The EU Is Over-Invested in the Ukrainian War-Project
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Bill Totten
Jun 3, 2023, 9:01:58 AM6/3/23
to GoogleGroups
The EU Is Over-Invested in the Ukrainian War-Project
by Alastair Crooke
https://strategic-culture.org/news (May 22 2023)
https://strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/crooke2205-600x600.jpg
(c) Photo: Public domain
Ukraine is not a stand-alone foreign policy issue, but rather the
pivot around which Europe's economic prospects will rotate.
The European Union (EU), by any standards, is over-invested in the
Ukrainian war project - and in its romance with Zelensky too. Just
earlier this year, the Western (and EU) narrative was that the coming
post-Winter offensive by Ukraine would 'break' Russia and render a
coup de grace to the war. Mainstream media (MSM) headlines spun a
regular tale of Russia on its last legs. Now, however, the
Establishment messaging has done a 180-degree reversal. Russia is not
'on its last legs' ...
Two very Establishment Anglo-American media in the UK (in which US
Establishment messages often surface) finally - and bitterly - have
admitted: 'Sanctions on Russia failed'. The Telegraph laments: They
"are a joke"; "Russia was meant to have collapsed by now".
Belatedly too, the realisation also is dawning across Europe that
Ukraine's offensives will not prove decisive, as had been expected
only weeks earlier.
Foreign Affairs, in an article by Kofman and Lee, argues that, given
an inconclusive Ukrainian offensive, the only way to move forward -
without sustaining a historically humiliating loss - is to 'kick the
can down the road' and focus on building a pro-war coalition for the
future, one that can hope to match Russia's long term
military-economic sustainment potential.
"Kofman-Lee slowly builds the case for why any sort of dramatic or
decisive success should not be expected, and why instead the narrative
needs to shift towards building long-term sustainment infrastructure
for Ukraine to be able to fight what is now likely to be a very long,
drawn-out conflict", independent commentator Simplicus notes.
Put simply, European leaders have dug themselves into a deep hole.
European states, by emptying what remained in their armouries of old
weapons for Kiev, had grimly hoped that the coming Spring/Summer
offensive would settle everything, and they would not have to deal
with the problem - the Ukraine war - anymore. Wrong again: They are
being invited to 'dig in deeper'.
Kofman-Lee do not address the question of whether the avoidance of
humiliation (Nato and US) is worth a 'long drawn-out conflict'. The US
'survived' their Kabul withdrawal.
Yet, European leaders do not appear to see that the next few months in
Ukraine are a key inflection point; Should the EU not firmly refuse
'mission creep' now, a slew of adverse economic consequences will
ensue. Ukraine is not a stand-alone foreign policy issue, but rather
the pivot around which Europe's economic prospects will rotate.
Zelensky's F-16 blitz through Europe last week is indicative that,
whilst some European leaders want Zelensky to end the war, he -
conversely - wants (literally) to take the war to Russia (and likely
all of Europe).
"So far", Seymour Hersh has reported, "[a US official says], "Zelensky
has rejected advice [to end the war]; and ignored offers of large sums
of money to ease his retreat to an estate he owns in Italy. There is
no support in the Biden Administration for any settlement that
involves Zelensky's departure, and the leadership in France and
England "are too beholden" to Biden to contemplate such a scenario".
"And Zelensky wants yet more", the official said. "Zelensky is telling
us that if you want to win the war you've got to give me more money
and more stuff: "I've got to pay off the generals". He's telling us,
the official says, if he is forced out of office, "he's going to the
highest bidder. He'd rather go to Italy than stay and possibly get
killed by his own people."
European leaders are coincidentally being given - by Kofman-Lee - a
message echoing that of Zelensky: Europe must address Ukraine's
long-term sustainment needs by re-configuring its industry to produce
the weapons necessary to support the war effort - well beyond 2023 (to
match Russia's formidable logistics weapons manufacturing capacity),
and to avoid pinning their hopes on any single offensive effort.
The war is now, in this way, being projected as a binary choice: 'End
the war' versus 'Win the war'. Europe is tergiversating - standing at
the crossroads; hesitantly starting down one road, only to reverse,
and indecisively take a few cautious steps down the other. The EU will
both train Ukrainians to fly F-16s; and yet is coy about providing the
planes. It smacks of tokenism, but tokenism is often the father to
mission creep.
Having thrown in their lot with the Biden Administration, an
unreflective EU leadership eagerly embraced financial war on Russia.
