Blog Archives

Realism disappearing down the Ukrainian maelstrom

2/3/2023

Russian Avangard nuclear missile showing up in the maelstrom vortex

When in trouble continue digging?
Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin at the Ramstein meeting on January 20: “As President Biden has said, this is a decisive decade for the world and this is a decisive moment for Ukraine's struggle to defend itself. So this Contact Group will not slow down. We're going to continue to dig deep, and based upon the progress that we've made today, I'm confident that Ukraine's partners from around the globe are determined to meet this moment.” (Emphasis added).

Kampfpanzer for Ukraine
With pressure from all sides. From Ukraine, from NATO allies from the U.S. and from Bundestag opposition and from his own partners in government Kanzler Scholz finally seems to have caved in to the demands for German Leopard “Kampfpanzer” for Ukraine. From rumours emerging from discussions between Scholz and President Biden it said that Kanzler Scholz held out against the pressure, until he could be sure that the U.S. would at least agree to send some U.S M1 Abrams main battle tanks. Evidently the Biden administration this time tried to stand back in the race to provide Ukraine with offensive weapons. Instead trying to pressure Germany into providing Ukraine with modern Western tanks. The reason for Scholz’s holding out against all the those criticizing the German reluctance to send tanks, or even allowing others to send some of their Leopards to Ukraine will have been related to memories of WW2 and the fear of being singled out for some kind of revenge by Russia.

Evoking memories of WW2
Giving the memories of German’s war in and against the Soviet Union, Scholz and large part of his own SPD party may have found it impossible to stomach that German panzers should eighty years be involved later in a fight against Russia. Involving the famed German Leopard “Kampfpanzer” against Russia in Ukraine might recall the pictures of the famed German Tiger “Kampfpanzer” against Russian tanks in Ukraine during WW2. In the third battle around Charkov (Kharkiv) in 1943 and later Kursk fought in the vain hope of stopping yhe Russian advance.

Photo showing German Tiger 1943 in Ukraine. Perhaps one of nine that may have been used by “13.(schwere) Kompanie, SS-Panzer-Regiment 1, 1. SS-Panzer-Division Leibstandarte-SS Adolf Hitler," In the Februar-Marts offensive against Charkov in 1943.

No wonder therefore that Kanzler Scholz would have insisted that sending German Leopard “Kampfpanzer” would at the very least have to be as part of coalition involving first and foremost the U.S. Avoiding the impression that it was just German Panzers sucked into the U.S. proxy war against Russia. Scholz would have been concerned that if Germany was alone in delivering of panzers, with U.S. refusion to deliver Abrams tanks, Russia might have singled out Germany for some sort of retaliation, sabotage, limited attacks or even worse, while U.S. would be standing back.

German insistence vs U.S. reluctance
According to information from unnamed insiders “Scholz last week told Biden on a phone call and U.S. lawmakers in Davos that no Leopards would make their way east unless Abrams accompanied them. In Scholz’s mind, the two were inextricably tethered.” (Politico). The U.S. had known for some time that this was important for Scholz, leading to renewed pressure upon him, while publicly arguing that U.S. M1 Abrams were not at all suitable for the proxy war in Ukraine. The U.S. even began denigrating and criticizing their own Abrams tanks, apparently intending to show how ill-considered the German demands were.
A U.S. defence Official, Colin Kahl, even argued “The Abrams tank is very complicated; it’s expensive; it’s hard to train on.” Needs jet fuel because it has a modified helicopter gas turbine, and is very thirsty. ““I think it’s about three gallons to the mile with jet fuel. It is not the easiest system to maintain. It may or may not be the right system. But we’ll continue to look at what makes sense … we should not be providing the Ukrainian systems they can’t repair, they can’t sustain, and that, over the long term, they can’t afford because it’s not helpful.”
Denigrating the Abrams tank may seem a little strange as the U.S. has no qualms selling 250 of these tanks to Poland. Well, Colin Kahl, may just have been sent as a messenger to indicate that Pentagon’s generals did not want to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

Biden and Austin caving in
Given Biden’s extreme belligerence in relation to Putin and Russia, he certainly wanted to provide Ukraine with main battle tanks, and given Scholz’s stubborn refusal to go alone, he must have changed his mind. “The president knew Ukraine needed Leopards — which are abundant across Europe and easier for the Ukrainians to use and maintain than the Abrams — on the battlefield as soon as possible. He started to lean toward sending the M1s after seeing bipartisan support for the transfer, and realizing the Germans would not budge. Ultimately, Biden decided to send American tanks after Lloyd Austin recommended providing 31 M1s, the size of a full Ukrainian army battalion.” (Politico).

