–Op-Ed–
BRUSSELS — It was a desperate appeal. “Russian terror must be defeated. Terror must always fail. And all of us together in the free world will ensure that,” said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his evening video address at the turn of the year.
Behind this wake-up call is also a plea for weapons. Ukraine needs much more military support to end Russia’s occupation. That is what the Ukrainian military commanders are saying. And — in very rare cases — even Western politicians admit this. The West’s support for Ukraine “is not enough”, Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen recently complained. The figures prove her right.
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
According to the Ukraine Support Tracker, a database of aid to Ukraine published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW), Western arms deliveries and commitment to Ukraine have fallen dramatically since last fall. In addition, the Europeans will not keep their promise to deliver one million artillery shells within a year by March 2024 — they can only deliver 300,000 to 400,000 rounds of ammunition.
Russia currently fires around 10,000 artillery shells a day, while Ukraine has to make do with 2,000, according to an analysis by renowned military strategist Colonel Markus Reisner from the Austrian Ministry of Defense. This has dramatic consequences from the Ukrainian perspective.
Ukraine lacks everything
According to the Institute for the Study of War, a new Russian offensive may even be imminent. The Ukrainian armed forces, on the other hand, had to retreat to the defensive at the end of the year due to a lack of weapons. Spectacular Ukrainian successes on Russian territory or in Crimea do nothing to change this — they are just drops in the ocean.
There is currently much to suggest that Kyiv will no longer be able to go on the offensive this year. But how is a brave army supposed to recapture its own homeland (around 19% of which is occupied by Russia) if it is only engaged in a war of position?
Ukraine lacks everything: air defense, long-range missiles, fighter planes, drone defense systems, mine-clearing equipment and weapons for electronic warfare using electromagnetic waves.
Almost two years since the start of the war, Ukraine is under massive military pressure, with the threat of further territorial losses. Western experts, including the British secret service and the German defence ministry, on the other hand, often convey a far too optimistic picture, emphasizing Russia’s weaknesses and praising the strengths of the Ukrainian army.
This often creates a false impression among the Western public.
Western cynicism?
In any case, these strategic euphemisms are not helping public opinion to support more arms deliveries to Ukraine. But perhaps that is exactly what the military and political elites in the West want. That would be perfidious cynicism.
“We are delivering what we can,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said some time ago. These are political tricks. Germany, the U.S. and most other countries supply just as much as they want — and often not what Ukraine needs.
This controlled weapon dosage also helps explain why the war has dragged on for so long.
This is not a new development, this pattern has existed since the beginning of the war: the West only supplies exactly enough weapons so that Ukraine can hold the front line and not be crushed by Russia. At the same time, there are only enough weapons to ensure that the Ukrainian armed forces cannot push the Russians back completely and Moscow does not suffer a defeat. This type of controlled weapon dosage also helps explain why the war has dragged on for so long.
Is there any evidence to support this claim? Yes.
For example, after years of begging by Kyiv, Washington recently provided Ukraine with almost 40 older ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles — out of more than 2,000 in U.S. depots. In addition, major economies such as France, Spain and Italy are only supplying very few weapons to Kyiv — although, if you believe the declamations of top Western politicians, Ukraine is supposedly about the freedom of us all.
Also, why is Berlin not finally providing the urgently needed Taurus cruise missiles (range: 500 kilometers), which Russia can hardly disable and which, thanks to an adjustable fuse, could destroy the Kerch Bridge, the most important supply line for occupied Crimea?
Fear of nuclear escalation
The shocking answer is: because the West does not want Russia to lose the war in Ukraine, whereby “losing” means that the Russians would have to withdraw from all occupied territories, including Crimea. In that case, the fear is that of Russia’s uncontrollable escalation.
The West is afraid of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which is what Moscow is threatening. It is worried about the possibility of the war spreading to the EU. And it does not want to risk the Russian empire collapsing as a result of Moscow’s defeat in Ukraine and thousands of Russian nuclear weapons being removed from any control.
Moscow would not have the strength to invade a NATO country in this decade.
This last concern is not entirely unjustified. The former German three-star general Horst-Heinrich Brauß, who continues to enjoy an excellent reputation in NATO, has nevertheless described these fears as “self-deterrence” on the West’s part. As a result, the West would probably also partially give in to the Russian aggressor in any further conflict on Europe’s doorstep — for fear of the consequences of escalation. This is crazy, but obviously a political reality.
Moscow would not have the strength to invade a NATO country in this decade. The limited use of nuclear weapons is also extremely unlikely, because Russia’s President Vladimir Putin could not win anything with them: it would turn states such as China, Brazil and India against Russia and isolate his country internationally. The U.S. would also intervene in the war in Ukraine with conventional weapons and largely destroy the Russian armed forces.
Out of a false sense of reverence for Putin’s willingness to escalate, the West has by no means done everything it can to provide Kyiv with sufficient support. Ukraine is therefore likely to lose at least a fifth of its territory in the future, probably more. And the country is highly unlikely to join either the EU or NATO because Russia will prevent this at the negotiating table.
