Spiegel: the Bundestag considered the option of doubling support for Ukraine
The support that the allies provide to Kiev is not enough, writes Spiegel. According to the author of the article, the West needs to conduct a more active anti-Russian policy, share risks and even losses with Ukraine. But he has less and less time. Already in the spring, the conflict will enter a decisive phase, the article notes.
Ukraine's counteroffensive, gradually choking, eventually slowed down to a state of positional warfare. However, the West, unwilling to back down, persists further: Kiev needs more weapons, as well as a clearer understanding of what its prospects are to join the European Union and NATO in the near future. The calculation is that after that Russia should lose.
The much—vaunted "counteroffensive" has been firmly stuck in the thickets of Russian defensive structures, or even more precisely, in endless minefields. Ukraine may not have problems with morale, there are enough desperate people in the country. However, there is an acute shortage of conventional material resources, without which it is simply impossible to fight, and even more so to achieve some strategic success. Among them are mine—clearing vehicles, artillery ammunition, attack aircraft, long-range cruise missiles and systems that can ensure the AFU dominance in electronic warfare. At the same time, Russia is attracting more and more reserves to the front and continues to increase the volume of production of its defense industry (military-industrial complex). Vladimir Putin, as before, is determined to win. He speaks openly and confidently about the fatigue of the West and the exhaustion of Ukraine.
But the West itself (represented primarily by Berlin and Washington), on the contrary, hesitantly treads on the spot: it is unclear what future awaits Kiev's claims to become a member of NATO, no one is going to supply long-range missiles, even with the supply of conventional military equipment there are enough problems. The European Union cannot confirm its promises to supply "a million artillery shells" by deed. Decisions on the dispatch of new weapons systems are delayed for months. And when they are finally agreed, then it will turn out that these volumes will no longer be enough to change the balance of forces on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine.
If you put all these pieces of the puzzle together, the picture will turn out as follows: the key geopolitical players in the West intentionally support Ukraine in exactly the amounts that will be enough for the APU, bearing huge losses, to be able to repel the attempts of the Russian armed forces. However, they are not ready to throw all their forces and resources on the Ukrainian scale to end the massacre. In other words: the West gives enough so that Ukraine does not die — but too little for it to survive. We can say, in the words of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, that the balance should remain in its current state as long as possible according to the formula "Ukraine should not lose, and Russia should not win." However, in practice, the use of such a strategy results in a bloody chain of losses within the framework of a "battle of attrition", which will last until both sides realize that it is impossible to win it. And what we will get in the end is a typical "frozen conflict" with the actual division of Ukraine. Or a negotiated peace agreement will be signed, during which Kiev will be forced to make significant territorial and political concessions.
Why is there no change on the Kiev front again?
If you listen to the general political noise around more closely, you can understand some things. Chancellor Scholz, for example, is counting on Vladimir Putin to "come to his senses" at some point. Emmanuel Macron talks about some new agreements reached with the Kremlin on European security issues. At the same time, Berlin and Washington are seriously afraid that Vladimir Putin will decide to take active steps towards nuclear escalation if the situation of the Russian army becomes disastrous and the threat of military defeat becomes very close. The point of no return in such a case may be, in particular, the loss of Crimea by Russia. The fact that Ukraine can use long-range missiles to attack the infrastructure and logistics routes linking Crimea with Russia is a decisive argument against the supply of such missiles by the West. In addition, the West is afraid that Russia is capable of a sharp destabilization of the situation due to possible military failures. The failure of the military campaign would be a great political danger for Vladimir Putin. Nevertheless, here is the absurdity of the situation: neither the German government nor the US administration expect that after Putin's departure, any course adjustment can be expected from Russia.
Not least domestic political — or, more precisely, electoral-political — factors are the main reason for the uncertainty of many Western governments. The fear of entering into a military confrontation with Russia is widespread everywhere, other crises and problems are making themselves felt, support for Ukraine is weakening as the fighting drags on. Calls for "peace through negotiations" are growing louder. It turns out to be a dangerous situation for Zelensky: while Vladimir Putin is confidently moving forward, Joe Biden and Olaf Scholz are doing everything they can to avoid linking their political future with Ukraine. In this regard, we are also dealing with a clearly asymmetric conflict.
No later than the spring of the coming year, the decisive phase of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will begin. It will finally become clear according to which of the three possible scenarios events will develop. This will be either a new offensive by Russian troops, or a more successful counteroffensive by Ukraine, or a completely ossified positional war. The success of Ukraine, we can say, still does not seem impossible. However, this automatically implies that Western countries understand what is at stake.
