Dr. Klaus Wittmann
Brigadier General (ret.),
who teaches contemporary history at Potsdam University
Berlin, Germany
klauswittmann-berlin@gmx.de
Ukraine’s Western vocation
For two centuries, Ukrainian efforts to build a state with its own identity were strangled by Russia, later the Soviet Union. In 1991 finally a sovereign and free Ukrainian state emerged from the demise of the latter. Its security was guaranteed not least by Russia in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. In parallel with the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997 a “Distinct Partnership” between NATO and Ukraine including a NATO-Ukraine Commission was established. Military reform had its ups and downs, because, just as in the field of corruption, the Soviet legacy remained strong. The” Orange Revolution” of 2004 demonstrated the desire for lawful politics, but unfortunately the bearers of hope - President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Timoshenko - through their constant rivalry contributed most towards destroying the hope.
However, after President Yanukovych’s refusal, ceding to Russian pressure, to conclude the association agreement with the EU, the Euromaidan (“revolution of hope”) starting in November 2013 wiped him away and firmly set Ukraine on the course towards the West. President Putin, already extremely concerned by the mass demonstrations in Russia 2011/2012 after his return to power and the fraudulent Duma elections, now added external aggression to domestic repression. In spring 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea and started, using proxy “separatists”, the covert war in the Donbass.
The “ceasefire” according to the Minsk I agreement (which saw 12.000 dead in eight years) was used by the Russians for preparing the final onslaught, the subjugation invasion against Ukraine on 24 February 2022. This at last ended illusions about cooperation with Russia in many Western governments and societies, although it may not have broken the temptation to “look at Ukraine merely through Russian eyes” (the German Eastern Europe historian Karl Schlögel). But it has set Ukraine even more firmly on the Western course, for its existentially threatened survival depends at present on Western military assistance, and in future on EU and NATO membership. Apart from all that, Ukraine’s experience with Communist and Nazi totalitarianism speaks for a solid anchoring in the free world.
Character and State of the War
Thus, if the West remains firm, Putin will already have achieved at least partly the opposite of what he was and is aiming for. His objectives are very clear, openly stated in many speeches as well in his article about “the historic unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in July 2021, and in his letters to NATO and the US Administration in December the same year: Revisionist “roll-back” of the changes in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990/91 with satellite states in a zone of exclusive Russian influence. For Ukraine, “de-Nazification“, “de-Ukrainisation” and de-militarisation are declared goals, which means, perhaps via temporary neutralisation, subjugation and finally annexation of the neighbour country, to which Putin has denied for some time the right to be a sovereign country.
What happens to Ukrainians under Russian occupation we have seen: murder, torture, rape, liquidation of local politicians, forced russification, deportation of children by the tens of thousands. It is clear that they will never agree to live under the power of Russia – or to “cede” parts of Ukrainian territory, which is not abstract lands, but the home to millions of Ukrainians who would suffer the abovementioned fate. This is one of the aspects where Putin has totally miscalculated – besides Western unity and support and the performance of his own troops: the bravery and determination to survive of the Ukrainian people. Putin has not achieved his strategic aims, he has united the EU to an almost unknown extent, he has caused a spectacular further enlargement of NATO, and he has welded together the Ukrainian nation. To top this off, the flimsiness of the reasons he gave for the war was exposed by, of all people, his criminal crony Prigozhin.
Having gotten used to this war, which has now entered its third year, people tend to overlook its character. There are not “two warring parties”, but a totally criminal, unjustified war of subjugation and destruction. If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, that is its end.
Negotiations to end the war?
Indeed, the real motive behind Putin’s revision, imperialism, revanche, flawed history interpretation is retention of power. He is not afraid of NATO, but of his own people, should it be infected by the democratic virus. Putin rules with fear, but also from fear. His pretended security “interests” vis-`vis a totally defensive Atlantic alliance are politico-psychologic sensitivities which he has been rubbing in to Russian elites and people in over 20 years of propaganda: the victim and humiliation complex (loser of the Cold War, in a phase of weakness abused by the West), imperial phantom pain (the dissolution of the Soviet Union the “largest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century”), frustration about not longer being regarded as a world power.
For these reasons, speculating about negotiations to end the war are futile as long as he keeps confirming the irrevocability of his destructive goals. Those must be thwarted. If he wins, he will not stop at Ukraine; at the Valdai conference he boasted that he had “only started to transform the world order”. The cost for us in the West would be much higher than what we have to endure at present regarding recession, inflation, energy prices, military aid, refugees. Next targets would be Georgia and Moldova. And provided he perceives the European Union as disunited and NATO as weak (perhaps after an election victory of Donald Trump) he could be expected to test NATO in the Black Sea countries Romania and Bulgaria or at the North-eastern flank with the Baltic countries Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia.
Stopping Russia in Ukraine is in our genuine interest. Western weapon deliveries are the “life artery” of the attacked country – not only “as long as it takes”. This constantly repeated assurance must be completed by “with everything necessary” and “timely”. This support is not charitable deeds or “favours” to Ukraine. It serves our own security and the re-establishment of Europe’s security order codified in Helsinki 1975 and confirmed in Paris 1990: sovereign equality of European nations, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, peaceful settlement of disputes, free choice of security arrangements.
Of course, the West and some other countries have given to Ukraine important weapon systems, but in most cases too little too late and “with the handbrake on” regarding numbers and also certain systems. Had there not been much hesitation in the case of armoured personnel carriers and main battle tanks (in Germany 9 months between a clear parliamentary vote and the positive decision), and had Ukraine in time received the means to exploit the momentum of the successful counteroffensive at Cherson and Kharkiv in late summer 2022, the Russian forces would not have had half a year to dig in with three-echelon defence systems, mining the terrain in great density.
