No Taurus for Ukraine?
On Thursday March 14, 2024, The German Bundestag again discussed the Taurus for Ukraine question, after Chancellor Scholz continued refusal to send long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
After attacks from the CDU/CSU led opposition, the leader of SPD (The Social Democratic Party) in Bundestag, Dr. Rolf Mützenich, defended Chancellor Scholz’s decision not to send Taurus to Ukraine and derided the opposition.
 
Freeze the War
In a “don’t mention the war” moment he said: “I think we should focus on more important things… I also say in your direction – especially to those who to feel addressed by it –: Don’t we also need a clever debate on how we can involve countries, who interpret or instrumentalize the war in Ukraine differently from us, towards the goal of ending the war. Unfortunately – and we have to say this – Outside of Europe, many countries have a different look at this war.
And that brings me to the question – in the Bundestag this is obviously often seen as shameful just to ask it –: Isn't it time we didn't just talk about how to wage a war, but also think about how one can freeze a war and later also end it? Aren't these questions also politically important?” (Emphasis added). (From Plenarprotokoll 20/157, Deutsche Bundestag).
Mützenich also argued that support for Ukraine and the Zeitenwende for the West should not be subject to political games. Instead, reason, prudence and clarity were needed.
“The Chancellor has supported Ukraine from the start and guaranteed the national security of our country. He has achieved both, and that needs appreciation and support and not insult, ladies and gentlemen. That's why I say it very clearly: “Zeitenwende” is not something for political games. Reason, prudence and clarity are needed, and that is what the Federal Chancellor has to consider in the decisions he has to make. To put it a little more clearly, so that you from the opposition can understand what it is all about…
In October 2022, the American government feared the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine [By the Russia of cause]. That should make us sit up and take notice. Some were convinced back then that this possibility had to be taken into account… and we can be grateful that there is an American President in the White House, who, I believe, has sent all the necessary signals to Moscow.
That's why I say very clearly: my group [in the Bundestag] provides the Chancellor with space for such prudent decisions and also for prudence in the international politics; because the contribution to international national security, and the security of Ukraine is bigger than any discussion about any weapon system, dear colleagues.” (Plenarprotokoll 20/157, Deutsche Bundestag).
 
Outrage in Germany
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, chairman of the Bundestag Defence Committee, member of the FDP and thus belonging to the government coalition, was outraged. During the war in Ukraine, she never left anyone in doubt that she would support Ukraine with everything they might wish for and then some. Called “Kriegstreiberin” by her adversaries at the time of the Taurus debate, she prominently displayed a Taurus illustration on her blouse.
She did not mince her words: “If that is the attitude of the Social Democrats, we will of course clarify that internally, then it is a paradigm shift … I am sure that Ukraine was just as horrified as all of us in the Bundestag when we heard that.” (Rheinische Post).
The Green Party, with roots in earlier peace movements, but now almost as warlike as Strack-Zimmermann also criticized Mützenich. Green Party chief Nouripour: “Ukraine is not only defending itself, but also the security of Europe from the next Russian aggression ...We should be very clear about what is at stake: our peace and security in Europe.” (Rheinische Post).
Annalena Baerbock from the Greens and Foreign Minister in the Scholz government had this somewhat strange argument against freezing the war in Ukraine:
“What a freeze means for all the people who still have to live under Russian violence every day and every night…Women in particular repeatedly report about night time crimes committed by the Kremlin troops: "They don't know whether Russian soldiers will come to rape them again." That's why everything is being done to ensure that Ukraine can defend itself better” (t-online).
Even Defence Minister Boris Pistorius from SPD distanced himself from Mützenich’s words about the war in Ukraine. “Freezing the conflict "would only help Putin in the end," said the SPD politician during a visit to the Polish capital Warsaw. It must always be about bringing about peace, "but there must not be a dictated peace," nor a "ceasefire or a freeze in which Putin emerges stronger in the end and continues the conflict whenever he pleases.” (Der Spiegel. March 18, 2024).
 
Most disgusting German politician
The always aggressive and outspoken former Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, wrote this on X targeting Mützenich: “This guy was and remains the most disgusting German politician. Forever and ever.” (Dieser Typ war und bleibt der widerlichste deutsche Politiker. Für immer und ewig).
 
