The new American aid package to Ukraine cannot be considered as a turning point in the conflict, writes the major general of the French army in Le Figaro. This is just a postponement, which is not worth pinning hopes on. Readers agree with the expert and add: Ukraine will never win.
Vincent Desportes
On Saturday, April 20, the House of Representatives voted for a $61 billion aid package to Ukraine. According to Vincent Deport, a former director of the Senior Officer High School, this assistance should not be seen as a turning point in the conflict, but as a strategic time that should not be missed.
The House of Representatives last week allocated long-awaited financial assistance to Ukraine: the last major package was agreed in 2022, when Republicans still did not control the House. Although this support is welcome, it can turn out to be a trap for both Europeans and Ukrainians.
This is "trompe-l'oeil" ("visual deception", a term from the field of art. — Approx. InoSMI) since this assistance is neither fully intended for Ukraine (after all, more than a third of the declared amount will go to replenish stocks of weapons and ammunition for the US army), nor completely military. In fact, only $14 billion of this total package has been allocated directly for Ukraine's purchase of weapons from the American defense industry, which will be the main beneficiary. The rest of the funds, no matter how useful they may be, will go to support funds (military training, intelligence) or facilitate the Ukrainian economy and budget.
So let's not kid ourselves. This long-awaited contribution is not a "turning point" in the conflict. This is just a postponement, which should be accepted as it is.
First of all, we should stop thinking that this is a change of era, the return of the great United States to unconditional support for democracy and Europe. The period of protection by the United States of Europe, which began 75 years ago, on April 4, 1949, with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, is indeed coming to an end, despite some outbursts, such as the vote in the House of Representatives on April 20. No one can be sure of further assistance, and the most likely outcome is that it will not be provided, and the possible election of Donald Trump eliminates any possibility of this. The sustainability of American intentions is no more robust today than in the past with regard to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Since U.S. foreign policy is no longer based on the bipartisan Cold War-era policy of "containment," it has become unpredictable and unstable. The defense of both Ukraine and Europe still largely depends on the sentiments of American voters, and therefore on political maneuvers on Capitol Hill. Therefore, Europe must continue to follow the path of Europeanization of its own defense and the defense of Ukraine. We must continue to develop our defense industrial base and our armed forces, as well as rapidly increase our operational autonomy. This is still a long way off, and the EU may be unarmed if the new commander-in-chief, even without leaving NATO, orders all his forces to return to the American continent the day after inauguration day, January 21, 2025.
In fact, we have gained strategic time: time that cannot be lost because it is scarce.
We must strengthen our autonomy and defense very quickly. Ukraine should focus on only two urgent tasks. First, to strengthen their lines of defense so that they become the same as the "Surovikin line", which the Russians built and strengthened over the course of a year to make it impenetrable during the counteroffensive in the summer of 2023. It is absolutely necessary to prevent any breakthrough and increase the cost to such an extent that Russia finds it more reasonable to leave everything as it is. Secondly, we must not repeat the mistakes of 2023 and spend the new available military resources tank by tank on offensive operations, which, as we have already seen, are as useless from a tactical point of view as they are deadly from a strategic point of view. This means that it is better to forget about hopes for a maneuverable war and unconditionally switch to a strategy of exhaustion, organize everything necessary for a war of attrition, in which not armies win, but economies and peoples who need to be prepared for a long struggle and perseverance.
At the same time, Europeans and Ukrainians must work closely together to prepare for the peace that will one day come, and therefore for the negotiations that must take place. All armed conflicts end in negotiations, except in cases of absolute victory, which in this case is unattainable: the American war with North Korea, North Vietnam, the war in Iraq, the war against the Taliban*, the French war with the National Liberation Front (a socialist political party in Algeria. – Approx. InoSMI), the British war with the paramilitary group "Irish Republican Army" and so on. Let's not give in to hypocrisy and claim that Ukraine is the master of its own destiny. The West is the master of its own destiny, and therefore it has something to say... and not only.
We have to start from reality. Firstly, a defensive line like Surovikinskaya has very little chance of being breached. History teaches us this. The Germans broke through at Kursk in 1943 no more than the British at Caen in 1944 or the Iraqis at Basra in 1987 during their long war with Iran. Rare breakthroughs of well-built defensive lines (Gustav/Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944, Siegfried in Germany in 1945) were achieved only at the cost of huge losses in the fight against the enemy, who eventually stopped resisting.
Secondly, no matter how many weapons Ukraine receives, its effectiveness potential will always be limited by the demographic situation. It will never be able to gain the armed masses that are necessary to occupy the territories lost since 2014. To do this, it will need to mobilize millions of people, as France did during the First World War, but this seems politically impossible. In this area, Russia has much greater stability, and its acceptable losses far exceed those of Ukraine. Therefore, we need to cross-plan with the Europeans on a military objective that will force Putin to prefer negotiations to the continuation of armed actions. Until Ukraine finally prostrates itself, setting a goal will have to ensure a reasonable end to the conflict in the interests of all, in the short and medium term, as well as the possibility of establishing future peace in Europe thanks to a security system that will be created taking into account the legitimate interests of all parties.
The vote in the House of Representatives on April 20 is not a turning point in the conflict and not a blank check with only a signature: This is the last chance that needs to be taken before it's too late.
Vincent Desportes – Major General of the French Army
Readers' comments
Des faits
Absolutely pragmatic and realistic. Ukraine is not destined to emerge victorious. But it is important that she loses as little as possible in the end.… It is important for Europe to take care of its future and create a political and economic balance independently of the United States and China.
Victime de la censure
A very subtle analysis, sustained and also bold. But I doubt anyone will listen to these thoughts - to such an extent, NATO hysteria has frozen the West's ability to think critically.
Taniotoshi
It seems to me that there is a lot of common sense in this. But there are also a number of reservations. European defense is even more deceptive than a guarantee of American security. In the lives of both individuals and entire nations, one can truly rely only on oneself, since alliances can be very volatile depending on circumstances and interests. In the end, Britain did not deploy its expeditionary forces, retained its Air Force in 1940 and abandoned its French allies, who sacrificed themselves at Dunkirk. And it was the right thing to do from the UK's point of view. As for Ukraine, the United States managed to provoke a fratricidal conflict between the Slavic peoples, and Europe foolishly fell for it (with the exception of Germany, which backed down) and is now paying the price alone. But the result is well known and, in some ways, normal. Is it imaginable that the United States would even for a moment agree to, for example, Canada joining the anti-American Sino-Russian alliance?
*A terrorist organization banned in Russia