Avoid self-fulfilling prophecies
The situation as a whole is not as hopeless as it is often portrayed. There are many Ukrainian successes: strikes against Crimea, keeping the Russian Black Sea Fleet away from the coast, grain exports without Russian approval, immense Russian losses of men and material, recapture of large areas around Kharkiv and Kherson. In addition, a number of Western weapons systems (F16 fighter planes, more Leopard main battle tanks, and more Patriot air defence systems) are expected.
However, the situation on the fronts in the South and North-east must currently be seen as a stalemate, with the danger that the Russian side will regain the initiative, at least locally, and increase its personnel in the war of attrition, apart from the boost in arms production. At the same time, Western military support is crumbling dangerously: in the USA - long before the threat of another Donald Trump presidency - aid to Ukraine has become a pawn in political battles, and the Putin-friendly Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is blocking EU aid. Some are showing defeatism in view of the lack of counter-attack successes in the summer and autumn – without acknowledging their failure to make them possible. If this mood leads to more war-weariness and a further reduction in support, this could result in a "self-fulfilling prophecy".
If the half-heartedness is not reversed, bloodshed and destruction will continue, and at his press conference the smirking Russian warlord displayed confidence of victory, of having time on his side and of being able to outlast the West.
Europe’s responsibility
What must be expected of European leaders, not least the German Chancellor?
The publics must be informed in a much more active way about the criminal character of this war, about what is at stake for us and that Europe may soon be in a situation to make up for cancelled US support for Ukraine.
They must lift the handbrakes on weapon numbers and types. A case in point is the German cruise missile Taurus, of which the German air force has hundreds in its inventory. This stand-off weapon with a range of 500 km, very suited for the extremely important task to hit from a safe distance high-value targets behind the Russian lines and on the Russia’s “power centre”, the annexed Crimea, such as command posts, depots, bridges and transport routes, whereby Russian command and logistics could be decisively impaired.
"Ukrainian victory", to which, in contrast to the Foreign Minister and Defence Minister, the Federal Chancellor has never committed himself, does not necessarily mean physical reconquest of every square kilometre. But the Russian armed forces must be withdrawn because their position becomes untenable. As the British "Storm Shadow" and the French "Scalp" have shown, far-reaching long-range cruise missiles are very effective in this regard. The Taurus has been under discussion for almost six months now, and we see the same scheme as with the armoured combat vehicles: “very German excuses”.
It is important not to give Putin the impression that Western political leaders are susceptible to blackmail. He escalates independent of any specific weapon system delivered by the West. The terror attacks around the turn of the year against over a hundred Ukrainian towns and against critical infrastructure, using cold and darkness as weapons to wear down the people’s resistance must be answered in a language Putin understands. That is not appeasement or conciliatoriness but strength and determination. And between the will to destroy and the fight for survival a “compromise” is not imaginable.
So, the right things must be delivered in sufficient numbers and on time. Air defence systems from Germany are extremely effective, but supplying them instead of other urgently needed systems is not acceptable. Ukraine needs even more air defence, as it is not only the cities that must be protected, but it also needs more combat, infantry and armoured transport vehicles, mine-clearing equipment, artillery, ammunition, spare parts, maintenance capacity. NATO and EU members could supply all of that in sufficient quantities.
Furthermore, European governments should support Kiev’s appeal to hundreds of thousand young Ukrainians to return and join the defence effort of their nation. And it is right for the EU and its members to join the reconstruction efforts already going on – not least as a signal of hope and confidence. In the same vein, the European Union has decided to start accession negotiations with Ukraine. Everyone knows that these will be long, but Kiev’s efforts to increasingly meet the criteria must be wholeheartedly supported.
Ukraine’s and Europe’s future security requires leadership
NATO, for its part, should do at its 75th anniversary summit meeting in Washington what it failed last year in Vilnius: send out a clear signal that after the war Ukraine will become a member of NATO – and that Russia has no droit de regard in that matter. For effective security guarantees no other scheme is imaginable. It is understandable that Ukraine wants to join the only security guarantee that works – the Transatlantic Alliance. Only this can make sure that after the expulsion of the Russian troops Russia can never again attack Ukraine.
What is needed is leadership by European politicians without false considerations for Putin and his hollow threats. As a German one would like to see such leadership by Chancellor Scholz, who at the recent convention of his party said that President Putin "must not expect us to let up", and that Germany must be prepared to do even more "if others show weakness". A few days later in the Bundestag he added: “It is about whether Putin will get his way with his imperialist plans, which he is still openly pursuing. It is about whether borders in Europe will be secure in the future or whether land theft and occupation will once again become the European norm. This question is fundamental for the security of Europe and for the security of Germany.”
Scholz should join Prime Minister Tusk of Poland who has vowed to “demand loudly and resolutely the full mobilisation of the free world ... to support Ukraine in this war". He should show the good example by finally making a positive Taurus decision and win important countries like France and Great Britain to substantially step up their military support for Ukraine. An all-out effort is needed now, including boosting arms and ammunition production.
24 February 2022 indeed marked an epochal rupture, but the “Zeitenwende” the Chancellor proclaimed three days later must still fully arrive in many people’s minds. The third year of this war must bring about the turning point for Ukraine in the interest all Europe’s security and as a precondition for its firm anchoring in the Western community and alliance.