Blog Archives

Sucked into a war for peace

4/15/2022

“War is peace”
One is reminded of Orwell’s 1984 when listening to Ukraine’s FM Kuleba when he arrived at a NATO meeting recently:
“My agenda is very simple, there is only three items for me It’s weapons, weapons and weapons … As weird as it may sound, but today weapons serve the purpose of peace.”
On March 26 Zelensky reiterated the need for get soviet made fighter aircrafts from the West in order to prevent the Russians from bombing Ukrainian cities from the air, arguing "The price of procrastination with planes is thousands of lives of Ukrainians, which we are losing from missile and air strikes on peaceful Ukrainian cities,"
The message from Ukraine: More weapons serve the peace and save the lives of thousands of Ukrainians.
But Zelensky and Kuleba may be wrong. More weapons may instead lead to escalation, more death and destruction and carry enormous risks, not the least for Europe.
This essay is an attempt to show how the West might get sucked into an escalating “war for peace” with Europe losing sight of its own interests. It takes a look at these topics:

The West is listening

The escalating list of Ukrainian demands

Fanning the flames with more offensive weapons …

It's not only weapons – escalating sanctions

What does the West hope to achieve?

Ukraine’s Orwellian “war for peace”

A clueless Europe caught in jingoistic excitement

Why doesn’t Europe look to Europe’s interest?

The West is listening
In the beginning it sent weapons and materials that would help Ukraine defend itself with evidently strict limitations on offensive weapons that might involve the risk of getting into war with Russia.
Ukraine instead got smart weapons like Javelin missiles and NLAW’s (nicknamed Inlove by Ukrainians?) and other sorts of weapons that would help Ukraine defenders to combat armoured columns of Russian tanks and personal carriers.
On April 6 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley “testified that the U.S. and allies have provided 60,000 anti-tank weapons and 25,000 anti-aircraft weapons.”
Weapons that may have had a devastating effect on Russians columns, judging by the number of pictures and videos of burned-out Russian equipment.

The escalating list of Ukrainian demands
Zelensky and Kuleba are constantly demanding more from the West, and woe to those who do not at least give the impression that they listening. Like Hungary’s Orban or a foot-dragging Germany.
At the April 7 meeting with thirty NATO members, plus the European Union, Finland, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was asking for ”planes, land-based anti-ship missiles, armoured vehicles and air defence systems.”
He said: “I think the deal that Ukraine is offering is fair. You give us weapons, we sacrifice our lives, and the war is contained in Ukraine.”
If effect saying that Ukraine would carry out a proxy war on behalf of the West. Just give us the means to do so.
After NATO meeting with Ukraine’s FM Kuleba, Secretary General Stoltenberg was asked; “You speak about more weapons right? Does it mean in quantity? Or are you talking about a different kind of weapon, more as we call it in a more offensive weapon and how do you think Russia was is going to respond to that?”
In his answer it was evident Stoltenberg did not want to become too specific as to what kind of weapons and assistance would be forthcoming, but said: ”I think it's important to understand that Allies believe it is better often to not be specific exactly about what kinds of systems, but rest assured Allies are providing a wide range of different weapons systems, both Soviet era systems but also modern equipment and I think that this distinction between offensive and defensive is a bit strange, because we speak about providing weapons to a country which is defending itself and self-defence is a right which is enshrined in the UN Charter.”
So, everything Ukraine does with the support from NATO allies is per definition defensive because Ukraine is defending itself. His answer indicates that the dividing line between what might considered might be defensive weapons and what might be seen as heavy offensive weapons has become blurred.
Leading again to questions about whether Ukraine might get fighter aircraft after all.
Stoltenberg furthermore highlighted the urgency of giving assistance to Ukraine, as the Russians seemed to prepare a new offensive in the Donbas: “So that's also the reason why we need to, of course, work for a quick end to this war. And that's the reason why also Allies are imposing heavy costs on President Putin and Russia. But at the same time, be prepared for the long haul. This war may last for weeks, but also months and possibly also for years, and therefore we need to prepare for a lot more.”
Possibly for years, and all the while getting sucked more and more into the proxy war with Russia that might become a real war with Russia.
It is apparent that NATO does not want to be seen to be delivering the weapons to Ukraine, instead it will be done by each country who wants to participate based upon their own decisions.
It seems somewhat risky to assume that this primitive “sleight of hand” will deceive anyone, least of all Russia.
On April 13 Zelensky reiterated the demand for heavy offensive weapons to give battle to the Russian forces assembling in Eastern Ukraine.
"To continue heroically defending the world from Russian aggression, Ukraine needs a specific list of weapons. I appeal to citizens of the whole world to help convey to your governments, presidential administrations, and leaders of your countries the real needs of Ukraine, which will help stop the war."
The list includes:

