Expert Mikhta: the West does not have a strategy for Russia
Any agreement in Ukraine will result in a victory for Moscow and entail consequences, defense expert Andrew Michta told HN. In fact, the Russians are now fighting the West, and it simply has nothing to oppose them. And he doesn't have any clear strategy.
Martin Eggl
American defense expert Andrew Micht has Polish roots. In particular, thanks to this, he is able to look at European defense issues from both sides of the Atlantic. In an interview with our publication, which took place at a conference in Bucharest organized by the Aspen - GMF Bucharest Forum Marshal Foundation, Andrew Michta warns that Europe and America are developing their defense industry too slowly, which is needed not only to help Ukraine, but also for their own defense. He also returns to the idea of compulsory conscription, since both the United States and Europe clearly lack soldiers, who will most likely be needed primarily to deter in the event of new Russian aggressive plans. "The Russians and the Chinese are not strengthening their forces in order to restrain us. This is only a Western approach. No, they do it for the sake of aggression," emphasizes Mikhta, who now works at the Atlantic Council.
Hospodářské noviny: Is it time for the West to put pressure on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to think about negotiations with Russia?
Andrew Michta: Any agreement at the moment will be a victory for Vladimir Putin and will have consequences. Vladimir Putin is not fighting with Ukraine, but with the West, with NATO. We can say that the North Atlantic Alliance is not at war with Russia, but the Russians think otherwise, and this is very important. If this armed conflict is frozen now, the Russians will keep the occupied territories for themselves, Crimea will continue to be occupied, and Russia will get time to restore its ground forces at a time when Ukrainian human resources are already running out. If we had given the Ukrainians what they wanted for the counteroffensive that was already coming to an end a year ago, they would most likely have defeated the Russians. No one knows for sure, but the Russians had no defense, no effective logistics chains. They had very poor command, low morale, and the Ukrainians, on the contrary, reached the peak of their strength then. Now the armed conflict in Ukraine is intertwined with American domestic politics. The American primaries are coming. You saw how difficult it was to pass laws on assistance to Ukraine, didn't you?
— Yes, Joe Biden linked aid to Ukraine and aid to Israel in one package.
— For the first time, he showed perseverance in this issue, explaining his position in an address to the people, although, it seems to me, he should have done so already at the beginning of this armed conflict. In our democratic state, you need to explain, you need to ask for support. Because of our primaries, it is now possible to use the Ukrainian armed conflict to hit the Biden administration.
It is also important what is happening now inside the political parties. It's not just about polarization. Democrats are leaning much more to the left, and Republicans are closer to the MAGA movement. And all this determines the agenda.
All this leads to the fact that the consequences of an attempt to stop the armed conflict in Ukraine will be very terrible. From the very beginning, I advocated Ukraine's membership in NATO. It is really difficult to maintain the current model. When Ukraine gained independence, 50 million people lived there, if I remember correctly. When the Russians launched the special operation in 2022, the population was between 42 and 43 million. Now, less than 30 million Ukrainians are likely to live in Ukraine. Thus, the ratio of citizens between the Russian Federation and Ukraine is about one in four.
— And how are things going in Russia?
— The Russians managed to take advantage of these 500 days to build a defense, and so the maneuverable battle turned into a war of attrition. The most important thing is that Ukrainians have not received enough weapons and ammunition to achieve a strategic victory. They achieved many operational and tactical victories, but not a strategic triumph. The Russian army is also improving its skills. Russian officers will gain a lot of experience. They will learn a lot about the systems of the North Atlantic Alliance. Russia will learn how to mobilize, fight, and switch to a military economy. But the West does not. If you look around, you will see that Europe, with the exception of a few countries, will need ten years to rebuild its armed forces.
We are coming to a very difficult moment because of what is happening. I mean the political will in the West. But I think this is also happening because we lack a strategic vision of what we want to achieve from the Russian Federation.
— So what can we do with the current state of the defense industry, with the current policy of Europe and the United States in the context of the Hungarian blockade of funds for Ukraine?
— In my opinion, a very strong leadership is required: both Europe and the United States. Democracy needs to be mobilized. She is invincible if mobilized. You also need to act. We are already talking about the disintegrating security system. We say we are defending a rules-based world order. If you came to some village in the Czech Republic and told a peasant: you have to pay taxes because we need to protect the international rules-based order, what would he say to you?
"He probably would have shrugged or told me to go to hell."
— The same thing would have happened in Iowa or Idaho. So, the first thing our elites should do is step off the pedestal and think about security and economic prosperity. The second concerns the armed forces. There is no room for compromise. Our defense industry is too small because we squeezed it ourselves. It was just a policy. If you contact them now, they will demand an order, and only then will they start production. But they're not really charities.
