Ukraine war – the latest stage of the spiral of escalation: light or heavy weapons?
After ideas that NATO itself should intervene against Russia in Ukraine or set up a no-fly zone or a humanitarian candy bomber bridge with a NATO escort were canceled for the time being, since they would trigger a direct confrontation and probably the direct 3rd World War, the discussion now wavers with regard to the sanctions, whether an oil and/or coal and/or gas embargo should now also be implemented, which, however, does not yet find sympathy because of the disastrous economic effects and the question of the short-term substitutability of Russian gas, but the discussion is now faltering as to whether Ukraine should now be armed with „offensive weapons“ and „heavy war equipment“ such as tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. instead of just „defensive weapons“ and „light war equipment“ such as stingers etc. Annalena Baerbock spoke out in favor of heavy weapons, while Scholz and Lambrecht backtracked and didn’t want any „German special paths“, but to coordinate this at European level, which the Ukrainians now suspect again that SPD- Scholz and Lambrecht are using a delaying tactic, since they possibly reject it and especially Steinmeier was kicked out from a planned visit to Kiev because of his closeness to Russia.
There are now 2 factions. One against heavy war equipment, since this entails the risk that the West would be drawn into a direct conflict with Russia. Especially since weapon systems such as Marder or Leopard allegedly require a training period of 6 weeks, other experts speak of a year, especially since a gap in the already „bare and nake Bundeswehr“ and its contribution to the eastern front would come too late, as well as strategically could not be decisive for the war in a battle for Mariupol.
The other faction, such as the US strategist Alexander Vindland, advocates the delivery of offensive weapons and heavy military equipment, especially since the Soviet Union also delivered its allies in the Korean and Vietnam wars MIGs, tanks, SAMs, etc. that were used by the North Korean and North Vietnamese military to bring down US war planes and kill Americans without the US escalating against the Soviet Union. General ret. Domroese, unlike General ret. Vad thinks that the delivery of heavy military equipment was urgently needed, especially since this could not be called offensive, since it is not directed against Russian territory, but only against Russian troops and their separatist proxies in the Donbass. He also believes in a possible rapid training. The aim had to be to teach the Russians a defeat in Mariupol and Donbass now and therefore to deliver these weapons now and not sometime in the distant past or future, but NOW, also to prevent that Putin could hold his victory parade on the anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II in Red Square on November 9. May with a victory in the Donbass and to sweeten it by a victory against Mariupol.
However, 2 versions of interim victories are also circulating. One faction that believes that the Russians can be defeated in the Donbass, or at least thwart the land bridge to Crimea, although not expelling the Russians from the Donbass and Ukraine. The other who would also accept that Mariupol falls and south-eastern Ukraine falls into Russian hands and then one has to accept a Western Ukraine being landlocked or still in possession of Odessa and then arming it with heavy war equipment so that if Putin wanted to start a second attack on Kyiv or even Odessa this by the heavy weapons and offensive weapons delivered to Ukraine in the meantime would become a suicide mission.
But to ask a couple of regular table dance pub warlike questions: Is there an accelerated training for the heavy weapons a real option? Are these heavy weapons coming in time? What exactly are they supposed to be used for? Wouldn’t it be better to get Russian or the latest heavy weapons that can be delivered quickly from the USA or elsewhere and have them financed by the EU or Germany, as suggested by Green Party Ralf Fücks from the Center for Liberal Modernity, that the federal government, if it cannot supply its own weapons or even wanted to, but could make 2% of the new Bundeswehr special fund available to the Ukraine in order to by this systems on the international arms market ? Do the German Marders and Leos make the difference in a city- and house-to-house battle like Mariupol or other cities, where the house and tunnel fight is more decisive, which is why Putin may use poison gas to smoke out the Ukrainian tunnel and house „rats“. and to kill them, even if Biden is renewing his charge of genocide? Doesn’t the Ukrainian army lose the previous advantage of a mobile and flexible guerrilla and ambush strategy when entering pitched battles, or could it tie up or attack Russian troops surrounding the city and thus distract them? Wouldn’t it be better to prepare for the fact that Odessa is safe and Western Ukraine is then armed with heavy weapons to become a bulwark along with the entire Eastern front, so that Putin cannot launch another attack on Kyiv or Odessa? And make the whole of Eastern Europe to a bulkward and a new Iron Curtain against a Russian invasion? In addition, if NATO changes the whole NATO deterrence strategy in direction of Reagan and Colin S Gray’s limited nuclear war strategy or Japan’s „enemy base strike capability“ or South Korea’s preemptive „kill chain“ at the NATO summit- from a defensive to an offensive deterrent?
You also have to get ready for the next scenario. A possible election victory by Marine Le Pen in France as a game changer and a possible nuclear demonstrative attack by Russia off the coast of Scandinavia, which could have been intended as a warning shot against the efforts of Finland and Sweden who now want to join NATO. There are already rumors about it:
“Russian missile systems are moving – routine exercise or threatening gesture?
Video footage near the Finnish border appears to show Russian military equipment being transported. It is still unclear whether this is actually a threat or just routine. These footage are intended to show Russian troops transporting military equipment towards the Finnish border. The video was shot about 35 kilometers from the border in a gas station parking lot near the Russian city of Vyborg. A road sign indicates the vehicles, likely K-300P Bastion mobile coastal defense systems, are traveling on a highway leading to Finland’s capital, Helsinki. Russian missile systems near the Finnish border However, it is unclear whether the pictures actually depict Russian threatening gestures or whether it is just a routine exercise. In any case, this troop movement takes place in a delicate situation. The governments in Finland and Sweden recently announced that they were considering joining the NATO defense alliance. Russia then threatened that this would have serious consequences.”