- Artillery pieces (caliber 155 mm) and ammo; - Artillery shells (152 mm caliber). As much as possible; - Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: "Grad", "Uragan", or American M142 HIMARS; - APCs (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, etc.); - Tanks (T-72, either American or German analogs); - Air defense systems (S-300, BUK, or similar modern western air defense systems); - Combat aircraft.
Fanning the flames with more offensive weapons …
On April 5 “Prague Morning” reported that the Czech’s will send old Soviet-designed T-72 tanks to Ukraine, “providing badly needed heavy weapons to outgunned Ukrainian troops that are battling a much better-equipped Russian invasion force.”
There has also been talk about Poland, who be able would deliver up to 100 old T-72 tanks, and possible be “rewarded” with U.S. made Abrams main battle tanks, but nothing has apparently been decided,

On April 8 “The Slovak Spectator” revealed that Slovakia is donating its S-300 air defence system to Ukraine.” S-300 is a Russian air defence system already used by Ukraine. It is not the newest type of Russian air defence, but still a very formidable weapon to use against fighter planes, drones and missiles.
This was followed by an announcement by U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, that the U.S. would station a Patriot missile battery in Slovakia: “It my direction, and at the invitation of Slovakia, U.S. European Command will reposition one Patriot missile system, manned by U.S. service members, to Slovakia.” Apparently by moving a battery stationed in Poland to Slovakia instead.

Early April the Ukrainian ambassador to Australia announced an Australian contribution on Facebook: "Australia sends 20 Bushmaster vehicles worth AUD 50 million (USD 38 million). A historic moment.” (Ukrinform).
The Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle is a personal carrier with a V-shaped armoured hull to protect its passengers from landmines and other explosive devices.

Also, in early April the UK government announced that it would send a new package of weapons worth 100 million pounds, including according to gov.uk:

More than 800 more NLAW anti-tank missiles
Additional Javelin anti-tank systems
Additional loitering munitions
Additional Starstreak air defence systems
Additional non-lethal aid including ballistic helmets, body armour and night vision goggles

After Boris Johnson’s surprise visit to Kyiv Downing Street it was confirmed that it would also send 120 armoured Mastiff vehicles and anti-ship missiles to Ukraine. Judging from media reports there is talk of “obsolete US-made Harpoons which were due to leave service in 2018 (although extended until 2023).” (Navy Lookout). Weapons that might be used against Russian warships blockading and threatening Ukrainian ports and cities, from the Black Sea.