Surprise after month - the synchronized announcement of Kampfpanzer for Ukraine
On January 25 the German government formally announced that they would deliver Leopard 2 Kampfpanzer to Ukraine. “Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz announced on Wednesday in the Cabinet that Germany would further strengthen its military support for Ukraine. The Bundesregierung has decided to provide Ukrainian forces with type "Leopard 2” Kampfpanzer. " This is the result of intensive consultations that took place with Germany's closest European and international partners. “This decision follows our well-known line of supporting Ukraine to the best of our ability. We are acting in a closely coordinated manner internationally,” said the Chancellor in Berlin. The goal is to quickly assemble two tank battalions with Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine. As a first step, Germany will make a company of 14 Leopard 2 A6 tanks available from stocks of the Bundeswehr plus 2 “Bergepanzer” for tank recovery. Other European partners will also hand over Leopard-2 tanks. The training of the Ukrainian crews is to begin quickly in Germany. In addition to training, the package will also include logistics, ammunition and system maintenance. It is expected that delivery of 14 Leopard 2 A6 tanks will take around 3 months.
“Germany will issue the appropriate transfer permits to partner countries that want to quickly deliver Leopard 2 tanks from their stocks to Ukraine.” (BPA Berlin, translation).
Politico seen information that “Ukrainian tank crews will undergo a six-week-training on the Leopards, in Germany which is supposed to start in early February. “This procedure should enable the Leopard 2 A6 to be taken over by Ukraine by the end of the first quarter of 2023.”

“After weeks of discussions, a larger alliance to support Ukraine with Western-style main battle tanks is emerging. In the medium and long term, more battle tanks from industrial stocks could be added, but they would first have to be refurbished.” (ARD, English translation). Rheinmetall, one of the companies involved in renovating the Leopard, had previously announced that it would be able to deliver 29 Leopard 2A4 that are been prepared for delivery to other countries as part of the German “Ringtausch” program. Those 29 Leopards could be sent to Ukraine as early as April/May, meaning that they would be ready for a spring offensive when the ground is dry. Later deliveries could include 22 older Leopard A4 from a Rheinmetall depot. They would have to refurbished and would not be ready before the end of 2023. Rheinmetall have also said that they have 88 old mothballed Leopards 1 available.

U.S. Announcement
After the German announcement the U.S. followed. In the Roosevelt Room President Biden announced the decision to send 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks to Ukraine, representing a whole battalion of Abrams tanks.
President Biden in his own words: “With spring approaching, the Ukrainian forces are working to defend the territory they hold and preparing for additional counter-offensives. To liberate their land, they need to be able to counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term. They need to improve their ability to manoeuvre in open terrain. And they need an enduring capability to deter and defend against Russian aggression over the long term.
The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the — of the military are behind me. Are — they — they’ve been deeply, deeply involved in this — this whole effort. Armored capability, as General Austin will tell you, spe- — is — has been — has been critical. And that’s why the United States has committed hundreds of armored fighting vehicles to date, including more than 500 as part of the assistance package we announced last Friday.
And today — today, I’m announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine, the equivalent of one Ukrainian battalion. Secretary Austin has recommended this step because it will enhance the Ukraine’s capacity to defend its territory and achieve its strategic objectives.
The Abrams tanks are the most capable tanks in the world. They’re also extremely complex to operate and maintain, so we’re also giving Ukraine the parts and equipment necessary to effectively sustain these tanks on the battlefield. And we begi- — we’ll begin to train the Ukrainian troops on these issues of sustainment, logistics, and maintenance as soon as possible. Delivering these tanks to the field is going to take time, time that we’ll see — we’ll use to make sure the Ukrainians are fully prepared to integrate the Abram tanks into their defenses.” (whitehouse.gov).

It is assumed that US has stock of around 4,800 M1 Abrams MBT. The Army having around 4,400, and the Marines around 400. Thousands older versions are laid up in depots.
Elsewhere we seen that NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg seem to take a leaf out Orwell’s Newspeak. Now President sems inclined to do the same, when he argued that delivery of Abrams tanks “is not an offensive threat to Russia. We are — there is no offensive threat to Russia.” Others may see it differently and we have certainly come a long way since the commitments to only provide Ukraine with light defensive weapons. Now it seems the allies are ready to go on the offensive in the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine.