It unreflectively embraced too, a Nato war on Russia. Now European
leaders may find themselves pressed to embrace a supply-line race to
match 'logistics' with Russia. That is, Brussels is being urged to
re-commit to 'winning the war', rather than 'ending it' (as a number
of states want).
These latter EU States now are becoming desperate for a way out of the
hole they dug into. What if the US were to cut Ukraine's funding? What
if Team Biden pivots rapidly to China? Politico is running a headline:
"The End of Ukraine Aid is rapidly Approaching. Reupping it Won't be
Easy." The EU could be stuck with financing a 'forever conflict' and
the nightmare of a further refugee flood - draining EU resources and
exacerbating the immigration crisis already roiling EU electorates.
Member States seem still to be wishfully thinking again,
half-believing the tales of divisions in Moscow; believing the
Prigozhin 'mind-omelettes'; believing the Russian slow-cooking of
Bakhmut to be a sign of force exhaustion, rather than a part to the
patient Russian incremental degradation of Ukrainian capabilities that
has been underway, across the spectrum.
These war-sceptic States, doing their token share of 'pro-Ukrainism'
to avoid being castigated by the Brussels nomenclature, gamble on the
improbable notion that Russia will accede to some negotiated
settlement - and more than that, to a deal that is favourable to
Ukraine. Why would they believe that?
"Europe's problem", Seymour Hersh's source says, in terms of getting a
quick settlement to the war, "is that the White House wants Zelensky
to survive"; and 'yes', Zelensky has his cadre of Brussels' fanciers,
too.
The Foreign Affairs pair predict that an armaments race would be -
again - well, 'slam dunk':
Russia does not seem well positioned for a forever war. Russia's
ability to repair and restore equipment from storage appears so
constrained that the country is increasingly reliant on Soviet gear
from the 1950s and 1960s to fill out mobilized regiments. As Ukraine
acquires better Western equipment, the Russian military has
increasingly come to resemble an early Cold War-period museum.
Really? Do these US journalists ever cross-check or fact-check? It
seems not. More tanks were produced in Russia in the first quarter of
2023 than in the whole of 2022. Extrapolating, Russia had previously
manufactured upwards of 150~250 tanks per year, with Medvedev
promising to upscale this to 1600+. Though this number includes
refurbished and upgraded tanks (which actually make up the bulk), it
is still indicative of vast industrial outputs.
The EU does not discuss these crucial decisions affecting Europe's
role in the war in public. All sensitive matters are debated behind
closed doors in the EU. The problem with this democracy deficit is
that the sequalae to these Russia-related issues touch almost every
aspect of European economic and social life. Many questions are posed;
little or no discussion follows.
Where and what are Europe's 'red lines'? Do EU leaders really
'believe' in providing Zelensky with the F-16s he seeks? Or are they
betting on Washington's own 'red lines' - letting them off the hook?
Asked on Monday whether the US had changed its position on supplying
F16s to Ukraine, the White House National Security Council
spokesperson, John Kirby, said: "No". This F-16 issue is no
game-changer; however, it can become the thin edge to 'forever war'.
It could also be the thin edge to World War Three.
Will the EU end support for the Ukraine project militarily (in line
with US earlier warnings to Zelensky), as the Ukrainian offensive
peters out - absent any gains?
What will be the EU response, if invited by the US to enter a
munitions supply-line race against Russia? Just to be clear:
restructuring the European infrastructure to a war-orientated economy
carries huge consequences (and costs).
Existing competitive infrastructure would have to be re-purposed away
from manufactures for export, to weapons. Is there the skilled
manpower today to staff this? Building new weapons supply lines is a
slow complicated technical process. And this would be in addition to
Europe swapping efficient energy infrastructure for new Green
structures that are less efficient, less reliable, and more expensive.
Is there a way out from the 'hole' the EU has dug for itself?
Yes - it is called 'honesty'. If the EU wants a quick end to the war,
it should understand that there are two options available: Ukrainian
capitulation and an agreement on Moscow's terms; or the continuation
of full-spectrum attrition of Ukraine's capacity to wage war, until
its forces are overtaken by entropy.
Honesty would require the EU to ditch the delusional stance that
Moscow will negotiate a settlement on Zelensky's terms. There will be
no solution by following that latter path.
And honesty would require the EU to admit that joining the financial
war on Russia was a mistake. One that should be corrected.