In interview with Deutsche Welle on April 6, Secretary Blinken was asked about further arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Blinken’s answer:
“What we’re focused on is making sure that we get to Ukraine the systems that they can use now and use effectively. At the same time, we’re looking at other systems – some of them larger, more sophisticated – that may be useful and important going forward, but where, for example, Ukrainians need to be trained, because some of these systems you can’t just turn them over and have them be used immediately. Training is required; maintenance is required.
So, what we focused on is what can Ukrainians use immediately and use effectively, but we’re also looking at over the longer term what could they use with the right training, with the right support, with the right maintenance. All of that we’re working on right now.” (Emphasis added).
Later National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced that he had “spent two hours on the phone with the chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy's top aide. And we went through every weapon system that Ukraine is seeking, in priority order. … Our policy is unequivocal that we will do whatever we can to help Ukraine succeed.” (Emphasis added).
What that means he did not say, but evidently Ukraine was going to get more sophisticated weapons. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby revealed that Ukrainian soldiers had been trained to used Switchblade drones and that 100 of these had already been sent to Ukraine. What model of the weapon he did not reveal, but media reported that Ukraine would get 10 of the large Switchblade 600 armed with multi-purpose anti-armour ammunition, able to loiter for 40 minutes and having a range of around 40 km. The rest may perhaps be Switchblade 300, a lighter version.
Then on Thursday April 13 the U.S. Department of Defence announced the authorization of a Presidential drawdown of security assistance valued at up to an additional $800 million tailored to meet urgent Ukrainian needs for today’s fight.
Euphemistically called capabilities this includes delivery of:

18 155mm Howitzers and 40,000 artillery rounds;
Ten AN/TPQ-36 counter-artillery radars;
Two AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel air surveillance radars;
300 Switchblade Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;
500 Javelin missiles and thousands of other anti-armor systems;
200 M113 Armored Personnel Carriers;
100 Armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles;
11 Mi-17 helicopters;
Unmanned Coastal Defense Vessels;
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear protective equipment;
Medical equipment;
30,000 sets of body armor and helmets;
Over 2,000 optics and laser rangefinders;
C-4 explosives and demolition equipment for obstacle clearing; and
M18A1 Claymore anti-personnel munitions [anti-personal mines] configured to be consistent with the Ottawa Convention.

In the armed Services Committee General Mark Miley had previous ly revealed that “We are looking around along with other countries in NATO to help them out in terms of building them up in terms of armor and artillery,” … The fight in the southeast is different from the north, it is much more open and lends itself to armor, mechanized operations, offensive operations on both sides.” In other words, lending itself better to the use of tanks than the terrain around Kyiv.
Still, Ukrainian video clips indicate that their troops are also preparing for old style trench warfare.

Germany still seems to be reluctant to send up to 100 old Bundeswehr Marder infantry fighting vehicles (Schützenpanzer) that Ukraine would like to have (although they might need to refurbished). The Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany has argued receiving such weapons would not prolong the war, but shorten the war and the suffering of people.” "Wenn wir sagen, wir wollen mehr Waffen, heißt das, dass wir diesen Krieg nicht verlängern, sondern den Krieg und das Leid der Menschen verkürzen wollen." (NTV).
The Rheinmetal arms manufacturer has indicated it would also be able to deliver German built Leopard 1 main battle tanks (from storage at FFG in Flensburg?), if the German government so decided. Although the Leopards would also need refurbishment and thus only be available after a few months.

France will not reveal what kind of military support they are providing, with general Thierry Burkhard arguing "The Russians can accept a certain number of things, but they cannot accept that we overplay our support for Ukraine." (Quoted in WSJ).

Ukraine has even asked for anti-aircraft missile systems from South Korea. A South Korean official has said that they will reject the demand: “Minister Suh politely repeated the South Korean government’s principled stance that its aid is confined to non-lethal materials.”

Finally, there is the outstanding question about old soviet fighter planes for the Ukraine, but there still seems to be some reluctance, as this might mean that West would cross a Russian red line and thus lead to a more direct involvement of the West in a war with Russia.

Training,
After President Biden in a speech in Poland had created some confusion about the possible involvement of US troops in Ukraine, he now argues: “We were talking about helping train the troops in — that are — the Ukrainian troops that are in Poland. That’s what the context.”
With this Biden revealed publicly that U.S. forces might still be training Ukrainian troops for battle while the war is going on in Ukraine.
Later Pentagon spokesman John Kirby argued that “It’s not training in the classic sense that many people think of training. I would just say it’s liaising.” Perhaps trying to convince the public that U.S. instructors are just showing Ukrainian troops the instruction manual for the Javelins:

US intelligence
Answering a question from senator Tom Cotton, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin revealed that US was providing Ukraine with real time intelligence: "We are providing them intelligence to conduct operations in the Donbas, that's correct," (CNN).