Joining the fight
After the synchronized German – U.S. decision to deliver main battle tanks to Ukraine others are eager to contribute as junior partners in the coalition. In effect hiding behind the German/U.S. decision to deliver. Like Germany hiding behind U.S. announcement of deliveries of M1 Abrams MBT’s.
Here the incomplete list of different versions of Leopards in different countries:

It must be emphasized that the numbers might be misleading as many of the panzers may be in need of repair or otherwise unavailable.

Now, who else has shown willingness to deliver tanks out of their stocks of Leopards to Ukraine. According to ABC News “Twelve countries have agreed to supply Ukraine with around 100 Leopard 2 tanks if the German government gives its consent, according to a senior Ukrainian official who spoke exclusively to ABC News.” While this might be wish-full thinking on the Ukrainian side, it seems likely that a handful of countries might be willing to follow in the footsteps of Germany.
Poland had already threatened to deliver a company of 14 Leopard 2 tanks (A4/A5 versions?) without Germany giving the green light. One may wonder if that in fact forced the German/U.S. announcement. It is to be assumed that Poland would be willing to deliver many more, not the least as the country expecting deliveries of up to 250 Abram M1 tanks.
Finland seems to be pondering sending Leopards tanks. Suggesting that they could be send as part of a larger unit. “Taking one tank here and another there is not enough. There should be a powerful unit in Europe. We [Finland] are discussing the possibility of creating such a unit..., we are considering options," (President Sauli Niinistö, Ukrinform). Understandable that Finland would like to be part of a common effort. Going alone may not seem a god idea, not yet being a member of NATO.
“The Norwegian government supports the donation of tanks to Ukraine and Norway will contribute to the donation. We are in close dialogue with allies and Ukraine on how Norway can contribute in the best possible way. We are working as fast as we can to provide Ukraine with the support they need … addition to the tanks, there will also be a need for logistical-support, spare parts and training of Ukrainian personnel.” (regjeringen.no January 26). Is that 4 lepoapards or more?
"Sveriges försvarsminister Pål Jonson (M) stänger inte dörren för export av svenska stridsvagnar." (Svenska Dagbladet).
The Danish Defense Minister Jakob Ellemann-Jensen is adamant that Denmark has no "current plans" to send any of the 44 Danish Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. (dr.dk)
But members of parliament are in favour: There is no doubt that Denmark should donate its Leopard 2 tanks, Denmark’s defence spokesperson, Rasmus Jarlov of the Conservative party that is currently in the ruling coalition, said: “Denmark should definitely contribute Leopard tanks. It is crucial that Ukrainians get this capability to beat back the Russians,” he said, echoing nationalist Danish People’s Party MP Alex Ahrendtsen. (Euroactiv). A no now could easily mean a yes before the end of February, giving the earlier sing-song of no means yes.
The Netherlands is also considering delivering Leopard 2 tanks although the Cabinet has not made any decision yet.
Spain's defence minister has said: "Spain is willing, within this coordination, to work with our allies to do whatever is necessary including the sending of Leopards, training in the use of these Leopards and also to help in their maintenance and upkeep.” (Reuters).
The Czechs do not want to send Leopards to Ukraine, but that may perhaps change after the recent election.
Canada will supply Ukraine with four Leopard 2 A4 main battle tanks and Canadian Armed Forces trainers to teach Ukrainian soldiers how to operate the vehicles, … "These tanks will allow Ukraine to liberate even more of its territory and defend its people from Russia's brutal invasion. These four tanks are combat-ready and will be deployed over the coming weeks." (Defence Minister Anita Anand announced Thursday).
Greece are keeping their many Leopards at home, at least for now.
Not to be forgotten, Britain had previously promised to send 12 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine together with a host of other weapons and ammunition. On January 16 the Minister of Defence, Ben Wallace, announced the most significant package of combat power to date to accelerate Ukrainian success, including a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks with armoured recovery and repair vehicles. He also said: “Even as we gift Challenger 2 Tanks, I shall, at the same time, be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.” (gov.uk).
Challenger 2 tanks are armed with a rifled gun, not able to use the same variety of ammunition that the German designed smoothbore guns of the Leopards and Abrams can use.
Apparently, the overall aim is to make sure that Ukraine will get enough modern Western tanks to arm three battalions. That is to say around a hundred tanks to be ready in the spring and summer. Ukraine itself has a wish list or rather demand for around 300 tanks. In June 2022, Mikhail Podolyak, adviser to President Zelensky, even published an outrageous Ukrainian wish list for heavy weapons on Twitter, wanting 500 tanks.

