Scholzing- Will Trump end the Ukraine war?
A lot of criticism beforehand of Scholz, who now apparently went out posthumously as a brilliant strategist and not a hesitant softie after the debates about the Rammstein meeting. The new (non) word of the year had previously been created: Scholzing. The historian Timothy Garton Ash provided the explanation of what is meant by „scholzing“ in his tweet: „communicating good intentions only to use/find/invent any reasons imagineable to delay these and /or prevent them from happening.“
But now the question is whether this also applies to Biden with regard to tank deliveries. Because the USA refused to deliver their M1 Abrahams with all the technical and other arguments, which Ben Hodges called excuses and a lack of a war goal (Korea solution ala Milley, cook Russians in the swamp like a frog in lukewarm water and in a war that is as long as possible, reconquest of the Donbass and Crimea, possibly overthrowing Putin) and political will. Biden then did Scholzing himself and only after pressure from France and the Eastern Europeans and then above all Scholz that he only deliver Leos if the USA also delivered Abrahams, was urged to deliver the M1 Abrhamas. Was Biden actually the US Scholz who was hiding himself behind the Germans? It is unclear how this will continue.
Yesterday Ralph Thiele was from Dr. Seidt’s PMG in a television interview. His tenor: the Ukrainians were running out of soldiers and ammunition, the old Soviet weapons were mostly used up and destroyed and were now being replaced by western arms deliveries. But in order to maintain the current status or to gain some ground, the Ukrainians would need at least 300 western tanks, but only 180 will probably be delivered – no game changers. In addition, huge logistics chains would have to be set up, which would take time, especially since they were vulnerable. In the west one has to consider to what extent one wants to further skeletonize one’s own armies, because the national defense is no longer given in many European countries or one is only partially prepared to defend oneself fix the defect to some extent.
Selensky and Melnyk are now demanding combat aircraft, missiles and warships, since the tank deliveries will probably not bring about the hoped-for turnaround in the war, but only mean a stalemate and a war of attrition at best.
An interview with General a. D Naumanns on the arms deliveries, whereby he rejects combat aircraft deliveries due to military and alliance-political undermining, but not like others or General a. D. Vad from Escalation Concerns: After weeks of discussion, the federal government gave the green light to support Ukraine in the fight against Russia with 14 German Leopard 2 tanks. They are said to be part of an international alliance that wants to provide a total of 80 to 90 tanks. A decision that was criticized in the Bundestag, above all by the AfD and the left. Bundeswehr General ret. Klaus Naumann (83), who was Chief Inspector General of the Bundeswehr from 1991 to 1996 and then until 1999, also during the Kosovo War, as Chairman of the Military Committee, was NATO’s top soldier, in an interview, delivered the following assessment.
„Mr. General a. D. Naumann, Germany is now delivering 14 German Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine after a long back and forth. Do you think this is the right or wrong decision?
Naumann: It is the right, necessary and justified decision, but it also requires that replacements be ordered immediately for the tanks that are to be surrendered from the Bundeswehr inventory. The war of attrition in Donbass is currently in a stalemate. The ability for Ukraine to use these tanks in conjunction with infantry fighting vehicles and artillery is the only chance it has to take the initiative, break the stalemate, achieve local surprise and regain the initiative. This reduces unnecessary losses and recaptures illegally occupied territory.
-Did Chancellor Olaf Scholz hesitate too long with his approval?
Naumann: Definitely too long. He wanted the USA on board, that’s right and important. But anyone who hesitates for so long and gives the impression that he is bowing to international pressure is showing no creative power. Late decisions do not bring the influence in an alliance that only the will to lead creates. –
You’ve been following the war closely from the start. What’s your rating?
Naumann: Since February 24, 2022, Russia has been waging a brutal, illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. It broke all treaties and violated the central principle of European security, not to change borders through violence. The suspicion is that a large number of serious war crimes have been and are being committed. Ukraine, on the other hand, is showing excellent military performance and exemplary perseverance. We clearly overestimated Russia’s armed forces and their losses are immense.
-How do you currently assess Russia’s situation in this war? Do you have any insights into this?
Naumann: No, not enough, I don’t have access to intelligence information. I don’t know what else Russia has at its disposal, but I do know that Russia’s overall potential is of course superior to that of Ukraine. I only get information from the media, but also international ones. What can be said, however, is that Russia has troops with poor training and low morale. In this war, human life is not taken into account – including that of our own soldiers. The systematic destruction of infrastructure in Ukraine and the repeated attacks on purely civilian targets are war crimes.
-Currently the situation seems to be deadlocked. What do you mean? How will this war go on?