Seeing that NATO countries now seem to dare to deliver more offensive and sophisticated weapons, U.S. troops “liaising” with Ukrainian troops and Ukraine receiving real time intelligence, it seems evident that the U.S. and NATO countries are getting sucked into what might turn out to be an escalating and possible long drawn-out proxy war in the Ukraine, while betting that their involvement will not lead to direct war with Russia.

It's not only weapons – escalating sanctions
On Thursday April 7 Zelensky demanded that the West intensify the sanctions on Russia.
Arguing for a speedy embargo on Russian oil and a complete exclusion of Russia from the international financial system. “According to Volodymyr Zelensky, Moscow makes so much money from crude exports that it does not consider it necessary to seriously negotiate the restoration of peace. He called on the “democratic world” to immediately impose an embargo.”
On April 7 Foreign Minister Kuleba also “reiterated a demand that the EU impose a full oil and gas embargo on Russia and called for weapons deliveries to be speeded up.”
Friday April 7 the EU announced the fifth package of sanctions. Accompanied by this statement from Josep Borell: “These latest sanctions were adopted following the atrocities committed by Russian armed forces in Bucha and other places under Russian occupation. The aim of our sanctions is to stop the reckless, inhuman and aggressive behaviour of the Russian troops and make clear to the decision makers in the Kremlin that their illegal aggression comes at a heavy cost.”

The new EU package comprises:
a prohibition to purchase, import or transfer coal and other solid fossil fuels into the EU.
a prohibition to provide access to EU ports to vessels registered under the flag of Russia.
a ban on any Russian and Belarusian road transport.
export bans, targeting jet fuel and other goods such as quantum computers and advanced semiconductors, high-end electronics, software, sensitive machinery and transportation equipment.
import bans on products such as: wood, cement, fertilisers, seafood and liquor.
a series of targeted economic measures intended to strengthen existing measures and close loopholes, such as: a general EU ban on participation of Russian companies in public procurement in member states, the exclusion of all financial support to Russian public bodies. an extended prohibition on deposits to crypto-wallets, and on the sale of banknotes and transferrable securities denominated in any official currencies of the EU member states to Russia and Belarus,
sanctions on companies whose products or technology have played a role in the invasion, key oligarchs and businesspeople, high-ranking Kremlin officials, proponents of disinformation and information manipulation,
More over a full transaction ban is imposed on four key Russian banks representing 23% of market share in the Russian banking sector.

The European Council also made the rather unrealistic demand that “Russia immediately stop its military aggression in the territory of Ukraine, immediately and unconditionally withdraw all forces and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine, and fully respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognised borders.”
This package does not satisfy Ukraine’s Zelensky. He is still scolding those who are reluctant to support Ukraine in every way possible:
“Some politicians still cannot decide to restrict the flow of petrodollars and petro-euros to Russia so as not to jeopardize their economies,” … The only question is how many more Ukrainians, men and women, the Russian army will have to kill in order for you, some politicians – we know who you are – to find some determination within you,” (newsbulletin 247.com)
On April 13 in one of his video pep talks to European parliaments, this time Lithuania, he wanted Europe to initiate a complete abandonment of Russia's energy resources:
“I stressed that the sixth package of EU sanctions against Russia must include oil. Stop multiplying insufficiently strong sanctions packages. In any case, you will have to acknowledge that only Europe's abandonment of Russia's energy resources and the complete restriction of Russia's banking system can be an argument for Russia's leadership to seek peace. Without this, Moscow is looking for a military solution.” (tsn.ua).