Ridiculous discussion
Chancellor Olaf Scholz, days later: “The debate in Germany cannot be surpassed in terms of ridiculousness,” said the Chancellor on Tuesday at the Europe 2024 conference in Berlin. “This is embarrassing for us as a country.” The discussion, which is primarily about the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles, is not understood outside of Germany.
Scholz pointed out that Germany is Ukraine's second largest arms supplier. This must first be recognized, he demanded. He would like to see a debate in Germany that does not discredit prudence as hesitation.” (FAZ, March 19, 20224)
 
Shifts in German opinion
Perhaps Mützenich’s talk about freezing the war in Ukraine was a shrewdly calculated move, that may even have had the tacit backing of Chancellor Scholz. It could indicate that the Social Democrats have finally become aware that opinion about the war is shifting in Germany.
A recent poll (Meinungsumfrage) may indicate this shift. In February 2024 64% of the population indicate that they think that the war in Ukraine is lost. Only 28% believe that a Ukrainian victory is possible, an opinion mostly found among supporters of the Greens. (Die Welt, February 13, 2024).
A more recent poll also indicate another decisive shift. In answer to the question “Should Ukraine stick to the attitude, that negotiations with Russia should only take place after Russia returned the occupied areas of Ukraine? 45% said “Yes,” while 46% said “No, they should negotiate even though Russia might still occupy large areas of Ukraine.”
Looking at answers from supporters of some of the parties we get this: (Source RTL Deutschland, March 19, 2024):

AfD or Alternative für Deutschland is the right-wing party that has achieved around 18-19% in recent polls, more than the SPD, which has declined to around at 15-16%. The new socialist/realist BSW party (Bundniss Sarah Wagenknecht) sees rising acceptance, hovering around 7%. Both AfD and BSW are against sending weapons to Ukraine, instead they argue in favour of some kind of armistice followed by negotiations.
Leading Social Democrats may have seen the writing on the wall, and decided to test the waters, having Mützenich airing ideas of freezing the war in order to make negotiations possible.
Evidently the Scholz government’s Ampel-coalition has serious a problem in relation to Ukraine support. With Social Democrats in population rather split on Ukraine. The Greens having a much more warlike attitude, advocating for weapons to Ukraine including Taurus and no negotiations. The third member of the so-called Ampel-coalition, FDP, also have views contrary to SPD, but due to their overall lack of support in the population (hovering about 4%), they may be less important.
One wonders how this may play out. For the moment at least Chancellor Scholz is still using the often repeated, but increasingly meaningless words of support for Ukraine. In a Regierungserklärung in the Bundestag on March 20 he: “We will support Ukraine for as long as it is necessary. At the same time, we will ensure that NATO does not become a party to this conflict. And we will not accept a dictated peace at the expense of Ukraine. - These are the common three points that we have noted.” (Plenarprotokoll 20/159, Deutsche  Bundestag). Note that he said “necessary” not the more usual “as long as it takes.”
 
In the meantime: What is going on Ukraine?
Those supporting Ukraine not least because it is a “real” democracy, may be erring.
In The Freedom House measure of Ukraine’s democracy, the country achieves a score of 39,29 out 100, meaning that it characterized as a “transitional or hybrid regime.” (Freedom House, 2023). Thus, certainly not a real democracy.
In a University of Würzburg ranking of “Quality of Democracy” Ukraine ends up as number 92 and is seen as a hybrid regime. Scoring below Burma/Myanmar, but above Sri Lanka – somewhat curious companions in democracy. The reality of those scoring measures may be in doubt, but this what we get from recent rankings. Even worse is the corruption ranking, with Ukraine ending up as number 104 out of 180 countries (https://cpi.ti-ukraine.org/en/).
According to a recent article in Le Monde the Ukrainian opposition is increasingly critical of the Zelensky administration, which presumable means they are critical of President Zelensky “In recent months, several lawmakers belonging to the opposition parties Holos and European Solidarity (of former president Petro Poroshenko) have publicly complained that they have not received the authorization required by the authorities to attend an international event. In power from 2014 to 2019 and now a member of parliament, Poroshenko even went so far as to send a letter, at the end of February, to the European commissioner for neighborhood and enlargement, Oliver Varhelyi, to contest the "misuse" of martial law and war with the aim, in his view, to "cleanse the political field from opposition and isolate it from international communication." Emphasis added. (Le Monde March 19, 2024).
At the very least this might indicate that Verkhovna Rada, the parliament, is losing parliamentary control to President Zelensky.  Which might indicate authoritarian tendencies.   In earlier essays we have tried to argue that the West’s cozying up to President Zelensky is problematic and perhaps not in the best interest of Ukraine and the West.

