What is Europe’s Ukraine Strategy?

 

Headline: There is no strategy. Western Europe’s Lilliputian leaders seem to have little appreciation of either the stakes or the importance of this moment beyond keeping Ukraine in a failing fight but only at the expense of Europe’s own defences thus aiding and abetting Putin’s war aims.

Collaboration

September 9th.  The Kushner-Witkoff visit to Moscow underlined not only the vacuousness of US policy towards Ukraine, but also the Trump administration’s collaboration with Moscow.  That is why a smiling Putin was simply able to re-iterate his demands for the ‘denazification’ of Kyiv, suzerainty over Crimea, the Donbas and much else, the effective defenestration of Ukraine and the transformation of Europe from a rules-based order into competing spheres of influence.

Keir Giles in his brilliant new book, “American Overthrow – Moscow’s Endgame in its Long War with Washington” reveals the stakes. My take of Russia’s war aims is thus.  First, the Russians are not fighting the Americans but fighting for coercive control over much of Europe, including Ukraine.  Second, Putin is succeeding in decoupling the US from the defence of Europe. Third, and with the help of China, destabilize from within those parts of Western Europe that might just get in the way of Putin's war aims. Fourth, isolate those parts of Europe that Moscow wishes to coerce and if possible, re-conquer. Fifth, create a window of opportunity to that end.

Appeasement

And yet, Western Europe’s Lilliputian leaders (Crash and Burnham are you listening?) seem to have little appreciation of either the stakes at play or the importance of this moment beyond keeping Ukraine in a failing fight at the expense of Europe’s own defences thus aiding and abetting Putin’s war aims.  At best, Western Europe seems to have what might best be called a 1917 or 1941 strategy; keeping Ukraine in the fight long enough in the hope that the next US Administration returns to its senses, returns to NATO, and returns to the defence of a Europe whole and free.  Putin is also aware of that timetable.

The reality is that there is no European strategy for either defending Ukraine or itself.  The lack of the needed (as opposed to the declared) level of European defence investment is not only undermining Ukraine but seeing the progressive atomisation of NATO’s European pillar.  For all the rhetoric to the contrary Britain, France and Germany are not willing to pay the real price they would need to both properly support Ukraine to restore its 2013 borders and invest enough to defend themselves and their NATO Allies.  They will soon face a choice because Kyiv is fast running out of money, men and missiles to defend itself. And yet, beyond increasingly crass photo ops in Kyiv for new leaders wishing to signal their virtue or pious statements about being committed for as long and as much as it takes, Ukraine’s European supporters give Kyiv just enough to keep it in the fight, but only at the expense of their own armed forces.

Insurance

Balts, Poles, the Nordic states or other smaller powers on the wrong side of the Baltic and Elbe must build together a Porcupine Defence because the hard truth is Britain, France, Germany, and even the US can no longer be trusted to come to your aid in an emergency.  Take Britain.  It has given a lot of the few war stocks it had to Ukraine but done nothing like enough to properly meet its NATO defence and commitments.  With a bond market crash imminent these indebted, welfarist, deeply divided states are unlikely to do much more in their own defence let alone Ukraine’s for the foreseeable future.

If Europeans are really unwilling or unable to markedly step up their support for Ukraine then Putin will hold onto his ill-gotten gains and when he does will move to the next phase of Plan Putin.  Putin’s wet dream is a new Iron Curtain from Kaliningrad in the north to Ljubljana in the south built on coercion and threat. He wants control of Northern Norway to secure the ingress and egress of the Russian Northern Fleet from Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula, as well as control over much of the North Atlantic, and the re-Finlandization of Finland.

Surrender

The signal?  When Western Europeans start talking about cease-fires and peace deals what they will really mean is Ukraine’s surrender.  They will dress it up in talk of lease back deals for Crimea and Donbas in which conquered Ukrainian territory is nominally under Kyiv’s sovereignty, they will make empty promises that Ukraine will be both non-aligned and protected and salve their bruised virtues by ‘committing’ to rebuilding Ukraine.  In other words, the European taxpayer will pay for Russia/’s war on Ukraine.

Ukraine’s reality is this: given Trump’s collaboration with Putin and at current levels of investment Western Europeans can either support Ukraine or defend themselves against the massive information and cyber attacks they face daily as well as the threat of military attack. They cannot do both. Any ‘strategy’ worthy of the name must reflect that because that is the reality of their situations and the ends, ways and means available to them given the circumstances.  In other words, a strategy of enforced appeasement.

If nothing else, read Keir!

Julian Lindley-French