Next fighter jets
A continuing stream of Twitter demands is likewise emanating from Ukraine’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and former ambassador to Germany Andrej Melnyk. After the German/U.S. decision to deliver tanks, he immediately repeated demands for modern fighter jets:
A day later President Zelensky expressed his gratitude for the German and U.S. decision to send modern battle tanks to Ukraine, but he also said: “It is very important that there is progress in other aspects of our defence cooperation as well. Today I spoke with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. We have to unlock the supply of long- range missiles to Ukraine, it is important for us to expand our cooperation in artillery, we have to achieve the supply of aircraft to Ukraine. And this is a dream. And this is a task. An important task for all of us.” (Ukrinform).
The wish sounding more like a demand was repeated by an advisor to the Ukrainian minister of defence. He told “The Hill” that “he was optimistic about receiving Western fighter jets such as the American F-16s, which Ukrainians have sought since early last year when Russia first invaded … Every type of weapon we request, we needed yesterday … We will do everything possible to ensure Ukraine gets fourth-generation fighter jets as soon as possible.”

And the response from the West…?
National Security Advisor John Kirby off the cuff answer when asked about the Ukrainian demands for modern fighter jets: “Can’t blame the Ukrainians for wanting more and more systems,” Kirby said. “It’s not the @irst time they’ve talked about @ighter jets, but I don’t have any announcements to make on that front.” (The Hill, January 26).
An anonymous European diplomat was recently quoted in Politico saying: “Washington has told Kyiv that supplying aircraft is a “no-go, for the moment,” … “There’s a red line there — but last summer we had a red line on the HIMARS [multiple rocket launchers], and that moved. Then it was battle tanks, and that’s moving.” Another European envoy apparently also saying the way the wind is blowing this way. No for the moment but let’s see “the discussion in two, three weeks” (Politico, January 26).
Dutch foreign minister Wopke Hoekstra said last week that the Netherlands would consider any requests to send F-16s with “an open mind” and that there were “no taboos” on military support. The Netherlands has about 40 F-16s and is in the process of phasing them out after the purchase of more advanced F-35s.(Financial Times).
Now, what about Germany with its concerns about being singled by Russia? Although having no F 16s, but a number of Eurofighter Typhoons. Kanzler Scholz‘s immediate reaction: “Scholz zieht rote Linie: Keine Kampfjets und Bodentruppen … Dass es nicht um Kampfflugzeuge geht, habe ich ja sehr früh klargestellt und mache das auch hier" … Als kurz nach Kriegsbeginn über Flugverbotszonen diskutiert worden sei, hätten er und US-Präsident Joe Biden gesagt: "Das werden wir nicht tun. Und an dieser Haltung hat sich gar nichts geändert und wird sich auch nichts ändern." (Handelsblatt, January 25).
Scholz is here referring to Biden’s earlier decision not to send Western fighter jets to Ukraine. But that was early in the war, and evidently Western decisionmakers are getting more audacious, having seen Russia reacting with no more than verbal threats of a wider war and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Scholz now has to quell voices in his own party like Saskia Eskens, who has said “das es daraul ankomme,” according to Die Welt.
Earlier there had been voices arguing for sending modern fighter aircraft to Ukraine, on January 20 Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said the Cabinet would look at such a request by Kyiv on F-16 jets with an "open mind … "no taboos" for the delivery of regular equipment, adding that the Netherlands only sends items that Ukraine asks for.” (aa.com).
“Poland's government says NATO should be bolder and if the western defence alliance decided to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Warsaw would vote in favour of that, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki told French broadcaster LCI on January 26.” (anews.com).
And thus Ukraine may get modern Western fighter jets after all, also from the U.S. Politico is referring to talks about “a contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks (Politico February 1).

ATACMS and GLSDB?
While Zelensky was grateful for the tanks we saw he wanted not only aircraft but long-range missiles. What he wants is ATACMS missiles. And they are?
“Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) are 24/7, all-weather, surface-to-surface, inertially guided missiles used to engage targets in the corps/Army area of influence.” Later versions with a range up to 300 km. At moment it still sems that the U.S. is reluctant to deliver these heavy long-range missiles.

