Putin is at the threshold of Europe. Why EU countries should dramatically increase assistance to Ukraine
In the conditions where the Ukrainian forces stalled on the battlefield and large help packages are blocked by Hungary in the EU and Republican Republican politicians in the United States, the Western Alliance is becoming more weaker and separated in support of Ukraine. Several scholars and politicians have evaluated this scenario and concluded that the turn to a defense strategy could eventually bring Putin at the negotiating table.
According to this point of view, a new approach aimed at guaranteeing the safety of territories that Ukraine already controls consolidates the support of the event and eventually demonstrates Russia that it cannot survive Ukraine's military efforts. But this analysis reflects the fundamental misunderstanding of the Russian president and the way he thinks. Any retreat of the event only encourages Putin to double the offensive on Ukraine.
While he believes that military success is possible, Putin will refuse to negotiate and continue the fight. In view of this reality, Western politicians should review their approach to supporting Ukraine's military efforts. Partners of Ukraine should move from half to a full -scale offensive strategy that will give a country that is on alert, all weapons needed to take the mountain and reject Russian troops. Europe, in particular, should do more.
This includes the delivery of the maximum possible number of material resources from the available reserves of the reserves of the reserves of the corresponding EU weapons systems, increasing military production and expanding the production capabilities of each country. In particular, Europe can and should provide Kiev with much more winged medium and long -range missiles.
This will allow Ukraine to attack Russian infrastructure in the occupied territories, while protecting its soldiers from the dangers on the front line. Europe should also accelerate and continue the supply of F-16 fighters to Ukraine, which will allow to achieve preference in the air. In combination with the sending of additional air defense systems, such as Patriot and Iris-T, such assistance will allow Ukraine to effectively put pressure on Russian forces and win the battlefield.
Only when Russia retreats will negotiations be possible. Only then will Western politicians be able to achieve real victory criteria: to ensure that Putin's aggressive war will not pay off for Russia and that Europe does not continue to remain a theater of war. However, if the event capitates in front of fatigue and quarrels, it will simply play Putin's hand. Russia's triumph will prepare the soil for a further war throughout the continent, bringing the riots to NATO.
The current situation on the battlefield really is alarming for Ukraine and its partners. Russian troops dug up for miles of mine fields and trenches, which makes the capture of the territory incredibly difficult and expensive for Ukrainian soldiers. The hopeless situation came; The conflict, which lasts for the third year, has already caused hundreds of thousands of casualties among the military and civilians and becomes a brutal war on exhaustion.
But those who advocate negotiations with Moscow do not mention the context in which this is a deteriorating situation. Kyiv did not succeed on the battlefield, as its partners in the US and Europe did not provide the necessary weapons to obtain control over airspace and effective penetration into Russian positions and infrastructure in the occupied territories and in the Crimea. As the war was delayed, Russia managed to activate its military-industrial complex and adapt to the wartime economy.
Its material capabilities have now exceeded Ukraine's capabilities, which continues to depend on weapons from the West. Although the partners of Ukraine have retained reserves of some high -precision weapons, including the winged Taurus missiles, they end with other key materials, including ammunition. Despite the early warnings that the ammunition would eventually end, the European Union was unable to increase its production capabilities due to lack of planning and far -looking.
At the current rate, the block will not be able to fulfill its obligation to supply Ukraine of one million shells and missiles by March 2024. And this lag has consequences on the ground; While Russia uses from 25,000 to 30,000 shells a day, Ukraine produces only 7,000. Faced with a critical shortage of ammunition, Ukrainian troops were forced to normalize their use.
No NATO government will never put its armed forces in a situation where they have to wage war without sufficient ammunition, high -precision weapons and air support. In part, the problem is that many European leaders have not been able to clearly formulate the purpose of assistance to Ukraine, and instead adhered to a vague and often indecisive support strategy. Their step -by -step approach did not allow Kiev to achieve a large breakthrough during the summer offensive of Ukraine.
Politicians in the German government and Biden administration, in particular, continue to consider the supply of each weapons system through the prism of how Russia reacts to it, while the fear of escalation limits the amount of assistance that Ukraine receives.
The reality is that Russia has already fully involved its ordinary military potential and is unlikely to go nuclearly for two reasons: first, because of the fear of repayment of the United States; And, secondly, given the counteraction of China, an indispensable ally of Russia. Nuclear escalation is a clear red line for Beijing. Putin cannot be allowed to imagine that there is some merit in his disgusting invasion; If he wins, aggressive wars in Europe may well become more common.
From the point of view of Kyiv and its partners, this means that the pre -war borders of Ukraine should be restored at least. Kiev not only fights for the return of its territory, but also protects the fundamental right of states to self -determination, as well as mostly peaceful order, which prevailed in Europe after the end of World War II.
This is the goal for which liberal democracy in the West and around the world should be united - especially throughout Europe, where the war has returned to the continent. Many observers and politicians agree that the war in Ukraine may only end in negotiations. However, a satisfactory agreement will not be reached from the standpoint of Ukraine's weakness.
In view of Putin's track record, there is no reason to believe that Ukraine and its partners will encourage Russia to move to the ceasefire, as some, such as Richard Haas and Charles Kupchan, assume. Quite the contrary: Putin made it clear that he did not want to negotiate. He wants to win this war, which has become a matter of his political and personal survival. The war was expensive Russia, and Putin must have something to show.
