Informative interview by TV Berlin with ex-NATO General Domroese jr. You learn some interesting details; .Transition to offensive intelligence information to signal Russia that the West knows exactly what it is doing and intends to do, basic military arithmetic to understand the balance of power and the potential for escalation, data mining, the comparison of Ghani / Afghanistan’s military, which was much better armed than the Ukrainians , but the president then fled, had no will to fight and the Afghanistan National Army (ANA) then quickly ran away in the face of the sandal-wearing Taliban with Kalashnikovs and mopes/pick-ups and collapsed, which Putin transferred to Ukraine and came to the wrong assessment, to stand in Kiev in 3 weeks as liberator of Novo Russja- Ukraine , while Zelensky did not flee, but stayed and the Ukrainians fought. Furthermore, information on the front situation and possible options, etc. are excellently explained, although Domroese jr. since the availability of concrete figures and predictions of political will was reaching his limits. Basically, he predicts that both sides want to launch an offensive in the spring, the Ukrainians would only have a chance if they don’t fight on the whole 1500 km long front, but dare a push as a blitzkrieg and the Israeli 6-day war, driving a wedge in the Russian supply lines. In any case, a ceasefire is likely by the end of this year, as this would increasingly become a war of attrition. In his opinion, a nuclear strike by Russia cannot be ruled out, but it is quite unlikely.
Global Review has asked ex-General Domroese jr. then further questions following the interview.
Global Review: 1) Last hope Ukrainian blitzkrieg/ 6-day war to separate the Russian supply lines, although you then have to defend on 2 sides and make a decisive push. But you don’t seem to really believe it either. Ben Hodges and others recommend that the Ukrainians launch an offensive in Crimea and not focus so much on Bachmuth. Here’s Ben Hodge’s zoom video event:
The whole thing was organized by the Croats and we suspect Big Ben is taking the Krajna offensive of the Croats against the Serbs in the Yugoslav war of the 90s, which the US-PSC Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) now orchestrated, as a model for a possible one Ukrainian offensive in Crimea. But do the Ukrainians still have the resources and are they not busy enough in the Donbass that such a Crimean offensive would give the Russians an opportunity to push and break through on the Donbass front?
2) Also another question, if it comes from the expected armistice after the spring offensive of both sides: what happens then?
Domroese: Ad 1: high risk. Clear. Might work…rather not likely as long as no or too few high-tech systems are supplied.
Ad 2 : Ceasefire ONLY with US & EU security guarantee. With that change to war party (KRIEGPARTEI) , which can and must be explained to the people. The Russians would understand it in terms of deterrence. The SPD is very concerned about that, I think. Then, at the same time, massive western arms build-up in Ukraine. Westernize the armed forces, training etc. Political negotiations on areas of land, reparation payments, prisoner exchanges, deported children, etc. Goal: lasting stability and peace in freedom. Takes forever.
Global Review: The FAZ emphasizes the need for material underpinning of security guarantees in the event of a ceasefire:
“Western guarantees are needed for peace in Ukraine
A commentary by Konrad Schuller -Updated on 03/04/2023-21:23
Ukraine wants security commitments from its allies, and Olaf Scholz says: We’re talking about that. But if words are to become reality, resilient commitments are a must. In his government statement on the anniversary of the turning point in history, Olaf Scholz said important things and left out important things. Above all, he confirmed that Germany is currently in talks with Kiev about future “security commitments”. He also explained why: Vladimir Putin doesn’t just want to occupy limited parts of Ukraine. He wants them, says Scholz, „to destroy them as a nation“. There is therefore no getting around security guarantees as a prerequisite for future peace. Because Putin wants to wipe Ukraine off the map, he has never respected ceasefires with her.
A peace can therefore only last if a situation arises in which it can no longer simply be broken. There are two paths to this state. The first would be terrible: Russia would have to suffer such a loss in the field that she would not be able to attack anyone afterwards. However, this scenario would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It would also shake Russia so deeply that it could overthrow Putin. Then there would actually be a nuclear war. That’s why it mustn’t happen like this.