Instead, Ukraine may soon get the GLSDB (Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb) missiles. According to SAAB the GLSDB missile “it has range of 150 km, the ability to hit targets from different angles, and a precision so high it can hit the target within a radius of one meter.” Almost about doubling the range of missiles presently used by Ukraine for their HIMARS and MLRS systems.
Both these missiles can be fired from the M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket system) and the M142 HIMARS using a special canister. Systems that Ukraine already has, but the ATACMS is a much heavier missile than the ones used for now, with longer range and a much heavier and more destructive payload. The long range would make it possible for Ukraine to strike far into the hinterland of Russian, for instance striking in Crimea and in Russia.
In May 2022 Biden had declared: “We are not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that can strike into Russia.” Pentagon is now saying: “Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,” (Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, quoted in defensenews.com, January 19).
Red lines are changing rapidly, so Ukraine may again get what it wants?

What about heavy armed drones?
In November 22 “Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov in a Nov. 2 letter requested four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones made by San Diego-based General Atomics” (timesofsandiego.com). And there are U.S. politicians are supporting the request. But until now the Biden Administration is holding out. Gray Eagle drones have “an endurance of 25 hours, speeds up to167 KTAS, can operate up to 29,000 feet, and carries 1,075 lb (488 kg) of internal and external payload. The aircraft can carry multiple payloads aloft, including Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR) with laser designation, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), communications relay, and four Hellfire missiles.”
Just what Ukraine would like to have, and they may get it after all. According to The Defense Post the U.S. Army is rumoured to consider modifying MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones to allow operations in Ukraine. Meaning removing sensitive equipment that must not fall in Russian hands.

Outright war with Russia?
One wonders if the decisionmakers, seemingly lacking a sense of history, ever take the time to contemplate what they are doing. At the moment it seems as if they spend all their time in hastily convened meetings, making even hastier decisions without really contemplating long term consequences and whose interest they are actually catering to.
Are Biden and consorts really fighting for western values? Is fighting for a corrupt Ukraine, as evidenced not least by recent examples of corruption involving apparently involving even the minister of defence, really a fight for Western values? Or is the fighting a U.S. proxy war to degrade Russia’s military potential, letting Ukraine bleed to achieve this goal. Or is Biden’s frustration that he could not persuade President Obama to support the Ukraine with weapons 2014 clouding his view today? “When Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2014, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. pressed President Barack Obama to take decisive action, and fast, to make Moscow “pay in blood and money” for its aggression. The president, a Biden aide recalled, was having none of it.” (NYT).
It is as if Western decisionmakers out to degrade Russia’s military potential, are acting in a kind of power delirium, convinced of their righteousness and giddy with power they are able to project. Willing apparently to risk a “guerre à outrance” between Russia and the West? Arguing that they will do whatever it takes for as long as it takes. In Stoltenberg like Newspeak “Weapons are – in fact – the way to peace.”
Recently the German Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock, at meeting of Council of Europe actually said "We are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other." Consternation everywhere as the official view is that we are not war with Russia. Germany immediately disavowed Baerbock, with a government speaker declaring that Germany is not at war with Russia: "Die NATO und Deutschland sind in diesem Angriffskrieg Russlands gegen die Ukraine nicht Kriegspartei", sagte die stellvertretende Regierungssprecherin Christiane Hoffmann. "Wir unterstützen die Ukraine, aber wir sind nicht Kriegspartei." (anews.com).
Denials or not, Baerbock may unintentionally have revealed that the West is actually fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. A war that is seeing a constant mission creep, forgetting earlier red lines against further involvement.
“And it seems as of last week, the Biden administration is poised to cross yet another major line, with the New York Times reporting that U.S. officials are strongly considering giving Ukraine the green light to attack Crimea, even while acknowledging the risk of nuclear retaliation that such a move would carry. Fears of such an escalation “have dimmed,” U.S. officials told the paper.” (responsiblestatecraft.org article January 23).
It certainly looks that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin was right when he argued “this is a decisive decade for the world and this is a decisive moment for Ukraine's struggle to defend itself” and said “We're going to continue to dig deep.” The West is certainly digging deeper at the moment. Warning voices are ignored or ostracized. The risk that Russia may be digging even deeper is ignored. Risk of a nuclear war is ignored.
While Western leaders seems united in their “intense passion” to punish the Russians with the help of Ukraine, there are isolated voices calling for a cooling of the passion. In the media we don’t hear these voices, they are drowned out by Western medias own enthusiastic support and encouragement for Ukraine and for the leaders who want to punish and humiliate Russia and Putin. The picture painted is black and white with no thought for long term consequences for the West or indeed for the World. Realism is out and passionate enthusiasm is in, at least for the time being.
Listening to Western decisionmakers cocksure attitude and the continued “digging” Lloyd Austin talked about, it certainly looks as if they are dismissing the risk of a nuclear war. In an interview with published in Financial Times on December 7, 2023 (which incidentally is a National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day) NATO’s Jens Stoltenberg argued: “this nuclear rhetoric from Russia, from the Russian side, especially earlier this fall, is reckless, is dangerous. And Russia must know that any use of nuclear weapons would totally change the character, the nature, of the conflict and a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought … And we send the very clear… and Allies have sent a very clear message to Russia that it will have severe consequences for Russia, and also of course that a nuclear war must never be fought.” (FT, December 7).
The risk Russia may be digging even deeper is ignored. Nuclear war is ignored with Stoltenberg arguing Putin would not dare due the terrible consequences, and others thinking that Russia’s dependence on China would mean that Putin would not dare.
By dismissing the threat of nuclear war Western leaders may in fact be raising the stakes in the war. If they deescalate, back down in order to negotiate they would be seen to give to Russia’s nuclear blackmail threats. By ignoring the risk and continuing to dig deeper by pouring more weapons into Ukraine and getting more and more directly involved, by helping Ukrainian forces to pinpoint Russian targets, and otherwise assisting Ukraine directly to push Russia forces back, they raise the probability that Russia will decide use drastic measures to avoid a defeat.