_____
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat and founder and director
of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum. Also see
https://strategic-culture.org/contributors/alastair-crooke/#articles.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent
those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Links: The original version of this article, at the URL below,
contains several links to further information not included here:
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2023/05/22/the-eu-is-over-invested-in-the-ukrainian-war-project/
TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/2023/06/03/the-eu-is-over-invested-in-the-ukrainian-war-project/
by Alastair Crooke
https://strategic-culture.org/news (May 22 2023)
https://strategic-culture.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/crooke2205-600x600.jpg
(c) Photo: Public domain
Ukraine is not a stand-alone foreign policy issue, but rather the
pivot around which Europe's economic prospects will rotate.
The European Union (EU), by any standards, is over-invested in the
Ukrainian war project - and in its romance with Zelensky too. Just
earlier this year, the Western (and EU) narrative was that the coming
post-Winter offensive by Ukraine would 'break' Russia and render a
coup de grace to the war. Mainstream media (MSM) headlines spun a
regular tale of Russia on its last legs. Now, however, the
Establishment messaging has done a 180-degree reversal. Russia is not
'on its last legs' ...
Two very Establishment Anglo-American media in the UK (in which US
Establishment messages often surface) finally - and bitterly - have
admitted: 'Sanctions on Russia failed'. The Telegraph laments: They
"are a joke"; "Russia was meant to have collapsed by now".
Belatedly too, the realisation also is dawning across Europe that
Ukraine's offensives will not prove decisive, as had been expected
only weeks earlier.
Foreign Affairs, in an article by Kofman and Lee, argues that, given
an inconclusive Ukrainian offensive, the only way to move forward -
without sustaining a historically humiliating loss - is to 'kick the
can down the road' and focus on building a pro-war coalition for the
future, one that can hope to match Russia's long term
military-economic sustainment potential.
"Kofman-Lee slowly builds the case for why any sort of dramatic or
decisive success should not be expected, and why instead the narrative
needs to shift towards building long-term sustainment infrastructure
for Ukraine to be able to fight what is now likely to be a very long,
drawn-out conflict", independent commentator Simplicus notes.
Put simply, European leaders have dug themselves into a deep hole.
European states, by emptying what remained in their armouries of old
weapons for Kiev, had grimly hoped that the coming Spring/Summer
offensive would settle everything, and they would not have to deal
with the problem - the Ukraine war - anymore. Wrong again: They are
being invited to 'dig in deeper'.
Kofman-Lee do not address the question of whether the avoidance of
humiliation (Nato and US) is worth a 'long drawn-out conflict'. The US
'survived' their Kabul withdrawal.
Yet, European leaders do not appear to see that the next few months in
Ukraine are a key inflection point; Should the EU not firmly refuse
'mission creep' now, a slew of adverse economic consequences will
ensue. Ukraine is not a stand-alone foreign policy issue, but rather
the pivot around which Europe's economic prospects will rotate.
Zelensky's F-16 blitz through Europe last week is indicative that,
whilst some European leaders want Zelensky to end the war, he -
conversely - wants (literally) to take the war to Russia (and likely
all of Europe).
"So far", Seymour Hersh has reported, "[a US official says], "Zelensky
has rejected advice [to end the war]; and ignored offers of large sums
of money to ease his retreat to an estate he owns in Italy. There is
no support in the Biden Administration for any settlement that
involves Zelensky's departure, and the leadership in France and
England "are too beholden" to Biden to contemplate such a scenario".
"And Zelensky wants yet more", the official said. "Zelensky is telling
us that if you want to win the war you've got to give me more money
and more stuff: "I've got to pay off the generals". He's telling us,
the official says, if he is forced out of office, "he's going to the
highest bidder. He'd rather go to Italy than stay and possibly get
killed by his own people."
European leaders are coincidentally being given - by Kofman-Lee - a
message echoing that of Zelensky: Europe must address Ukraine's
long-term sustainment needs by re-configuring its industry to produce
the weapons necessary to support the war effort - well beyond 2023 (to
match Russia's formidable logistics weapons manufacturing capacity),
and to avoid pinning their hopes on any single offensive effort.
The war is now, in this way, being projected as a binary choice: 'End
the war' versus 'Win the war'. Europe is tergiversating - standing at
the crossroads; hesitantly starting down one road, only to reverse,
and indecisively take a few cautious steps down the other. The EU will
both train Ukrainians to fly F-16s; and yet is coy about providing the
planes. It smacks of tokenism, but tokenism is often the father to
mission creep.
Having thrown in their lot with the Biden Administration, an
unreflective EU leadership eagerly embraced financial war on Russia.
It unreflectively embraced too, a Nato war on Russia. Now European
leaders may find themselves pressed to embrace a supply-line race to
match 'logistics' with Russia. That is, Brussels is being urged to
re-commit to 'winning the war', rather than 'ending it' (as a number
of states want).