Naumann: That’s reading coffee grounds. Looking at the goals that Putin has already stated suggests that he would not stop after Ukraine. Putin wants to turn history back to where it was in 1997. He wants to roll back NATO to where it was before the 1997 enlargement, split Europe in two again, and create a Russian empire from the Baltics to the Black Sea with a self-contained Ukraine would no longer have room. This is completely unacceptable and nobody will accept it either. If we did, then our security would also be in danger. In Ukraine, the rule of law and even our freedom would be at stake. Ten million people are currently fleeing, hundreds of thousands have been killed and kidnapped. Of course, the Russian people are also suffering, and above all, Putin is turning Russia into China’s resource colony. The war will probably last a long time. Of course, like everyone else, I hope for an end, but if there are negotiations at the end of this year, then we can all consider ourselves lucky.
-And the first anniversary on February 24 also does not offer a basis for talks or negotiations?
Naumann: No. Putin is not willing to do that. And Ukraine is right in saying that it does not want to conduct negotiations with a gun to the side of the head – that is, with Russian troops at home. –
Does Germany still have diplomatic contact with Putin?
Naumann: The Federal Chancellor calls him from time to time, but otherwise I can’t say anything about it.
After the tanks, fighter jets could also be an issue for Ukraine in the foreseeable future. What do you make of it? Is that an option?
Naumann: No. They would not be available in the spring, when the next Russian offensive threatened. Pilot training and integration into the armed forces takes time that Ukraine doesn’t have. The task now is to use the new heavy weapons to continue supporting Ukraine so that it can absorb the Russian attack and regain Ukrainian territory in a counterattack. Unfortunately, we have to prepare ourselves for a long-lasting war in the heart of Europe. But Putin must fail in Ukraine. The central requirement for this is that NATO and the European Union remain closed. Anyone who now makes new demands, such as airplanes or ships, endangers the unity that has just been regained after the agonizing tank debate. That is just as little help for Ukraine as urging negotiations. Both only help Putin. Our key to success is the unity of NATO and the European Union. Only in this way can and will it be possible to maintain an independent and sovereign Ukraine. Only then can one negotiate a future European peace order in the Atlantic alliance.”
The reference to Putin’s ultimatum before the war and the rollback of NATO before 1997 is good, but Naumann should have emphasized that explicitly as a central and foreseeably unacceptable demand of Putin’s pre-war ultimatum to NATO, as well as Putin’s so-called peace speech to the Bundestag in 2001 , which demanded a Eurasian military alliance and then also the alliance with China for a multipolar world order under Russian-Chinese hegemony, which always remains the overriding framework and war goal of the Russian-Chinese axis and therefore associated regional conflicts worldwide and then of course in Ukraine.In addition, not only emphasize the military, but see Gerasimov’s hybrid war as a holistic complex, i.e. also the Russian support for the Front Nationals and the AfD in order to break the backbone of the EU and NATO. General Naummann said this would confuse readers, we disagree. The reference to Gerasimov’s hybrid warfare would show that this conflict is also being fought on political and many non-military levels. Germasimow introduced the concept of hybrid war after the experiences of the Arab Spring and just as Chinese authors in the Chinese publication “Unrestricted Warfare” already envisaged all non-military means as an integrated part of warfare above the primarily military warfare, Gerasimov was also included these elementsin his hybrid war, but his concept has apparently not yet been fully understood by many people in the West and focuses primarily on the military and some campaigning in social media. In concrete terms, the starting signal for this dispute over Europe began when Putin, through an oligarch, gave the Front National 40 million euros. when it was de facto already facing bankruptcy. The goal was clear. If it had been Le Pen’s turn, that would have been the end of the Franco-German axis, the EU, the euro, including withdrawal from NATO and replacement by a Franco- Russian military alliance. Completely incomprehensible that this part of hybrid warfare was not even noticed in western media. This happened long before the Ukraine war and would also have brought about a tectonic shock. Mentioning this does not confuse anyone, but clearly shows what a multipolar world and Eurasian military alliance, as demanded by Putin in 2001 in his Bundestag speech and also by Xi, would mean and that shows that neo-totalitarian Xi-China probably gave Putin a free hand for his war of aggression at the Winter Games in Beijing, just as Stalin Mao and Kim Il-Sung did for their Korean War. Therefore, instead of always criticizing Western crusade ideology and value liberalism, one could also target the neo-totalitarian values policy of Russia and China and their war program for a multipolar world.