Warning voices
Among the European leaders a few have been unwilling to be part of the black and white coaltion.
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has called for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and peace talks launched, even if negotiations may take months or even years to conclude. Orbán warned of the danger of an escalation of the war. (abouthungary.hu January 27).
While the Croatian president, Zoran Milanovic, does not believe that Russia can be defeated in a conventional war … “I am against sending any lethal arms there …It prolongs the war. What is the goal? Disintegration of Russia, change of the government? There is also talk of tearing Russia apart. This is mad.” (Washington Post).
An article in Foreign Policy has points out that “Realists of various stripes repeatedly warned that Western policy toward Russia and Ukraine would lead to serious trouble, warnings that were blithely ignored by those who claimed that NATO’s open-door policy would lead to lasting peace in Europe. Now that war has broken out, lives are being lost, and Ukraine is being destroyed, you would think proponents of open-ended NATO enlargement would have set aside their idealistic illusions and think about these issues in a hard-nosed, realist fashion. Yet the opposite has occurred: The people who got it right are singled out for attack, while those who believed that enlarging NATO would create a vast zone of peace in Europe are insisting that the war continue until Russia is totally defeated and greatly weakened.” (Stephen M. Walt in Foreign Policy).
Among the warning voices we also find General Mark Milly, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer, and the principal military advisor to the President. In November 2022 he said: “In terms of probability, the probability of a Ukrainian military victory defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they define or what the claim is Crimea, the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily. Politically, there may be a political solution where, politically, the Russians withdraw, that's possible. You want to negotiate from a position of strength. Russia right now is on its back. … So, you want to negotiate at a time when you're at your strength and your opponent is at weakness. And it's possible, maybe that there'll be a political solution. All I'm -- all I'm saying is there's a possibility for it. That's all I'm saying.”
Later, when taking questions after a January 20 Ramstein meeting, he said: Ukraine has also suffered tremendously. You know that there's a significant amount of innocent civilians that have been killed in a result of the Russian actions. The Russians are hitting civilian infrastructure. There's a significant amount of economic damage, a significant amount of damage to the energy infrastructure, and the Russian -- or the Ukrainian military has suffered a significant amount of casualties themselves. So this is a very, very bloody war and there's significant casualties on both sides. And this is why I say that I think that -- at -- sooner or later, this is going to have to get to a negotiating table at some point in order to bring this to a conclusion, and that will have to happen when the end state, which is a free, sovereign, independent Ukraine with its territory intact, is met. When that day comes, then people will sit down and negotiate an end to this.”