The second scenario is not primarily about weakening Russia. Rather, Ukraine must first be made so strong through arms that Putin voluntarily believes it is time for one of his usual pauses. And when the guns are down, strong allies would have to ensure that it stays that way. The security promises that the chancellor is talking about are then necessary for this. It depends on the specifics But this is where a bad memory comes into play: After the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited some of its nuclear weapons. She waived this and received guarantees from London, Moscow and Washington in the “Budapest Memorandum”. But because the memorandum contained no concrete commitments, Putin never took it seriously. In the end he wiped it off the table and invaded Ukraine.
This is why guarantees must be materially secured this time, and Scholz has already indicated how this could work: his statement refers to proposals by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Among them is a collective assistance system that Ukraine calls the „Kiev Security Pact.“ It provides a network of linked protection pledges from major Western countries. Unlike the Budapest Memorandum, these are intended to develop real persuasive power through military, technical and financial deterrents.
And this is where what Scholz didn’t say. Guarantees can only be effective if Germany, the USA and other countries enter into concrete support obligations. In order for Putin to believe their determination to protect the peace, they must make preparations. You have to set up material stores in Ukraine, you have to upgrade roads and railways for quick supplies. Above all, they must have soldiers ready – if not in the Ukraine itself, as leading German experts are demanding, then in neighboring countries, in Romania or Poland. Scholz has now taken the first step. He speaks of security promises, and without them it doesn’t work. But if Putin is to take it seriously, he must now, together with strong allies, become concrete very soon.
What should the security guarantees look like in concrete terms?
Domrorese: I see a security guarantee as with Israel: forces over the horizon, i.e. available but NOT stationed in Ukraine. From time to time exercises in Ukraine…
Global Review: Israel model- troops over the Horizon. Why not the Taiwan Relations Act or bilateral military treaty ala USA-Japan with military bases or multilateral military treaty with several troop units/security guarantors as a model? Isn’t the latter more deterring? Why not NATO membership – would that take too long or would that be too provocative or is that the next step in the long run? There were annual NATO maneuvers Trident even at the time of the allegedly pro-Russian President Yanukovych in the Ukraine, when the Budapest Memorandum was still valid – that is, also troops over the horizon. Where is the difference? In addition, Israel is a nuclear power, Ukraine is not. Or do you not want militarybases and permanent troops in a Ukraine so that the NATO-Russia Founding Act will continue to exist?
Domroese: In a nutshell:
* NATO membership requires UNANIMITY I don’t see them thatoon. It’s still a conflict. No peace yet. * bilateral agreements are possible. USA often do this. I do not know.
* Budapest was NOT concrete in the sense of assistance. Of course it should be now
* it follows: we switch to WARPARTY and that * (certainly) discourages Russia from continuing to advance by force.
* Nato- Russia Founding Act only says no nuks, no significant forces (= divisions), no Nato Commandos/ HQs.“
In any case, it’s a race between the hare and the hedgehog. Will the Russian front collapse from within, as some Western military experts are hoping, or can Putin hold out until or if Trump is re-elected next year in order to reach a deal with him? Ron Desantis and a number of Republicans also announced that they would focus more on China and to focus less on Europe and Ukraine, which would also affect arms deliveries. The now escalating dispute between the Wagner boss and Putin is a very clear indication that there are first cracks in the Russian front:
„Then Crimea will fall“: Prigozhin threatens Putin with the withdrawal of the Wagner group
It would mean the collapse of the front: Wagner boss Prigozhin has threatened Putin with the withdrawal of his mercenaries from Bakhmut. The power struggle is apparently escalating. Moscow – Too little ammunition, hardly any recruits and a muzzle imposed: Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigoschin feels tamed by the Kremlin in the Ukraine war – and is now threatening serious consequences. Putin’s cook did not rule out withdrawing his mercenaries from the battles surrounding Bakhmut. That would be a fatal step for the Kremlin. Ukraine war: Prigozhin threatens Putin with the withdrawal of the Wagner group in Bakhmut „If Wagner withdraws from Bakhmut now, the entire front will collapse,“ Prigozhin clarified in a video published by Telegram. Then it will be very uncomfortable for all units that want to defend Russia. The Wagner boss threatened that the Ukraine could then break through to the Russian border and maybe even beyond due to a “spring effect”. “Then the front collapses. Then the Crimea will fall,” he prophesied to the Kremlin, in the event of a Wagner withdrawal, a crushing defeat.