The fear of a nuclear war is not entirely out of the question either, but it has to be rationalized. As far as I understand Ben Hodges correctly, he does not believe in global nuclear war. On the one hand, because he doesn’t think the Russians will ignite ta new Cuban Missile Crisis, on the other hand, even if they did, you’d have to get through it and play good poker and then, like back in 1962, there would be a happy ending. So, the good Big Ben is quite willing to take risks, does not shy away from escalation and still counts on the rational homo economicus on both sides. Just like Reagan did back then with his Evil Empire and Able Archer maneuvers in 1983 on the edge of the nuclear war that brought up Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. Only the CSBA study Rethinking Armaggedon sees this somewhat differently and is the first study to question the paradigm of homo economicus on which nuclear deterrence is based. Otherwise, the old doctrine still applies to NATO planners. In addition, you have to differentiate between US, German and Ukrainian perspectives. The US can survive and live well with limited nuclear war in Europe, the Germans and Europeans with limited nuclear war in Ukraine. The logic of the so-called bellicists is also a little skewed. On the one hand, it is said that Putin would not dare attack Europe and NATO territory because the nuclear deterrent would prevent him from doing so. Conversely, and paradoxically, it is then said in the same breath that if Ukraine falls, Putin will next be Poland and then NATO would attack. This is just as contradictory as the Russians, conversely, declared that if Ukraine became a member of NATO, it would pose a direct military threat to Russia. On the one hand, this would already be the case with directly neighboring Poland and the Baltic States, on the other hand, the NATO-Russia Founding Act still applies, which has not yet been canceled by either side, and thirdly, it is clear that if the first NATO soldier crosses the Russian border would be exceeded, this would result in a concentrated nuclear strike. Or not? The situation around the Baltic States, which Michael O’Hannon addresses in his book Senkaku Paradox-Great Power Wars on Small Stakes, is more precarious.
Ben Hodges also was in the talkshow Maybrit Illner. It was interesting that he accused the Biden government of having hidden itself behind subterfuges and excuses with the Abrahams. Maybe also a sign that Biden might not want to recapture all of Ukraine after all. General Vad also reported to me that he was allegedly given information from D.C. that the US is willing to start negotiations in February. It was also interesting that Strack-Zimmermann said that the delivery of combat aircraft was something completely different from that of tanks, especially since the Ukrainians could use them to shell Russian territory, which sounded like they didn’t trust the Ukrainians and would not work for it other than with the tanks. Proxy war yes, world war: No. Hodges, on the other hand, said that the military logic required this and that one could then starve Crimea and cut off supplies. It is questionable, however, whether Biden actually wants it the way Hodges is demanding or whether he wants to bpil the Russians like a frog in lukewarm water for as long as possible. But Scholz’s comment that this war will last for a long time is also interesting.
In any case, Donald Trump is another actor who is now responding to the upcoming US election campaign along with wokeness and migration, following Elon Musk’s Ukraine peace proposal by means of the Ukraine war wants to play as a prince of peace and deal-maker and because it remains part of the hybrid warfare and Putin’s calculation:
„It’s so simple“: Trump claims he can end the Ukraine war
If Donald Trump has his way, it wouldn’t be particularly difficult to end the Ukraine war. As a mediator, the former US President brings himself into play.
PALM BEACH (AP) – Former US President Donald Trump has claimed he can successfully mediate between Russia and Ukraine to end the war „within 24 hours“. Trump, who has seen himself as a negotiating artist since his bestselling book „The Art of the Deal“, boasted about his alleged negotiating skills on his social media platform Truth Social. “If I were President, the Russia/Ukraine war would never have happened,” Trump wrote — all in capital letters — on Thursday (January 26). The Republican, who had already announced a candidacy for the US election in 2024, also assured that the conflict could now be ended quickly. „If I were President, I could negotiate an end to this horrible and rapidly hurting war within 24 hours,“ the ex-President wrote.
Republicans back Trump: ‚Will call Putin and end this war‘ In another post, Trump had criticized the delivery of Abrams tanks recently announced by Washington. „First come the tanks, then come the atomic bombs,“ he wrote. Trump also accused the Democratic government of not doing enough: “End this crazy war, now. It’s so easy!“ Republican Congressman Troy Nehls from Texas takes a similar view of the former head of state. He suggested in an interview with Fox News that the war would „end“ if Trump called Putin – President Biden would only have to ask. „If we really want to end this war, Joe Biden, then you have to call Donald Trump,“ Nehls said. “Donald Trump will call Vladimir Putin and end this war. We must end this war, and Donald Trump can do that.” It is not the first time that Trump has been viewed as the savior of the Ukrainian people – both by himself and by fellow Republicans. After the Nord Stream leaks last year, the ex-president once again offered to negotiate with the Russian head of state. A few days later, he also claimed that US foreign policy had “taunted” and “almost forced” Putin to invade Ukraine.
In any case, Biden seems to be coming under considerable pressure and it remains to be seen whether he can continue to deliver aid to Ukraine or even fighter planes so easily, which France also didn´t exclude as an option.. But Trump and Le Pen remain Putin’s hopes in Gerasimov’s hybrid war and as potential game changers. Whether Trump could then keep Putin in his camp after such a deal or neutral in the coming Sino-American conflict, as John Mearsheimer and some parts of the US establishment hoped before the Ukraine war, or even create a sustainable European peace order, remains to be seen . Because so far, Xi and Putin are still sticking together for their common goal of a multipolar world order under their hegemony.