[ad_1]
When Western leaders gathered in Munich for the past three days, President Vladimir V. Putin gave them the following message: “Nothing they have done so far – sanctions, censure, attempts at containment – can change his intention to disrupt the world today,” the order said.
Russia scored its first major victory in Ukraine in almost a year, capturing the ruined city of Avdiivka at great human cost on both sides. The bodies strewn along the road were perhaps a warning of Ukraine’s new direction two years ago in the war. The suspicious death of Alexei Navalny in a remote Arctic prison makes it increasingly clear that Putin will not tolerate any dissent as elections approach.
and the recently revealed possibility that Mr. Putin is planning to plant a nuclear weapon in space, a bomb designed to wipe out the connective tissue of global communications if Mr. Putin goes too far. The discovery in the United States that there is is a powerful reminder. His ability to counterattack enemies with asymmetrical weapons remains an important source of his power.
In Munich, there was an atmosphere of anxiety and restlessness as the leaders faced a confrontation they had not anticipated. Warnings about Putin’s possible next move are mixed with growing concerns in Europe that it could soon be abandoned by the United States, the only great power that has been at the core of its national defense strategy for 75 years. Ta.
In less than an hour at the Munich Security Conference, the conversation turned to whether Congress could not find a way to fund new weapons for Ukraine, and if it did, how long the Ukrainians could hold out. It didn’t happen. Donald Trump’s name was rarely mentioned, but the prospect of following through on his threat to leave NATO and let Russia “do whatever it wants” to allies it deems insufficient. was the focus of much of the dialogue.
But European leaders also seemed to be sensing how slow they were to react to the new reality. Europe’s plans to rebuild its militaries for a new era of conflict are on the right track, leaders insisted, but added that it would take more than five years – as Russia Overwhelming Ukraine and Trump would undermine the alliance, which may not have time.
This gloomy atmosphere comes just a year after many of the same participants — intelligence chiefs and diplomats, oligarchs and analysts — thought Russia might be on the brink of strategic defeat in Ukraine. It was a clear contrast to before. There was also talk of how many months it would take to drive Russians back to the borders that existed before the February 24, 2022 invasion. That optimism now seemed premature at best and delusional at worst.
Bulgarian Prime Minister Nikolai Denkov argued that Europeans should draw three lessons from the set of problems. He said the war in Ukraine was not just a gray area issue between Europe and Russia, but “a question of whether we can defeat the democratic world that we cherish, and this is something that is currently very common in Europe. It’s understood,” he said.
Second, he said European countries realized that to build their own deterrent capabilities, they needed to combine their forces, not only economically but also militarily. And third, it was necessary to separate Ukraine’s immediate needs for ammunition and air defense from its long-term strategic goals.
But Denkov said that given the Russian leader’s imperialist rhetoric, “long term in this case means three to five years, up to 10 years, which is really urgent.”
U.S. officials sought familiar assurances that Washington’s leadership and commitment remained unchanged. But they were unable to explain a plan of action for Ukraine when Congress was still withholding arms funding, and struggled to explain how they would achieve sustainable peace after the Gaza war. .
Navalny’s widow spoke on Thursday, hours after her husband’s death, at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof, the site of a 2007 meeting in which Putin warned that NATO’s eastward expansion was a threat to Russia. He appeared emotional and reminded those in attendance that this is what Putin would do. take responsibility for it. ”
But there has been little discussion of what the West can do, with nearly all available sanctions being imposed, and the United States and European countries threatening to thwart the roughly $300 billion worth of assets Russia recklessly left abroad. However, it was unclear whether they would be prompted to seize them before the war. Intrusion. At a meeting in Geneva, a senior U.S. official was asked how the United States planned to fulfill Biden’s 2021 pledge that if Navalny were to die in prison, there would be “catastrophic consequences” for Russia. The statement was issued in the presence of Putin. The official shrugged.
Natalie Tocci, director of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, said some attendees found the promises made by the leaders who appeared uninteresting. “Kamala Harris is empty, Scholz is muddy, and Zelensky is tired,” she said of the U.S. vice president, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “There are a lot of words, but no concrete promises.”
Stephen E. Sokol, president of the American German Council, said he was “overwhelmed and somewhat disappointed” by the discussion. “There was a lack of urgency, a clear path forward and strong European unity,” they said, noting that French President Emmanuel Macron did not attend. did.
What struck me most about the conversation about Russia was the recognition that Europe’s military modernization plans, first announced nearly 20 years ago, were too slow to match the threat posed by Russia today. It was widely recognized.
“Defending Europe was once a possibility, but now it is a necessity,” said Claudio Graziano, a retired Italian general and former head of the European Union’s Military Commission. But saying the right words and complying with their requests are not the same.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, along with a range of defense and intelligence officials, said Putin would test NATO’s credibility by attacking one of Russia’s border countries within three to five years. He reiterated recent intelligence conclusions that this is possible. , probably a small Baltic country.
But the warning doesn’t seem to have sparked any urgent discussion about how to prepare for that possibility. The conference noted that two-thirds of allied countries have met the goal of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, up from just a handful of countries a decade ago. We celebrated that fact. But several acknowledged that goal is now well out of date and were quick to discuss political barriers to increased spending.
Even Stoltenberg warned that Europe remains dependent on the United States and its nuclear umbrella and that other NATO countries will not be able to bridge the gap if the United States continues to withhold military aid to Ukraine.
But as the United States turned its attention to other challenges from China and the Middle East, the prospect of reduced U.S. involvement in NATO was gaining traction.
“We have to achieve much more” in Europe, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told the conference. But when asked whether Germany’s military spending should approach 4% of Germany’s economic output, he said, given that this is the first year in decades that Berlin will spend NATO’s 2% target on military spending. He was reluctant to commit.
“It could reach 3%, maybe 3.5%,” he said finally. “It depends on what’s going on in the world,” Scholz said as he took to the stage. “Europe needs to do more for its security now and in the future.” He did not touch on specifics. He said he was “urgently campaigning” in other European capitals to increase military spending.
However, a fundamental disconnect was still evident. When Europeans thought that Russia would be integrated into European institutions, they stopped planning and spending on the possibility that they might be wrong. And when Russia’s attitude changed, they underreacted.
“This is the return of 30 years of underinvestment,” French defense analyst François Heisbourg said, calling the past 30 years “30 years of idleness, benefiting from peace after the Cold War.” It was a stark contrast to the glorious 30 years that followed. Second World War.
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kalas said: “Europe needs to strengthen its defenses, because it is weakness that really inspires invaders.” Mr. Putin could then risk attacking countries like hers in an attempt to split NATO. “But if we put more effort into defense, that would act as a deterrent. Those around President Putin will say, you can’t win. Don’t bring this up. .”
The important thing for Europeans to remember is that this hot war in Ukraine is coming and could escalate quickly, Karas said. “So even if you think you’re far away, you’re not that far away. It can go very, very quickly.”
Dmytro Kuleba, the foreign minister of conflict-stricken Ukraine, was more blunt. “I think our friends and partners were too late to wake up their own defense industry,” he said. “And we will pay with our lives to give our defense industry time to ramp up production throughout 2024.”
[ad_2]
Source link