What does the West hope to achieve?
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” it has recently been revealed what the U.S. wants to achieve in the proxy war in Ukraine:
“Our policy is unequivocal that we will do whatever we can to help Ukraine succeed. And it will be … President Zelensky and the democratically elected government of Ukraine that determines what that success constitutes,”…
“But at the end of the day, what we want to see is a free and independent Ukraine, a weakened and isolated Russia, and a stronger, more unified, more determined West,” … “We believe that all three of those objectives are in sight, can be accomplished.” (Emphasis added).
And some Republicans seem just as belligerent. Apparently seeing the Russian retreat from the Kyiv area as a sign of weakness that has to be exploited, by dramatically ramping up the delivery of weapons like tanks and fighter planes. The goal being not a negotiated settlement but Russian defeat on the battlefield.
“We want the Ukrainians to win, to win, to defeat the Russians, for the Russians to withdraw from the country. And that ought to be our goal,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has told “Fox News Sunday.
Listening to the words of Jake Sullivan, McConnell and Biden’s outrage one gets the impression that the US is letting Ukraine fight Russia with sophisticated Western weapons to fulfil the American purpose of achieving a weakened and humiliated Russia, and remembering Bidens “For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power,” presumably also Putin’s removal.
To a belligerent Biden and his henchmen this might actually be the ulterior goal, much more important than the ideological loaded “crusade” for a “free and independent Ukraine.”
The U.S. policy might actually lead to a Ukraine ravaged by war with more human misery and destruction.
The U.S. seems to be acting accordance the kind of approach once defended by Madeleine Albright: ““If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.” (Secretary of State Albright, 1998)
While the U.S. seems eager to carry out the proxy war in Ukraine with nearly all possible means to weaken Russia, it certainly does not seem to be very eager to engage in diplomatic activities to help bring about a peaceful end to the Ukraine war. Instead, diplomatic efforts to seems directed to further the overall purpose of punishing and weakening Russia by threatening every country that that might help Russia succeed.
Exerting diplomatic pressure on China to make sure that it does not help Russia, which led to an angry riposte from China. In a similar fashion the U.S. is attempting to persuade India’s Nahendra Modi to help by not buying cheap oil from Russia.
This approach has once been characterised by an American scholar as a kind of anti-diplomacy:
“A … distinguishing feature of modern American diplomacy is that US administration as a whole tend to privilege hard power policies over soft power policies.
A further distinguishing characteristic of American diplomacy is that “the United States has chosen to isolate diplomatically for long periods states that it deemed adversarial, and has
required those states to meet preconditions before it will formally engage them.” (Wiseman In the Hague Journal of Diplomacy.)
While the immediate goal of seriously weakening Russia seems clear, one wonders whether the U.S. has any ulterior goal in relation to Russia. It seems evident that the belligerent U.S. policy and lack of diplomatic efforts in relation to Russia in the long run will drive Russia and China closer together, ultimately resulting in the U.S. having to deal with an adversary with a combined strength surpassing the U.S. and confronting it in both Europe and Asia.
Meaning of course that the present very dangerous attempt to really humiliate Russia might turn out to be a rather stupid short-term strategy, coming back to hunt a future U.S. administration.