Taurus Marschflugkörper over Kerch Bridge (based upon ESA sat photo from 2020)

The Russian wiretapping
Last Friday Margarita Simonyan, editor at the Russian TV-Network RT, revealed the Russian wiretapping of four German Luftwaffe officers during a secret meeting on February 19. At the meeting it was discussed how the German Taurus missile might be used by Ukraine, and how direct assistance by specialists from the Luftwaffe might be concealed.
To understand the importance of the Russian intercept of the discussion that took place on WebEx, it is relevant to know more about the Taurus missile, why Ukraine has been clamouring for Taurus missiles, and reactions to the leak. Before taking a look at excerpts from the wiretapping.
 
Taurus capabilities
The Taurus KEPD 350 air to ground missile is made by Taurus Systems, a joint venture between Saab and MBDA Deutschland. It is “designed to penetrate thick, hardened air defences via a very low-level terrain following flight. Day or night and in any weather, it neutralises its targets through its highly effective 481 kg dual-stage warhead system, MEPHISTO.
TAURUS KEPD 350 combines outstanding penetration of hard and deeply buried targets, and blast and fragmentation of high-value point and area targets with exceptional bridge-and-runway-target kill capacity.
The system remains the only stand-off missile programmable for effect at a specific pre-selected floor. This extraordinary feature is achieved by applying layer counting and void sensing technology. (Saab. Com Prospect).
MBDA describes the missile as having a range in excess of 500km, unmatched penetration capabilities, precise and jamming resistant navigation, including terrain-following capability below 50 meters, GPS independence, with 4 separate guiding systems, and a layer counting fuse. The last characteristic means that the missile after diving vertical in the last phase, will be able penetrate layers of hardened bunkers, counting the number of layers and voids penetrated. See illustration of the concept at https://taurus-systems.de/#penetration
The missile physical specs: Length 5m, width about 1m, weight 1400kg, with a warhead weighing 481 kg.
 
Ukraine’s clamouring for Taurus
Ukraine has long demanded deliveries of long-range air launched precision missiles from the West. Until now they have got Storm Shadow missiles from the UK and SCALP missiles from France, in essence the same missile with a range of around 250 Kms. They have been used for some time to strike high values targets in Crimea, including bridges.
For almost a year Ukraine had also been clamouring for deliveries of the longer ranging and more advanced Taurus missile. Presumably with the intention to use such missiles in their attempt to destroy the Kerch Bridge connecting the Taman Peninsula of Krasnodar Krai in Russia and the Crimean Kerch Peninsula.
 
Germany’s rejection of Taurus deliveries
Until now the German government under Chancellor Scholz has declined to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine. On February 22, the opposition consisting of the Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) bloc brought forward a motion in the Bundestag calling on the Bundesregierung to provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles. “Die Ukraine durch unverzügliche Lieferung von erbetenen und in Deutschland verfügbaren Waffensystemen (u.a. TAURUS) sowie Munitionssorten im Kampf gegen Russland zu unterstützen und dabei europäische Führung und Koordinierung zu übernehmen” (Bundestag).
The motion was defeated in the German Bundestag with 182 voting in favour, 480 against and 5 abstaining.
Instead, the Bundesregierung brought a motion calling for providing Ukraine with additional, necessary long-range weapons systems and ammunition. In German: " erforderliche weitreichende Waffensysteme." What long-range weapon systems were not specified, but Taurus missiles were certainly not meant, instead it might mean further deliveries of the MARS II systems. 382 voted in favour of the government motion, 284 against and 2 abstained.
 