Perhaps Russia insists on digging even deeper
“Putin will argue that the United States and NATO are “in” Ukraine for one reason and one reason only: to weaken Russia, which is the greatest obstacle to Western hegemony worldwide. The West will regard this assertion as the purest nonsense, of course, but the problem is that, from the Russian perspective, it seems eminently plausible.” (Article in americangreatness.com on January 28).
For now, it may seem that the outcome of the war hangs in balance, which explains why the West hurrying to dig deeper into their weapon arsenals. But what might Putin do in this escalating Western proxy war against Russia? Might he not try to outdo the western digging, by digging even deeper?
As early as May 2022 Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence gave her assessment of what Putin might do. President Putin may turn to more drastic means …including imposing martial law, reorienting industrial production, or potentially escalatory military actions to free up the resources needed to achieve his objectives as the conflict drags on, or if he perceives Russia is losing in Ukraine. “We believe that Moscow continues to use nuclear rhetoric to deter the United States and the West from increasing lethal aid to Ukraine and to respond to public comments from the U.S. and NATO Allies that suggest expanded western goals in the conflict. If Putin perceives that the United States is ignoring his threats, he may try to signal to Washington the heightened danger of its support to Ukraine by authorizing another large nuclear exercise involving a major dispersal of mobile intercontinental missiles, heavy bombers, strategic submarines.
We otherwise continue to believe that President Putin would probably only authorize the use of nuclear weapons if he perceived an existential threat to the Russian state or regime, but we will remain vigilant in monitoring every aspect of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. With tensions this high, there is always an enhanced potential for miscalculation, unintended escalation, which we hope our intelligence can help to mitigate.” (Emphasis added). (Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence at Congressional Testimony, May10).
Remember that was in May 2022, and the proxy war has been escalated step by step since then, with Western leaders becoming more and more cocksure in their belief that nothing will come of Russian threats.
At a panel discussion at Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in October 2022, one of the participants argued: “You don’t have to be fixated on the peculiarities of Vladimir Putin to conclude that nuclear use is possible because it’s a much more mainstream nuclear doctrine among nuclear-armed powers when they’re facing the prospect of conventional defeat and where the stakes are high, to be tempted to use them. This was NATO’s doctrine in the European theater from 1965, to offset and forestall conventional defeat with a threat of nuclear use. Similar story you can tell about Pakistan, India, even North Korea. I agree that there may not be a meaningful military target, but I think the purpose would be to make Ukraine back off and at least divide the West—an attempt at psychological terror. So whatever strategy we are going to form, if we’re going to have a strategy of least regret, it can’t be one that bets the farm on this being a bluff. This is very real.” (Professor Patrick Porter).
A time of unprecedented danger, it is 90 seconds to midnight, writes the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “And worst of all, Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons remind the world that escalation of the conflict—by accident, intention, or miscalculation—is a terrible risk. The possibility that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high.”
In In 2020 Russia published the latest version of the doctrine entitled ““On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.” The document outlines the circumstances that might lead Russia to use nuclear weapons. It states that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons following an “attack by adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions,” but also in an “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” (Emphasis added).
Thus, Russia might respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons if it judges the very existence of the state to be in jeopardy. While this might seem to exclude the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian war, the document also opens the possibility of nuclear first use as it states:“… in the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
Analysts have assessed that this means Russia might threaten to escalate to use nuclear weapons as a way to deter a conflict that would threaten the existence of the state, with Russia pursuing an “escalate to de-escalate” nuclear doctrine under certain circumstances. If a conventional conflict might threaten Russia, it might decide to use nuclear weapons to create such a catastrophic threat to a continuation of the conflict that its adversary would be forced to de-escalate. The Congressional report in fact mentions that this might happen if Russia looks to be defeated in a conventional conflict with NATO. At least that is how some analysts interpret the Russian doctrine. But it is worth noting that Russia itself does not use the term “escalate to de-escalate.”
Now what does this mean in relation to Ukraine? We are seeing a more and more cocksure attitude in the West, manifesting itself in almost no holds barred support of Ukraine. The reality being that the West is using its potent military arsenal to fight the Russians using their Ukraine proxies. Could an eminent defeat of all Russians troops in Ukraine, the re-conquering the Russian held areas, and the weakening of Russia military might to a level, where it would unable to wage war be seen as a defeat of Russia itself? Would an eminent risk of this happening provoke Russia to nuclear escalation in order to force the West to de-escalate?
Russian certainly has the enough tactical nuclear weapons to make that a possibility. (See also “A cocksure West risking catastrophe,” Blog at openthoughts.eu.)