Ukraine’s Orwellian “war for peace”
In an interview Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said:
“No one wants to negotiate with a person or people who tortured this nation. It’s all understandable. And as a man, as a father, I understand this very well, … But “we don’t want to lose opportunities, if we have them, for a diplomatic solution …
We have to fight, but fight for life. You can’t fight for dust when there is nothing and no people. That’s why it is important to stop this war.” (Emphasis added).
In another connection Zelensky has also argued that victory for his country is “being able to save as many lives as possible.”
But what has Zelensky actually done to stop the war from leading to more casualties and destruction? Some will argue that his team is negotiating with the Russians, but that the Russians don’t seem sincere in these negotiations.
But what has Zelensky himself to offer: While he may be looking for peace "without delay" he has also stated that "Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt. (Axios). But if Ukraine must get back Crimea and the occupied areas of Luhansk and Donetsk, there is little hope for peace.
We are back where we began, with Ukrainian’s almost 1984 “Ministry of Truth” logic, claiming that they are fighting for peace, and to fight for peace they need more weapons.
Arguing as we have seen that they are fighting for the security for all of Europe.
“What is the price of this security? This is very specific. These are planes for Ukraine. These are tanks for our state. This is anti-missile defense. This is anti-ship weaponry. This is what our partners have. This is what is covered with dust at their storage facilities. After all, this is all for freedom not only in Ukraine - this is for freedom in Europe…. Because it cannot be acceptable for everyone on the continent if the Baltic states, Poland, Slovakia and the wholof Eastern Europe are at risk of a clash with the Russian invaders. At risk only because they left only one percent of all NATO aircraft and one percent of all NATO tanks somewhere in their hangars. One percent! We did not ask for more. And we do not ask for more” (Zelensky quoted in Ukrinform).
Zelensky seems to have ideas similar to the those found in the Biden administration and some Republicans. Demanding weapons to serve the purpose of peace.
This is a pie in sky approach to peace, and this approach to peace seems to carry some very big risks not only for Ukraine but for Europe and perhaps even the U.S.
More weapons mean more fighting, more casualties and more destruction. It means escalation which carries new risks of a prolonged war or even a war spreading to other parts of Europe.
In bizarre sense this may make Zelensky’s warning about Russia being a threat to all of Europe come true, but now as a result of seeking peace in Ukraine by escalating the war with growing involvement from Europe and the U.S. Not because Russia had any previous intention to do so.