Reactions to the wiretapping revelations
German Defence minister Pistorius: “"The incident is much more than just the interception and publication of a conversation ... It is part of an information war that Putin is waging," (DW).  During visit to the Vatican Scholz told reporters the security breach would be “investigated very meticulously, very intensively and very quickly”
Other are demanding a thorough investigation and possible consequences. There is fear that Russia might have much more wiretapping material, to be released when it might have a negative effect on the West’s unity in their support for Ukraine.
At a recent visit to Prague President Macron indirectly chastised the Germans, saying "Europe clearly faces a moment when it will be necessary not to be cowards." He later added that it was necessary to shake up France’s allies. Sometimes Macron is taking very loud but providing Ukraine a very small stick. Germany is in fact the second largest contributor to Ukraine after the US. While France apparently contributes less than Finland, according the support tracker at Kiel Institute for World Economy.
It is also speculated why the Russia has revealed the wiretapping now, as it will presumably result in Germany taken more stringent measures to guard against wiretapping.
Perhaps the Russian rationale is somewhat like this. If we release the conversation of this meeting it might have these important consequences.
First it might convince Bundeskanzler Scholz that he must to stick to his “njet” to Taurus deliveries, as it seems to be difficult to avoid direct German or perhaps British participation in Taurus mission planning, if one  wants to make sure of hits on the Kerch Bridge. It must be remembered that Scholz is afraid that Ukraine could attack goals inside Russia, which might be a red line for Russia, with the risk of war with Germany and NATO.  Perhaps to reinforce this impression Russian officials attacked Germany for discussing detailed attacks on Russian targets and threatened with retaliation should Germany become part of the war effort” (WSJ March 4. 2024).
Secondly, the revelation that British and U.S. specialists are directly involved in helping Ukraine to use the sophisticated western weapons is sure to annoy German allies.
 
About the wiretapped meeting
 A transcript of the conversation between high-ranking Bundeswehr officers dated 02/19/2024 was published by Margarita Simonyan, editor at The Russian TV-Network RT, on vk.com.
(https://vk-com.translate.goog/@m_s_simonyan-rasshifrovka-razgovora-vysokopostavlennyh-oficerov-bundesver?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp). The transcript used here is from a Substack article at https://karlof1.substack.com/p/german-military-going-against-its
 
The date
The meeting of the German Luftwaffe officers is said to have taken place on February 19, which means that practicalities in relation to a possible delivery of Taurus Missiles to Ukraine toke place a few days before the discussion and the votes in the Bundestag.
 
The use of Webex
Normally one would not expect Russia to be able eavesdrop on a meeting of high-ranking German officers. Perhaps the wiretapping was made possible because they were using Webex “a multi-functional desktop Video/Audio Conference call application,” with one of the participants staying at the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. With one of the others impressed and asking “the one with three towers and swimming pool at the top.” The officer might have been in Singapore for the Airshow.
 
The participants
Generalleutnant Ingo Gerhartz - Inspekteur der Luftwaffe
General Frank Gräfe - Brigadegeneral der Luftwaffe der Bundeswehr, Abteilungsleiter für Einsätze und Übungen im Kommando Luftwaffe in Berlin. (General Gräfe apparently participating from Singapore).
Oberstleutnant Florstedt
Oberstleutnant Udo Fenske
 
Excerpts from the wiretapped meeting
 
Purpose of the meeting
Listening to General Gerhartz is becomes clear that the officers are meeting to prepare a presentation for defence minister Pistorius, looking at problems and possibilities in relation to a possible delivery of Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
Gerhartz: “Okay. We need to verify the information. As you have already heard, Defense Minister Pistorius intends to carefully consider the issue of supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine. We have a meeting planned with him. Everything needs to be discussed so that we can start working on this issue. So far I do not see that the start date of these deliveries has been indicated. It was not like the chancellor told him: “I want to get information now, and tomorrow morning we will make a decision.” I haven't heard anything like this. On the contrary, Pistorius evaluates this entire ongoing discussion. Nobody knows why the Chancellor is blocking these supplies.”…
”It is necessary to show what the missile can do, how it can be used. It is necessary to take into account, if we make a political decision on the transfer of missiles as assistance to Ukraine, what consequences this may lead to. I would be grateful if you could tell me not only what problems we have, but how we can solve them. For example, when it comes to delivery methods.”
 