These latter EU States now are becoming desperate for a way out of the
hole they dug into. What if the US were to cut Ukraine's funding? What
if Team Biden pivots rapidly to China? Politico is running a headline:
"The End of Ukraine Aid is rapidly Approaching. Reupping it Won't be
Easy." The EU could be stuck with financing a 'forever conflict' and
the nightmare of a further refugee flood - draining EU resources and
exacerbating the immigration crisis already roiling EU electorates.
Member States seem still to be wishfully thinking again,
half-believing the tales of divisions in Moscow; believing the
Prigozhin 'mind-omelettes'; believing the Russian slow-cooking of
Bakhmut to be a sign of force exhaustion, rather than a part to the
patient Russian incremental degradation of Ukrainian capabilities that
has been underway, across the spectrum.
These war-sceptic States, doing their token share of 'pro-Ukrainism'
to avoid being castigated by the Brussels nomenclature, gamble on the
improbable notion that Russia will accede to some negotiated
settlement - and more than that, to a deal that is favourable to
Ukraine. Why would they believe that?
"Europe's problem", Seymour Hersh's source says, in terms of getting a
quick settlement to the war, "is that the White House wants Zelensky
to survive"; and 'yes', Zelensky has his cadre of Brussels' fanciers,
too.
The Foreign Affairs pair predict that an armaments race would be -
again - well, 'slam dunk':
Russia does not seem well positioned for a forever war. Russia's
ability to repair and restore equipment from storage appears so
constrained that the country is increasingly reliant on Soviet gear
from the 1950s and 1960s to fill out mobilized regiments. As Ukraine
acquires better Western equipment, the Russian military has
increasingly come to resemble an early Cold War-period museum.
Really? Do these US journalists ever cross-check or fact-check? It
seems not. More tanks were produced in Russia in the first quarter of
2023 than in the whole of 2022. Extrapolating, Russia had previously
manufactured upwards of 150~250 tanks per year, with Medvedev
promising to upscale this to 1600+. Though this number includes
refurbished and upgraded tanks (which actually make up the bulk), it
is still indicative of vast industrial outputs.
The EU does not discuss these crucial decisions affecting Europe's
role in the war in public. All sensitive matters are debated behind
closed doors in the EU. The problem with this democracy deficit is
that the sequalae to these Russia-related issues touch almost every
aspect of European economic and social life. Many questions are posed;
little or no discussion follows.
Where and what are Europe's 'red lines'? Do EU leaders really
'believe' in providing Zelensky with the F-16s he seeks? Or are they
betting on Washington's own 'red lines' - letting them off the hook?
Asked on Monday whether the US had changed its position on supplying
F16s to Ukraine, the White House National Security Council
spokesperson, John Kirby, said: "No". This F-16 issue is no
game-changer; however, it can become the thin edge to 'forever war'.
It could also be the thin edge to World War Three.
Will the EU end support for the Ukraine project militarily (in line
with US earlier warnings to Zelensky), as the Ukrainian offensive
peters out - absent any gains?
What will be the EU response, if invited by the US to enter a
munitions supply-line race against Russia? Just to be clear:
restructuring the European infrastructure to a war-orientated economy
carries huge consequences (and costs).
Existing competitive infrastructure would have to be re-purposed away
from manufactures for export, to weapons. Is there the skilled
manpower today to staff this? Building new weapons supply lines is a
slow complicated technical process. And this would be in addition to
Europe swapping efficient energy infrastructure for new Green
structures that are less efficient, less reliable, and more expensive.
Is there a way out from the 'hole' the EU has dug for itself?
Yes - it is called 'honesty'. If the EU wants a quick end to the war,
it should understand that there are two options available: Ukrainian
capitulation and an agreement on Moscow's terms; or the continuation
of full-spectrum attrition of Ukraine's capacity to wage war, until
its forces are overtaken by entropy.
Honesty would require the EU to ditch the delusional stance that
Moscow will negotiate a settlement on Zelensky's terms. There will be
no solution by following that latter path.
And honesty would require the EU to admit that joining the financial
war on Russia was a mistake. One that should be corrected.
_____
Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat and founder and director
of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum. Also see
https://strategic-culture.org/contributors/alastair-crooke/#articles.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent
those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Links: The original version of this article, at the URL below,
contains several links to further information not included here:
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2023/05/22/the-eu-is-over-invested-in-the-ukrainian-war-project/
TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
the appropriate link at the top or bottom of
https://billtotten.wpcomstaging.com/2023/06/03/the-eu-is-over-invested-in-the-ukrainian-war-project/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages