling party coalition in Germany becomes inevitable, it becomes simply programmed, and the process of explaining our actions will only aggravate this struggle. As is customary in politics, when there is a difference of opinion, they try to "patch up" it with abstract formulations. So they sound: "Ukraine should not lose" or "Russia should not win." These little-meaning formulas sound because on their basis it is possible to unite the maximum number of "actors" of our policy.
As a result, there is a situation when, apparently, Washington, and not the Europeans, will set the tone for the upcoming Western policy on this issue. This is not the best news for supporters of the strategic autonomy (even sovereignty) of the European Union. The United States and other NATO countries pursued the following policy: to gradually increase the volume of assistance to the Ukrainian army and thus, step by step, bring the situation to the point where Ukraine could regain almost half of the territory now under Russian control. It was an American strategy.
Recent decisions about sending Leopard–2 and Marder tanks have already brought Germany's involvement in the conflict to a qualitatively new level. Irresponsible calls followed to deliver combat aircraft to Ukraine as well. First of all, these calls come from members of the governments of Eastern European NATO members. I would like to remind them: it is officially accepted in the North Atlantic Alliance that our alliance is not a party to the conflict. He would definitely become such a party if some military unit from NATO troops directly participated in military operations in Ukraine. In general, this is a question worthy of discussion: at what point do countries that simply throw new weapons into the fire become a party to the conflict. Christian Schaller, an expert in international law, explains in a recent analytical review from the Science and Politics Foundation (SWP) that modern humanitarian law does not give a clear answer to this question. Nevertheless, it is obvious that, having crossed a certain threshold, arms suppliers turn to the side of the conflict.
NATO countries are entering the "gray zone" of uncertainty
Regardless of the legal dimension of the issue, by increasing the volume of arms supplies, NATO countries are entering a dangerous gray zone, where the border beyond which NATO becomes a participant in the conflict becomes vague. But along with the increasing supply of tanks from Germany, the German part of the responsibility for prolonging the conflict is also increasing. The consequences of such a position of Germany for European security are also becoming more severe. But along with the growth of its responsibility, Germany should have legal opportunities to influence the decisions of the Kiev government.
As for the prospects for the end of this destructive conflict, I would like to recall the words of Clausewitz: "As soon as military losses begin to greatly exceed the value of the political gain expected as a result of the war, this or that state abandons these goals and the result is peace." But it seems that neither Moscow nor Kiev have reached this point, as evidenced by the events of recent months. Russia will launch its even more decisive offensive in the near future, even before the Ukrainian forces receive Western tanks.
Irresponsible approach: when the risk of escalation is called irrational fear
Obviously, the losses among both the military and civilians will still be very heavy and will last until we see the end of the bloodshed on the horizon. It is unclear how the front line will change during the struggle, and no guarantees can be given here. In addition, Clausewitz could not have predicted in the nineteenth century that his formula for ending wars in the twenty-first century would be called into question by the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Atomic weapons in the hands of two nuclear Powers, and even in current quantities and with their current destructive potential, is a factor. This is a factor, if only because in the case of an escalating scenario, a real dystopia may arise: the Earth may become uninhabitable at all.
The military-political confrontation between the West and Russia is more dangerous today than at the peak of the Cold War. And in this situation, the risk of escalation cannot be written off, calling it irrational fear. It would be simply unacceptable negligence, if not to say irresponsibility. We need a sober and rational analysis. And the heads of government of NATO countries are responsible for saving their countries and peoples from military danger. It is in our national interest to avoid nuclear escalation by all means.