Revealing that allied partners have people on the ground in Ukraine
 Gerhartz: “I know what the English do. They always transport them in Ridgeback armored vehicles. They have a few people on the ground. The French don't do that.
He later also mentioned that “it is known that there are many people in civilian clothes who speak with an American accent. ”
Thus, he confirmed what many had already expected, that Ukrainian forces get assistance on the ground in order to use the sophisticated weapons they have got from the West.
 
Delivery times and delivery systems to be used
Gräfe: “If the Chancellor now decides that we should supply missiles, they will be transferred from the Bundeswehr. Good, but they won't be ready for use until eight months later. Secondly, we cannot shorten the time. Because if we do that, there could be a misuse, a missile could fall on a kindergarten, there would be civilian casualties again. These aspects must be taken into account. It should be noted during the negotiations that we will not be able to do anything without the manufacturer. They can equip, re-equip and deliver the first missiles. We can catch up a little bit, but we shouldn't wait until we have 20 pieces, we can transfer five at a time”
Gräfe then touched upon the question delivery system: “What weapons systems will these missiles be attached to?”
Gerhartz thought this was a problem that could be solved by the Taurus manufacturer: “TSG [Taurus Systems Gmbh] has said that they can solve this problem within six months, it doesn't matter if it's a Sukhoi or an F-16.”
 
Questions related to training
With the British already in Ukraine they might also be able to help Ukraine to use Taurus missiles. Thus, avoiding having their own German specialists on the ground in Ukraine.
Gräfe: “I have already said that we are cooperating with a missile manufacturer. They teach the maintenance of these systems, and we teach the tactical application. It takes three to four months. This part of the training can take place in Germany. When the first missiles arrive, we need to make a quick decision on mounts and training. Perhaps we will have to turn to the British on these issues and take advantage of their know-how. We can provide them with databases, satellite images, and planning stations.” (Emphasis added).
 Gerhartz: “We need to imagine that they can use aircraft with mounts for Taurus missiles and for Storm Shadow. The British were there and equipped the planes. The systems are not so different, they can be used for the Taurus as well.”
 
How to conceal technical and mission planning support?
Fenske: “If we are talking about combat use, then in this case, de facto, we will be advised to support at least the first group. It's difficult to plan, it took about a year to train our staff and we are now trying to reduce that time to ten weeks and hope that they will be able to race off-road in a car designed for Formula 1. A possible option is to provide scheduled technical support, theoretically this can be done from Büchel [German airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz, where the US has placed nuclear weapons], provided that a secure connection with Ukraine is created.”
Gerhartz interrupted: “Wait a minute. I know what you're saying. Politicians may be concerned about the direct closed connection between Büchel and Ukraine, which could become a direct involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.”
This led to a discussion of how assistance for mission planning might be concealed.
Fenske: “The question will arise as to where the information is coming from. If we are talking about information about targets, which ideally includes satellite images that provide a maximum accuracy of three meters, then we must first process them in Büchel. I think that, regardless of this, it is possible to somehow organize the exchange of information between Büchel and Schrobenhausen [Where TSG is located], or it is possible to work out the possibility of transferring information to Poland, to do it where it is possible to reach by car.”
 
 How many Taurus could be delivered?
 Fenske: “If you give 50 pieces, they will be used up very quickly”
 Gerhartz: “Exactly, it won't change the course of the war. So we don't want to hand them all over. And not all at the same time. Maybe 50 in the first tranche, then maybe there will be another tranche of 50 missiles. This is perfectly understandable, but all this is big politics. I guess what's really behind it.” (Emphasis added).
 