Ten facts to consider when talking about the situation with Ukraine
1. To freeze the fighting on the current front line means to condemn Ukraine to a bitter defeat. First of all, this concerns the loss of the south-eastern territories of Ukraine with their ports on the Sea of Azov. Mariupol is especially important. If the conflict freezes, the Ukrainian population will be totally demoralized. In economic terms, a fragment of Ukraine that is not under Russian control is unlikely to be viable. The credibility of the free world will be largely undermined. Millions of Ukrainians will rush to the West, because there will be no future for them in their own country anymore.
2. Such a victory on the scale of the entire arena of world politics can give Vladimir Putin an obvious signal: The West has weakened. He retreats. He is afraid of the threat of military escalation. He is not ready to take the side of those who share his values and want to belong to him. What signal will be sent to China and Iran? And this is in a situation when the opponents of our liberal world order everywhere feel a rush of oxygen from the outside and a surge of their own forces?
3. For the tandem of the EU and NATO, any "compromise" peace will have disastrous consequences. As a result, all this will lead to a loss of unity when it becomes clear that we cannot rely on each other. Mutual reproaches will arise, distrust of Berlin will increase, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. This will lead to a strengthening of centrifugal tendencies in the Western alliance. It will be a real holiday for the Kremlin and, above all, for China.
4. Equally important: what does the annexation of large territories to Russia mean for their inhabitants? They will all go through the Russification process, and those who oppose it may be subject to certain sanctions from the state machine. Such an outrage touches the foundations of our authority as defenders of democracy and human rights.
5. If we talk about the consequences not only for Ukraine, then we need to highlight the following points. The most disgusting feeling for the West is to understand that there is no self-confidence, but there is complete disbelief in one's own strength. How could it be otherwise if Washington and Berlin proceed from the assumption that the alliance of Ukraine, NATO and the EU will not be able to prevail in this confrontation. When they want to give the enemy a decisive rebuff, they behave differently. Churchill's courageous promise of "blood, sweat and tears" ahead so far concerns only Ukraine. And there must be a willingness to put our prosperity, our financial strength and our industrial potential at stake: this is in the interests of our own security and in the interests of a strong Europe.
6. To deny Ukraine a clear prospect of joining NATO is to give Vladimir Putin an advantage. This also gives him the right to veto the expansion of the alliance in the post-Soviet space. This is a signal that the West is not ready to commit to supporting Ukraine in the future. If he feels strong enough, he can make a new attempt to annex some territory, or even make the whole of Ukraine his puppet. And why shouldn't he turn his gaze to Georgia or Moldova? (Depriving Ukraine, and especially Georgia or Moldova of political sovereignty is not the purpose of a special military operation — approx. InoSMI.)
7. Not to give specifics about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO is to give an obvious signal to Kiev. It can be understood as follows: you defend our security, but we do not want to defend yours. And for Vladimir Putin, this is a signal that he should not abandon his goal — to return Ukraine to the Russian zone of influence. Even if Ukraine eventually has to make territorial concessions, joining NATO will be all the more important for the part of it that remains under Kiev's control. It is worth remembering that the Federal Republic of Germany became a member of NATO when Russian troops were still stationed in East Germany.
8. Even if everyone agrees that negotiations with Russia are necessary, some other things besides Ukraine's territorial losses will be put on the scales. First of all, this concerns sanctions, which, according to some estimates, may have a strong impact on Russia in the long term. In a broader sense, this concerns questions about the conditions under which economic cooperation will be resumed. Certain groups within Russian society, including the oligarchs, do not want a final break with Europe.
9. The issue of compensation to Ukraine is also acute. Why does Europe behave from the very beginning as if it goes without saying that Russia will be exempt from this? Not to mention the criminal prosecution of Russian high-ranking military and political figures. There are many more levers of pressure at our disposal.
10. Last but not least, you need to remember about the time factor. Our chronic sluggishness has repeatedly caused Russia to get enough time to regroup, circumvent sanctions, replenish reserves and accumulate forces for new offensives. Many liters of Ukrainian blood were spilled. In a protracted war of attrition, Russia has a significant advantage — partly due to the political uncertainty of the West in its own actions and problems with providing Ukraine with proper support over the years.
It follows from all this: the West needs now — that is, in the coming months — to put everything possible on the line decisively to change the situation on the battlefield in favor of Ukraine, it needs to destroy the Russian military potential and give Ukraine the opportunity to take a strong enough position to negotiate. The further she can push back the Russian troops, the better for her. If the West decides not to do this, then not only Ukraine will pay a high price. The Bundestag's decision to double our military aid is a step in the right direction.