A clueless Europe caught in jingoistic excitement
Europe understood as the EU and the European members of NATO do not seem to be able to think and act on their own. They tumble along headlessly in the U.S. and Zelensky slipstream, prodded frequently by Zelensky’s and Kuleba’s sharp demands for more action, more weapons to serve the purpose of peace.
It almost as if Zelensky is dictating EU foreign policy together with Biden and his administration of un-diplomats. Where European countries are reluctant, they submitted to the wrath of Zelensky and his representatives.
The previously highly praised efforts of Chancellor Merkel to search for peaceful solutions in the Ukraine conflict, her friendly relations with Putin and the German “Wandel durch Handel” approach to relations with Russia, now are seen as having failed miserably. Thus, President Steinmeier was recently declared unwanted, when he wanted to visit Kyiv in a show of solidarity, because of his previous good relation with Putin.
In a speech to the Danish Parliament Zelensky scolded all those who do not slavishly, or should it be sheepishly, follow the path set by Biden and Zelensky himself:
“There can be no Russian branches in Europe that divide the EU from within, that are trying to help Russia make as much money as possible even now. Everyone knows very well who in the European Union opposes humanity and common sense, and who does nothing at all to help establish peace in Ukraine. This must stop, and Europe must stop listening to the excuses of Budapest.” Zelensky of course talking about Viktor Orban who does not join the rush almost jingoistic enthusiasm for helping Ukraine with weapons and sanction and ostracising Russia.
EU’s Borrell is lamenting that the EU is left out. Asked if Europe is not dissatisfied with being left out in talks between Russia and the U.S. Borrell said:
“I have not expressed this dissatisfaction in respect to these talks. If Russia wants to talk. Certainly, it has to be. Organise a dialogue. But on this dialogue, there are not two actors alone. It is not just the U.S. and Russia. If we want to talk about security in Europe, Europeans have to be part of the table. And the agenda of the meetings is not just the issue that Russia has put on the table. There are other issues on the agenda, many of them affecting Ukraine. So, I am not expressing dissatisfaction about the fact that they have started these bilateral talks. It would not be a good idea to refuse the dialogue that Russia is asking for.” (eeas.europa.eu).
Jubilant Europeans greeting President Biden’s “America is back” apparently also jumped with alacrity into what is essentially an American proxy war against Russia, fought out in Ukraine.
Why does Europe accept to be caught in the U.S. slipstream with no apparent independent strategy and ideas of its own? What are they going to do in relation to a Russia that won’t just disappear as a result of the war, but might get even more belligerent?
Most European countries are eagerly competing in their attempts to fulfil Ukrainian and U.S. wishes).
Delivering weapons and assistance to Ukraine (But still not daring to provoke Russia directly by sending fighter planes).
Giving Ukrainian refugees preferential treatment.
Allowing Ursula von der Leyen to present Zelensky with the paperwork to be used as a first step for his country to join the European Union.
Promising a fast-track procedure for Ukrainian membership of the EU (Although Ukraine is very far from being able to fulfil the criteria for entering the EU).
“The EU and member states have thrown several longstanding policies overboard and taken steps that under normal circumstances would have met with strong opposition from various corners. These include decisions for the EU to finance for the first time the delivery of lethal weapons to a third country; to boost its defence cooperation in the face of new threat perceptions; to send (somewhat mixed) signals of openness to EU membership for the bloc’s eastern neighbors after years of enlargement fatigue; and to trigger, also for the first time, its 2001 Temporary Protection Directive, granting temporary residency to Ukrainian refugees. (reliefweb.int).
Europe politicians and decision makers are acting as if they believe Zelensky’s often repeated warnings to Europe that Russia has much more than Ukraine in its sight.
Volodymyr Zelenskiyi is arguing that Russia is targeting all of Europe and that stopping the invasion of Ukraine is essential for the security of all democracies. “That is why it is not just the moral duty of all democracies, all the forces of Europe, to support Ukraine’s desire for peace, .. This is, in fact, a strategy of defence for every civilised state. … Freedom does not have time to wait.” ... “When tyranny begins its aggression against everything that keeps the peace in Europe, action must be taken immediately.” (The Guardian, April 10).
Evidently enough European politicians seem to believe in this postulated Russian threat to the rest of Europe, or else it is impossible to explain the hurried political decisions made to prepare themselves against Russian aggression.
A NATO almost seeming to have lost its purpose, has sprung in to action with eager prodding from the Biden’s administration.
More American troops are being stationed along the borders of the countries sharing a border with Russia.
European countries suddenly find it important to fulfil their promises to NATO, something Trump could not get them to do. Now, new expansive defence plans and budgets are seen as more important than almost anything else.
One may perhaps wonder whether the hasty expansion of troops, the sudden increases in defence expenditure and Finland’s and Sweden’s possible membership may not in fact seem rather provocative to Russia, and thus contribute to a more belligerent stance.
Be that as it may be.
The war in Ukraine seem to show the opposite, that the Russian capabilities have been severely overrated. Seeing that Ukrainian troops armed with sophisticated anti-armour weapons have severely blunted Russian military capabilities. Therefore, the rash reaction to the postulated threat to rest of Europe is therefore an overreaction. Russia’s conventional military capabilities truly does not pose a threat to the rest of Europe.
The real dangers may lie somewhere else.
The West’s escalating weapons deliveries could presumably lead to an outcome, where “Ukraine” (or rather the U.S. in its proxy war) might actually be seen to actually defeat the Russians. This seems to be the goal of the U.S., if we believe Jake Sullivan.
What would be the consequences if this was happening? Would the prospect of a humiliating Russian defeat lead to the fall of Putin, with unknown consequences, to a Russian escalation of the war, involving the threat of tactical nuclear weapons, or to a dangerous long term belligerent stand-off between Russia and the West? No one really knows.
Still, one wonders if Europe really wants to contribute to an escalation in a U.S. proxy war to defeat the Russians, given the dangers of a Russian escalation. Fanning the flames of the proxy war in Ukraine with more and more weapons and engaging in sanctions that in the end may hurt the Europeans more than Russia?

Why doesn’t Europe look to Europe’s interest?
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.
Why does it not demand something in return from Zelensky’s Ukraine, instead of just playing whipping boy to Zelensky’s critique?
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 used by Russia as reasons for the invasion.
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 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.

US and UK goals in proxy war risk nuclear confrontation

Getting bolder – in for the kill

Sucked into a war for peace

Author

Archives