What goals to hit with Taurus?
Frostedte: “I came to the conclusion that there are two interesting targets - the bridge to the east [The Kerch Bridge] and the ammunition depots, which are located above. The bridge in the east is hard to reach, it's a fairly small target, but the Taurus can do it, ammunition depots can also hit. If you take all of this into account and compare it to how many Storm Shadows and HIMARS were used, then I had a question: "Is our goal a bridge or military depots?"
Fenske: “I would like to say one more thing about the destruction of the bridge. We have been working intensively on this issue and, unfortunately, have come to the conclusion that the bridge is similar to a runway due to its size. Therefore, it may not require 10 or even 20 missiles.” … “All they can do is make a hole and damage the bridge.”
 Gerhartz: “We all know that they want to destroy the bridge, that it ultimately means how it is guarded, not only because it has an important military-strategic significance, but also because it has a political significance. Although they now have a land corridor as well. There are certain concerns if we have a direct connection with the Ukrainian armed forces. Therefore, the question will arise - is it possible to use such a trick and send our people to the MBDA? Thus, there will be a direct connection with Ukraine only through the MBDA, which is much better than if such a connection exists with our Air Force.”
Gräfe: “Gerhartz, it doesn't matter. We need to make sure that there are no formulations from the very beginning that make us a party to the conflict.” …” At the very beginning, we identified this as the main element of the "red line", so we will participate in the training. Let's say that we will prepare a "road map". It is necessary to divide the learning process into parts. The long track will be designed for four months, we will train them thoroughly, including working out the option with a bridge. The short one will be designed for two weeks so that they can use the missiles as soon as possible. If they are already trained, we will ask if the British are ready to take them up at this stage. I believe that such an action would be correct.”… “And if, at the first stage, the task is to hit ammunition depots, and not such complex objects as bridges, then in this case you can proceed to an abbreviated program and get a quick result.”
 
Waiting for a decision (quoted from the VK transcript)
Gräfe: “I want to say, the longer they take to make a decision, the longer it will take us to implement all this. We need to divide everything into stages. First, start with the simple ones, and then move on to the complex ones. Or can we turn to the British, can they provide us with support at the initial stage and take on planning issues? We can force what lies within our area of responsibility. The development of mounts for missiles is not one of our tasks; Ukraine must resolve this issue independently with manufacturers.”
Gerhartz: “We wouldn't want to get into trouble right now because of the budget commission. This may make it impossible to start construction work at the Büchel airbase in 2024. Every day now counts in the program.”