The assumption that he can take the opportunity to stop the bloodshed, is the acceptance of the desired and has nothing to do with Putin, who bombed the Ukrainian civilian population, helped the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to start a terrible war against his own people and managed the brutal occupation at the beginning 2000s. Not surprisingly, the price of even starting negotiations with Kiev is, in fact, a complete surrender of Ukraine. Instead, he promises nothing.
Reducing Ukraine's support is rather reduced than increasing Russia's interest in negotiations. Putin will take a mountain, and he will not have a reason to engage in dialogue if he feels the possibility of a military victory. The expanded military-industrial complex of Russia can withstand many years of war; Europe, on the other hand, has not increased its military products and soon exhauses vital military systems that Ukraine so desperately needs. Knowing this, Putin just needs to wait.
Time on his side. The absence of determination, discovered here by the United States and the EU, can have important consequences for the rest of the world. If the event reaches Putin's face or show that he is not able to significantly strengthen Ukraine's support, such failure will signal China's weakness and other revisionist states such as Iran.
It will also be a catastrophic signal for other key allies, such as Philippines and Taiwan, which rely on US military support in terms of security and territorial integrity. The transition to a purposeful offensive strategy and assistance to Ukraine in the fight against Russia will help restrain China in the Indo-Pacific and reassure the US and EU allies.
Every Republican, who claims that the United States should focus on China and leave Europe to Europeans, should keep in mind that by allowing Russia to win in Ukraine, he will only encourage the worst, most aggressive instincts in Beijing. But just as the United States should not hesitate in the support of Ukraine, Europe should do more to activate its activities and ensure its own protection - especially given the prospect of returning Donald Trump to the oval office.
In the event of Trump's re -election, Europeans should be able to support Ukraine's military efforts on their own. Europeans cannot come from the geography of our continent; We are not separated from the war by a vast ocean. Thus, we do not have a different choice but to ensure the victory of Ukraine. Our collective peaceful European order is attacked by Russia. Although it would be much more difficult to support Ukraine alone.
Germany's GDP alone is almost twice as high as in Russia; The EU is generally seven times larger. In order to activate the potential of the EU as a geopolitical player and build a stable coalition in support of Ukraine, Germany needs to justify its leading role in the block. It should act as a bridge between the Eastern Europeans who are well aware of the Russian threat near their borders, and Western Europeans, who feel relatively security in their homes far from the Ukrainian front lines.
Although the valuable time was lost, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is not too late to act decisively. Scholtz took some important steps; In 2023, German military support of Ukraine was about four billion euros, including weapons systems, such as tanks and missile defense systems - the amount that would double in 2024. This large -scale assistance is the more exceptional in view of the ancient pacifism of Germany, which has historically led to Berlin's refusal to send weapons to conflict zones.
But, given the unused potential of Germany, as well as that the victory of Ukraine and Europe will entail it. In order to continue blows along Russian infrastructure and supply lines, Ukraine requires winged rockets, such as Taurus Systems, to defeat targets on the front line, as well as fighters to establish control of air space and air defense to protect their soldiers in the trenches.
Today, Germany has refused to provide Taurus's winged missiles on the grounds that there are still technical problems that need to be resolved to limit the rocket range. The real and very cynical reason for refusing to deliver these weapons is that it is extremely effective, and Scholtz is afraid that successful use of these weapons can provoke escalation from Russia.
Although Germany has already put several Patriot missile defense systems, which now successfully protect the sky over Kiev, it can and should provide more, while Russia increases its drones in Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. If Berlin feels some anxiety about the provision of these systems, he must understand that giving Ukraine all the weapons he needs to demand and defeat Russian troops, meets the security interests of every European state.
The biggest drawback of Scholz is that it remained vague when discussing the goals of the West in its support of Ukraine. It continues to use a double -digit formula in which, as he said, "Russia should not win, Ukraine should not lose. " Sholtz should call the Russian war what it is: an attack on peace in Europe, which represents existential risk for Germany and the entire continent. Such clear support, as shown by the survey, would meet wide approval by the German public.
As Russian troops have deeply buried in the trench and are now hiding behind mines of mines, most of Ukraine's military efforts are no longer carried out along the front line. Ukraine is currently focusing on Russian supply lines and infrastructure in Russia -occupied territory and in Crimea, which is symbolic for the Russian people, especially after Putin anex the peninsula in 2014.
Aiming at Putin's pressure and seeking to inflict painful defeat on the Black Sea or in the Crimea, Ukraine hopes to activate public sentiment in Russia against the war and its leader. Such a shift in public opinion is a prerequisite for negotiations; In order to be ready for conversation and compromise, Putin must first be at high pressure at home. The second previous condition is the military: Putin should also be sure that he will not be able to achieve more force.
Therefore, Ukraine has to take a mountain on the battlefield. The coercion of Ukraine to negotiate in the current circumstances would destroy all its hopes for closer cooperation with the West - Hope, which became a little lighter after the EU decision to approve the negotiations on Kiev's accession to the bloc. Putin will continue to attack and destabilize Ukraine in all available ways.
In the end, it was Putin's fear that another prosperous Western country will be along the border with Russia, and first of all prompted him to attack. The defensive strategy focused exclusively on dialogue with Russia, at best is fundamentally false, and in the worst - catastrophically naive. Such a strategy will lead to the division of Ukraine without hope for NATO joining, since no NATO country wants to risk being involved directly into a protracted conflict with Russia.
Without NATO restraint, Putin will be able to recover, regroup and eventually attack. And Ukraine will not be the only country that is threatening a new attack; Other states, such as Moldova and the Baltic countries, will also be a constant threat. Europe will only be able to prevent this nightmare scenario if it rejects its illusions and will take up Ukraine's protection with all heart. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.