Now the question is whether the Wagner group is still so central, whether Putin could not support it more, especially since a new private mercenary group is about to be set up around another oligarch. Global Review interviewed Russia expert Dr. Rahr on the status of the Wagner replacement troop that Putin and the siloviki are to set up and also on Kadyrov’s role. Rahr commented: „Putin relies on his cook, if he flees (Kadyrov has already withdrawn), only the poorly motivated army remains, which is not making any progress. You mean the Golden Wolves that Rogozin is building. No, no money“.
Sounds pretty desperate. Perhaps Putin will then send the Night wolves as the final contingent and ascension command.
But if this doesn’t help, it would be quite possible that Ben Hodges‘ scenario of a Crimean offensive could still occur, whereby it would then turn out whether Putin is using nuclear weapons, which General Vad, including a new Cuban crisis, considers likely, Ben Hodges excludes as areal possibility while, General Domroese Jr. doesn’t want to rule it out, but considers it unlikely.
However, the opposite game changer could be the US presidential elections next year, which could weaken the European and Ukrainian front and which Putin has in mind and probably hopes to be able to bridge that time gao:
„I will prevent World War III“: Donald Trump threatens to end aid to Ukraine
Against Joe Biden, against the Democrats and against Ukraine: Donald Trump rages against everyone during his speech at a conference. He is well received by his followers. FORT WASHINGTON – Former US President Donald Trump demonstrated his popularity with the right-wing base with an acclaimed performance at the Conservative Conference CPAC. On Saturday (March 4) the Republican attacked his successor Joe Biden, but also parts of his own party, at the meeting near Washington in front of thousands of listeners – and presented himself as the best candidate for the 2024 presidential election. In view of the Ukraine war, he warned a „Third World War“ „We will defeat the Democrats,“ Trump said in his speech, which lasted around one and a half hours. „We’re going to kick Joe Biden out of the White House.“ Trump’s statement, „We’re going to finish what we started,“ was met with calls from the audience for Trump’s „four more years“ in the White House.
Donald Trump on the Ukraine war: „I will prevent World War III“ Trump said he was the only candidate who could save the US from the „warmonger“ Democrats and the „fanatics and fools“ in the Republican ranks. US citizens are in an „epic fight to save our country from people who hate it and want to destroy it completely,“ the 76-year-old said. Voters are tired of „political dynasties“ among Democrats and Republicans, „China-loving politicians“ and supporters of „endless foreign wars“. „We’re going to have World War III if something doesn’t happen quickly,“ Trump said in part of his speech criticizing US aid to Ukraine. „I am the only candidate who can make this promise: I will prevent World War III.“ Donald Trump on the Ukraine war: Trump wants to end support for Ukraine „I am your warrior, I am your justice, I am your vengeance,“ Trump said pompously. His choice of words must have been well thought out, especially against the background of his strictly Christian supporters. Trump’s announcements that followed are less Christian. He would stop aid to Ukraine immediately if he became president again. He also wants to invest the money that is currently being sent to Kiev in the construction of a border wall on the border with Mexico. He promised to build it during his first election campaign. During his tenure, Trump was criticized for his closeness to autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un.