Hvad bliver det næste? I et kort essay d. 2. marts 2023 skrev jeg ”Hvad er det næste, hvis Leoparder og endda kampfly ikke er nok? I det skjulte indsætte vestlige "boots on the ground " for at forstærke ukrainsk modstand?” (It is time for some hard questions! March 2, 2023).
Knapt et år senere kan man så opleve Præsident Macron hævde, ”at udsendelse af vestlige tropper til Ukraine ikke burde udelukkes i fremtiden,” ved et pressemøde efter støttekonferencen for Ukraine. Han tilføjede ganske vist: "Der er ingen konsensus i dag om at sende landtropper ... Men i dynamisk situation bør intet udelukkes. Vi vil gøre alt, hvad der er nødvendigt for at sikre, at Rusland ikke kan vinde denne krig.” (Le Figaro 26. februar, 2024)
Muligheden for vestlige ”boots on the ground” i Ukraine skal åbenbart bidrage til at skabe en slags strategisk tvetydighed i proxy-krigen mod Rusland. ”Jeg vil ikke fjerne tvetydigheden i aftenens debatter ved at oplyse navne. Jeg siger, at det blev nævnt blandt mulighederne… Mange mennesker, der siger aldrig, aldrig i dag, var de samme mennesker, der sagde 'Aldrig tanks, aldrig fly, aldrig langdistancemissiler for to år siden'." (Macron i Le Figaro 26. februar, 2024). Her skal man dog lige huske, at Frankrig ikke er har været blandt de fremmeste til at støtte Ukraine med meget mere end svulstige vendinger.
Macron’s udtalelser vakte naturligvis den tilsigtede opsigt, for vestlige ”boots on the ground” i Ukraine ville i sandhed være en afgørende rød linje.
Forbavsende nok har en første reaktion fra Rusland været relativ stilfærdig. Måske fordi man er vant til urealistiske ideer fra Macron, der afvises af alle andre. Kreml’s Dmitry Peskov understregede dog som svar på et spørgsmål: ”I så tilfælde taler vi ikke om sandsynligheden, men om uundgåeligheden af direkte konflikt.”
Næste dag kom så reaktionen fra Bundeskanzler Scholz. Den var afvisende, for også i fremtiden er der enighed om, at der hverken fra europæiske stater eller fra NATO vil blive sendt landtropper til Ukraine. ”Auf der Pariser Ukraine-Konferenz habe Einigkeit geherrscht, ”dass es keine Bodentruppen, keine Soldaten auf ukrainischem Boden geben wird, die von europäischen Staaten oder von Nato-Staaten dorthin geschickt werden.“ (Die Welt, 27.februar 2024).
 Andre er også i fuld gang med at afvise Macon’s prøveballon. Lige fra USA til Finland.
”Totalt vanvid” lød det også fra Jean-Luc Mélenchon fra det franske venstrefløjsparti ”La France Insoumise:” "At sende tropper til Ukraine ville gøre os til krigsførende … Den krigeriske verbale eskalering af en atommagt mod en anden stor atommagt er allerede en uansvarlig handling" (Le Figaro, 26. februar, 2024).
Marine le Pen fra Rassemblement National var lige så kritisk. For hende udgjorde forslaget "en eksistentiel risiko for 70 millioner franskmænd, og vores væbnede styrker, der allerede er udstationeret i Østeuropa." (Le Monde 28. februar 2024).
En hastig test (ikke repræsentativ) viste den franske befolknings holdning til spørgsmålet: ”Er du for at sende franske landtropper til Ukraine?” Ikke overraskende var flertallet imod. 76,02 % der var imod, mens 23,98 %, var for. ( https://video.lefigaro.fr/figaro/video/etes-vous-favorable-a-lenvoi-de-troupes-francaises-au-sol-en-ukraine/). Selvom Macron således ikke finder støtte i befolkningen, er det alligevel ganske overraskende at se, at næsten en fjerdedel er for at sende franske landtropper til Ukraine.
Har mainstream mediers ustandselige råben ”ulven kommer” (eller i dette tilfælde den russiske bjørn), virkelig gjort næsten en fjerdedel af den franske befolkning ivrige efter at føre krig? Og hvis det er tilfældet, hvad så med resten af Europa? Er det virkelig ved at være tænkeligt, at der kan opstå en begyndende accept af at man kan gå mere direkte i krig med Rusland?
I realiteten er det vel ikke helt forkert at antage, at de første skjulte støvleskridt kan være taget for længst. At mandskab fra vestlige militære enheder og efterretningstjenester allerede på forskellig vis er mere eller mindre direkte involveret i proxy-krigen mod Rusland i Ukraine. Ved flere af de mere spektakulære ukrainske aktioner må man antage at vestlige enheder har været dybt involveret, f.eks. ved indsættelse af AWACS-fly og droner. New York Times skrev for nylig, at CIA er involveret i et netværk af 12 hemmelige C.I.A. baser langs med den russiske grænse. Det vel heller ikke utænkeligt, at Ukraine i praksis får direkte hjælp fra vestligt mandskab i form af vejledning og instruktion i betjening af myriaden af avancerede vestlige våben. Jamie Shea med en fortid i NATO hævder ”Der har uden tvivl været vestlige specialstyrker i Ukraine siden krigens begyndelse, de kan give træning til ukrainske specialstyrker og hjælpe med at planlægge sabotage- og kommandooperationer, " (euobserver, 27. februar 2024).
Hvis ikke det hele skal ende i en storkrig er der således snarere brug for mere ”Kriegsmüdigkeit” end ”Kriegstüchtigkeit” i Vesten.
Måske er det også erkendelsen hos nogle republikanske senatorer i USA. Hør blot senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla), der er viceformand i The Senate Intelligence Committee: "The reality at this point that we have to confront is that that war ends with a negotiated settlement … And the question is — when they finally figured that out — when we finally get to that point, who has more leverage —Putin or Ukraine?” (Politico, 27. februar, 2024).