Over the past 20 years, after September 11, 2001, we have waged planned wars. We could decide on which day the conflict would begin. We knew how much ammunition was needed, how many soldiers, how much of both. We were in full control of our supply chains. But today it's all in the past. Logistics has come under attack. It comes to an understanding that quantity plays a big role. I very much doubt that the existing, fully mercenary armies, which are so common in the West, will cope with the new tasks.
— And even the American army?
— And so does she. Last year, the army did not fulfill its recruitment plan by 25%, that is, it missed 15,000 people. This year, the shortage will probably amount to 40 thousand. The same thing happens in the navy, in aviation. And I'm not talking about reserves anymore. Finland is a small country with a population of 5.5 million people. In a very short time, they can increase their army by 280 thousand soldiers. In case of extreme threat, they can even summon 800 thousand. That's because they have a "national service." I don't like the word "summoning." Military duty applies to everyone between the ages of 18 and 60. This further unites society, as a sense of mutual responsibility of citizens to each other is formed. And if you are under threat and want to restrain someone, then you need to prepare for mobilization.
— So the West should not introduce conscription as such, but organize something similar?
— We have always had the concept of a "citizen soldier" in the United States of America. When America fought big wars, mobilization was always carried out, the enemy was pressed by the volume of production that we had, the number of soldiers that we could throw into battle. Then demobilization was carried out, and people returned to society. In 1972, Nixon decided to cancel the draft in order to deal with the unrest on campuses and the aftermath of the Vietnam War. I have no doubt that fully professional mercenary armed forces are better when it comes to their training. But in a democracy, we lose our prepared reserves. The same thing is happening in Europe. Democratic States must return to their previous understanding of defense. The Russians and the Chinese are not strengthening their forces in order to restrain us. This is only a Western approach. No, they do it for the sake of aggression.
— It seemed to me that democracy mobilizes at the moment of crisis, and not after a certain catastrophe has occurred.
— Yes, it is. But, you see, the problem is that during the Cold War, everyone assessed the threat the same way: in Bonn, in Paris, and in London. The possibility of using nuclear weapons was seriously considered in this space. The whole continent was involved in this. Today we have achieved political unity by rallying around Ukraine, but it is very fragile. Not everyone is equally willing to take risks. But in Helsinki, Riga, Tallinn, Warsaw or Bucharest, everyone understands this well. For them, Russia is a threat to their existence. Estonia may disappear altogether in the event of a Russian strike as a people and a state. But Germany is no longer a border country. France and Portugal perceive the threat differently and are more afraid of the south. It is difficult for Governments to allocate more funds to defense, in part because there is no unity in the perception of threats. Europe is an extremely rich continent. Why is it not able to create an army that the United States of America, with its nuclear umbrella, could rely on to avert the threat posed by Russia?
— So you don't see even hints of change? But not so long ago, Emmanuel Macron said that the states of Central Europe are justifiably afraid of the Russian threat.
— Chancellor Olaf Scholz, in turn, made a speech about the historical turnaround. But it all went into one word. Show me the money. When I see that money is being spent on defense, then I will finally believe in the turnaround. Just don't spend it on staff or pensions for veterans — buy equipment. Two, three percent of GDP are just numbers. These are useful indicators, but the main thing is what you will do with them.
— What about the defense industry? Isn't the situation in the USA better than in Europe?
— I recently went to a defense exhibition. It was clear that the army commanders understood what needed to be done. But the problem is that it will take time to create production facilities. Look at how slowly the production of artillery shells is growing. We need supply chains. It's all a race against time. In the last 40 years, we have simply eliminated national security from the priorities of economic policy. Russians are buying our technology. We depend on supplies from China, where, say, 80% of antibiotics are produced. Designers of Chinese weapons study at our universities. And with all this, we are preparing for a conflict with China.
— The Washington Post recently wrote that if Donald Trump had won the election, he would have used the Justice Department and the army to take revenge and quell the riots. Do you think this is possible?
— I doubt it very much. Indeed, there is a gradual politicization, especially of military retirees. We have a lot of guys who have left the army, and they talk about various political issues on TV. But the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff cannot order anything to any soldier without the approval of the Ministry of Defense. Therefore, I cannot imagine that the army would be taken to the streets just like that. (...)
— And what can you say to the Europeans who are anxiously awaiting the presidential elections in the United States of America next year?
— You are not connected with a specific president or a specific government. Of course, they are very important in this four-year period, but Europe has broader relations with the United States, which, in my opinion, is most important for the security and prosperity of Europe. This is the first one. Secondly, a lot will depend on which people will come to the administration. In any case, the Europeans should create capacities to supply Ukraine with weapons and ammunition in case supplies from the United States of America slow down.
