[ad_1]
Photo source: Dati Bendo – CC BY 4.0
On March 19, 2024, French Ground Forces Commander General Pierre Cille published an article in Le Monde newspaper with the blunt title, “The Army is Ready.” Cyr gained experience in France’s overseas adventures, including the Central African Republic, Chad, Ivory Coast and Somalia. In the article, General Cill said his forces were “ready” for any conflict, adding that 60,000 of the 121,000 French soldiers would be able to respond to any conflict within a month. He said he could mobilize. He quoted the old Latin saying, “If you want peace, prepare for war,” and wrote, “The roots of the crisis are growing and carry the risk of spiraling or escalating.” General Sill did not mention any countries by name, but the move comes just over two weeks after French President Emmanuel Macron said on February 27 that NATO troops may have to enter Ukraine. It was clear from the publication of his article that it referred to Ukraine.
Hours after Macron’s disparaging remarks, John Kirby, the US president’s national security adviser, said: “There will be no US troops on the ground on combat missions in Ukraine.” This was direct and clear. The outlook from the United States is bleak, and support for Ukraine is rapidly declining. Since 2022, the United States has provided more than $75 billion in aid to Ukraine ($47 billion in military aid), making it the most significant aid to Ukraine during the war against Russia. However, in recent months, US funds, particularly military aid, have been held up in the US Congress by right-wing Republicans who oppose further funding to Ukraine (this is more of a geopolitical argument than a geopolitical statement). The new US attitude that other countries, such as Europeans, should bear the burden of these conflicts. The US Senate passed $60 billion in spending for Ukraine, but the US House of Representatives only allowed $300 million to pass. In Kiev, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan implored the Ukrainian government to “have faith in America.” “We have provided tremendous support and will continue to do so every day in every way,” he said. However, this support does not necessarily reach the level of the first years of the war.
freezing europe
On February 1, European Union leaders agreed to provide Ukraine with 50 billion euros in “grants and highly concessional loans.” The funds will enable the Ukrainian government to “pay salaries, pensions and provide basic public services.” It is not directly related to military aid that is beginning to stall across the board and is causing a new kind of debate in the world of European politics. In Germany, for example, Rolf Mützenich, leader of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), was criticized by right-wing parties for using the word “freeze” when referring to military aid to Ukraine. . The Ukrainian government was keen to procure Taurus long-range cruise missiles from Germany, but the German government was reluctant to do so. This hesitation and Mützenich’s use of the word “freeze” caused a political crisis in Germany.
Indeed, Germany’s debate over further arms sales to Ukraine is mirrored by nearly all European countries supplying weapons to the war against Russia. So far, polling data across the continent shows that a majority opposes continuing the war and therefore opposes continuing to arm Ukraine for war. According to a poll conducted in February for the European Council on Foreign Relations, “On average only 10 [percent] A percentage of Europeans in 12 countries believe that Ukraine will win. “The prevailing view in some countries is that Europe should follow the United States in limiting its support for Ukraine and encourage Kiev to reach a peace deal with Moscow,” polling analysts wrote. ing. This view is also beginning to enter the discussion among political forces that want to provide arms to Ukraine. Both SPD MP Lars Klingbeil and party leader Mutzenig have said that negotiations need to begin, but Klingbeil has said that negotiations will not take place before the US elections in November. As Mutzenich said, “I think the most important thing right now is until then.”that [Ukraine] Get cannon ammunition. ”
Military issues, not climate change
It no longer matters whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins the US presidential election in November. In any case, Trump’s views on European military spending are already percolating in the United States. Republicans are calling for U.S. funding to Ukraine to be delayed and for European countries to pick up the slack by increasing their own military spending. The latter point will be difficult because many European countries have debt ceilings. If we were to increase military spending, we would be sacrificing valuable social programs. NATO’s own polling data shows a lack of interest among Europeans in shifting from social to military spending.
Even more troubling for Europe is that countries are cutting climate-related investments and increasing defense-related investments. As reported by the Financial Times, the European Investment Bank (founded in 2019) is “under pressure to fund more projects in the arms industry”, while the The European Sovereignty Fund, established in 2007, will focus on supporting the military industry. In other words, military spending will dwarf investment in climate change and in rebuilding Europe’s industrial base. In 2023, two-thirds of NATO’s total budget of 1.2 trillion euros will come from the United States, twice as much as the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway spend on their military. Trump has pressured European countries to spend up to 2% of their GDP on militaries, a move that will be on the agenda even if he loses the presidential election.
You can destroy a country, but you can’t win a war.
For all of Europe’s bravado about defeating Russia, a sober assessment of European militaries shows that European countries simply do not have the ground military capabilities to fight a war of aggression against Russia, let alone adequately defend themselves. It shows that. A Wall Street Journal investigation into Europe’s military situation has the startling title: “Alarm spreads over Europe’s weakened militaries and empty arsenals.” Journalists noted that the British army had only 150 tanks and “probably 12 practical long-range guns,” while the French had “heavy artillery costing less than 90 guns,” and that the Germans had “2 days “We have enough ammunition for a battle.” ” If attacked, there are almost no air defense systems.
Europe has relied on the United States for heavy bombing and fighting since the 1950s, including the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to the formidable firepower of the United States, these Global North countries are able to level countries, but are unable to win wars. It is this attitude that creates alarm in countries such as China and Russia. They know that even though it is impossible for the Global North to achieve a military victory against them, there is no reason why these US-led countries should not risk Armageddon. military power to do so.
This American attitude, reflected in European capitals, creates another example of the arrogance and arrogance of the Global North. It refuses to even consider peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. For Mr. Marcon to say that NATO might send troops to Ukraine is not only dangerous, it undermines the credibility of the Global North. NATO was defeated in Afghanistan. It is unlikely to bring much benefit to Russia.
This article was created by Globetrotter.
[ad_2]
Source link