It is time for to ask some hard questions!
Will the West do what it takes for as long as it takes, albeit hesitantly and with delays, to help Ukraine defeat the Russian forces and get back all of what they regard as Ukrainian land, even Crimea?
Have Western leaders, at first dipping very cautiously in their arsenals, lost all sense of caution, lured by their by their own superficial moralistic idealism and the plight of little ”big brother” in Ukraine?
Will the West continue to pour tanks, jets and long-range missiles into Ukraine, accepting the Ukrainian argument that more weapons will help save lives? Ignoring that nothing the West has done until now has helped to save lives, au contraire.
Do Western leaders know what they doing, or have they just become delirious on a cocktail of self-righteous moralism and power, stumbling along into an unforeseeable future. Has any of them taken the time to sit down and reflect, read background information or history, are even aware of warning voices
What is the endgame? What is the West hoping to achieve, a defeated Russia, perhaps even warlike dissolution? Or a Russia getting even more allied to China? Is that something Europe could want? Would that not be a real nightmare on its doorstep? Shouldn’t we at least demand some sort idea of what the West want to achieve, instead of leaving it to Zelensky to decide what the West wants?
Will Western decision makers come to their senses and realise that they have to demand something from Ukraine. Perhaps even accept something one might call a “Korean solution”? Not peace, but not War either. A divided country with a demilitarised zone. Not the best of all worlds, but some alternatives certainly sound worse and the risk iscertainly there.
Is Ukraine worth it? A question that really would irk moralistic proponents of giving everything they demand. One might even ask, is it worth it for Ukraine itself losing according Miley and others more than 100.000 dead or wounded? And enormous destruction everywhere?
One might also ask if Western leaders are too concentrated on Ukraine, ignoring other massive problems and crises in the world at their own peril? Crises that are getting bigger and may present themselves with a vengeance. What about Africa, what about the Middle East, what about the looming fight between the U.S. and China over Taiwan? A U.S. general even foresees a war between China and the U.S. as soon as 2025.
Maybe it is all too late giving the cocky posture of Western leaders, with a few exceptions? Their sudden belligerence and the promises of allocating big resources to buy weapons, as if they really think they could go to war with Russia, without the risk of provoking a nuclear war they cannot win. With possible U.S. counter strikes just making it worse for Europe, risking of clouds of radioactivity poisoning the air over Europe.
Has biased and simpleminded western media, breathless with breaking news and latest reports from reporters stumbling through rubble, in their attempt to show the terrible plight of old and lonely Ukrainians, cooking their food over small outdoor fires, lit a dangerous simple minded furious, self-righteous fire in the minds of Western leaders, and parts of the public?
Where do we find the media holding power to account by asking difficult questions? What are the risks, what is the endgame, do we really want to defeat Russia, and live with the fear of their reaction? Are we far too willingly to participate in a what is essentially a U.S. war against Russia?
Where does wary public subject to a both one-sighted and short-sighted media bombardment find a discussion of the difficult questions we are asking here? Western media in their one-sided enthusiasm for Ukraine caught in a self-reinforcing vortex of breaking news.

Why does Europe not look to its own interests?
Restating the argument from an earlier blog post. We wonder why Europe is not making a much more independent diplomatic effort, instead of giving in to moral outrage and Zelensky’s and Biden’s totally overstated warnings about the threat to all of Europe
Europe is supporting the Ukraine with financial assistance, weapons, welcoming Ukrainian refugees, and seems inclined to engage in self-harming sanctions to reduce Russia’s ability for fighting a war. In all seriousness, will Europe really leave to Zelensky and a vengeful Biden to decide to escalate the proxy war against Russia and decide the conditions for making peace with Russia?
Why do decisionmakers not leave moralistic outbursts aside and take a more realistic position that actually turn out to be more in line with their own self-proclaimed European values. This would mean efforts to promote a peace that might spare lives and avoid further destruction in Ukraine and perhaps help solve or at least alleviate some of the problems brought up by Russia as reasons for the invasion.
Why does European leaders not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique? Realistically this would mean that Europe would have to put pressure on Zelensky to accept the Russian annexation of Crimea, and insist that the future of the Luhansk and Donetsk would have to be settled by mechanism involving for instance staged referendums from Russian border to the borders of Luhansk and Donetsk. Either accept this or accept that help would be reduced to humanitarian help.
Likewise, Europe would have to initiate sincere and realistic diplomatic efforts in relation Russia, taking demands from the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine seriously, accepting the Russian possession of Crimea and proposing realistic solutions for Luhansk and Donetsk that would comply with what Europe ought to demand of Ukraine.

This essay can also be found at:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/realism-disappearing-down-ukrainian-maelstrom-verner-c-petersen

“Korean solution” to the war in Ukraine?

Realism disappearing down the Ukrainian maelstrom

Author

Archives