Interesting development of the Ukraine war. After the offensive of the Ukrainians seems to falter, the final victory fails to materialize, now the next new miracle and wonder weapons and game changers are demanded, Biden has already proposed an „Israel solution“ and now the NATO- Chief of Staff for the first time openly talked about a Korean solution as an option, albeit perhaps with NATO membership different from South Korea or Japan: or even Taiwan :
„Victory through Western arms escalation or Ukraine becomes the new Korea“.
Today, 18.08.2023 | 07:16
After a proposal from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s entourage caused outrage in Kiev, Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen, has rowed back. He had previously said it was possible to end the war in Ukraine by ceding territory permanently to Russia in exchange for NATO membership.“
Always too little and too late, also no political will for consistent ot decisive escalation on the part of the West and the USA, reaching the military operational minimum outlined by Domroese, as well as also the financial operational minimum of Western states and the economy in view of the Green Deal, Global Gateway, industrial policy, inflation, special assets for the Bundeswehr, exploding debts, German economic crisis, as well as the rise of Eurasian-minded forces such as the AfD, etc., will in my view already lead to a Korean solution. That was already my gut feeling at the beginning similar to Milley and Vad. The fact that NATO Chief of Staff Jenssen is already openly addressing this is another indication. The fact that the traffic light coalition in Berlin has cancelled the 2% NATO target also points in this direction. Not only energy and traffic turnaround,and transistion but also the turning poit/Zeitenwende seem to fail. Regarding the decision of the traffic light coalition to cancel the 2% NATO target, it is interesting that the CDU/CSU is also silent on this issue. One fears apparently around votes, Former General Domroese commented:
„It sucks. … when the special assets are used up – presumably in 2027 – the Ministery of Defense would have to increase from about 50 billion to about 80 billion – AFTER THE ELECTION, which the CDU wants to win.“
Whether this is wishul thinking of a loyal transatlanic and hope dies last, remains to be seen.
Merkel’s ex-military adviser General Erich Vad, who also initiated and organized with Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer the peace demonstration at the Brandenburg Gate, as well visited the Army Day of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in the Chinese Embassy with ex- General Kujat and former Putin and Gazprom adviser Dr. Alexander Rahr to chat with the Chinese ambassador, said:
““With an escalation of weapons systems – formerly main battle tanks, now F16s and Tauruses – you can’t change the overall military situation in Ukraine in the long term. This is the fundamental, prevailing error in thinking.
Even the offensive that has allegedly been going on for 2.5 months – which is actually not a military-operational offensive at all, but which no one dares to say, as in the fairy tale „The Emperor’s New Clothes“ – does not change the overall military situation as long as NATO does not become a party to the war and plays out its full potential.
From a military point of view, what we are currently doing is pure political symbolism. At best, the escalation of weapons systems is intended to show how seriously we take the situation and, above all, to reassure and persuade us to do whatever is necessary for Ukraine. NATO GS Stoltenberg’s bureau chief, who has been whistled and rowed back, is absolutely right in his realistic assessment. One can only hope that the hacks in the German editorial offices will eventually get the message and give up their grandfathers‘ belief in miracle weapons and war-deciding offensives which are far from reality.“
Ex- NATO General Domroese said of the Korean solution:
„I don’t see the KOREA option!
Because then one would have to station many forces in the UKR – forever. Thus one would be strongly bound – ISR option offers more flexibility. And that’s really important with multiple ‚challenges at the same time‘.“
Ex- General Vad also said:
„Don’t know if the unique Israel support of the U.S. is so 1:1 transferable to Ukraine. The protection of Israel is certainly part of the American security doctrine. Think that’s not transferable to other countries, maybe declaratory….., but more likely not factual.“
Moreover, Ukraine is also not like Israel a nuclear power and owner of weapons of mase destruction and this will not change in the foreseeable future.
Here still my considerations on these comments of former General Vad:
„Dear General Vad,
unlike you, I would have reacted differently in the case of the Ukraine crisis. After Putin’s invasion not only a few tame economic sanctions, but a large-scale, fully mobilizing major maneuver of NATO and not a few spearhead troops in the Baltic States or Poland, rather like at that time Ample Archer and also with fist-thick threats like Kissingers/Nixons/Reagan’s Madman theory. Brinkmanship at the best or worst and also with the risk of a Cuban Missile Crisis or better a quiet Cuban Missile Crisis like Ample Archer, which brought Gorbachev in the Soviet Politburo.
But after 2 or 3 decades of „change through trade“, the hoped-for Kantian eternal globalization peace, pacifism and neo-liberal austerity, the political will or even the material capabilities were missing. Would that then be voluntaristic rage bourgeoisie at the green militarist table? It is also probable that the most classic transatlanticist and at that time highest-ranking German general in NATO, ex-general Naumann, who had previously co-signed the de-escalation call with Dr. Varwick and only jumped off at Putin’s outrageous ultimatum before the invasion with his unacceptable demand for a rollback of NATO to the borders of 1997, would have jumped off just as Domroese might have at the suggestion of a new Cuban Missile Crisis or even a „silent Cuban Missile Crisis“ like Ample Archer. Especially since it was perhaps also unrealistic and not feasible in view of the state of NATO, the operational minimum (Domroese) and also too dangerous, with which this was perhaps a more purely theoretical and more emotional option, rather than a practical or real-political one in this form, moreover also for many a certain element of surprise was added, which we at Global Review did not have, also and especially because of our Russian contacts, since in the Valdai Club a „defensive war against NATO“ was discussed early on, and with Karaganovs, Glasievs and other writings with open war-mongering, even the head of RIAC, Dr. Kurtonov, said that one had to create facts in Ukraine and not rely on treaties and Western promises, the first war clouds had already noticeably gathered. Moreover, on the part of the West there was no will to compromise on the issue of NATO membership at the Munich Security Conference, insofar as that had changed anything.
At Global Review, it was clear that the decision and zurning point would soon be made like Carl Schmitt distinguished. Friend or foe, and that will only be the beginning. Nevertheless, I would have expected and wished for a much sharper reaction to the Russian invasion on the part of the West. Mybe this did not happen because the West is now really so hollowed out and will be for some time to come – and Putin and Xi probably had the same impression at that time – in any case, the U.S. will no longer want to waste so many conventional resources in Europe as it now wants to turn to China and the Asian pivot. The decision of the traffic light coalition again not to perpetuate the 2% targets in a defense budget shows that after the transport turnaround and the energy turnaround, the Zeitenwedne/turning point has now also been put on the back burner, if not failed, or is becoming a never-ending story. But as Domroese,always quotes Scharping: „Would have, would have, bicycle chain. Past conjunctives are of little use.
Since nothing in this direction was to be expected apparently and above all is or will be, one must see what one makes as best from the real political, economic and military balance of power and the present constellation (according to the constellation analysis of neorealist Prof. Kinderrmann). And at this point we rather come together again.
But dear General Vad: In your logic that the West is only perfroming symbolic politics because it continues to supply weapons despite the allegedly unshakable Russian escalation dominance there is also a mistake in your thinking. If Putin believes in his own ability to escalate, this will not be curbed if we unilaterally stops supplying weapons, even if we don´t not share Big Ben Hodges‘ hopes of victory in Crimea and the Donbass. Good Big Ben is right when he says we could have prevented the worst at the beginning wwith a fierce and decisive reaction and could have dealt a decisive blow to the Russians and Putin. This chance is objectively lost, if it ever existed politically and militarily and all foreseeable salami tactics escalation will not change anything anymore, which is why I now rather agree with Milley and your assessment that a Korea or Israel solution is more the outcome and will probably win my whiskey bet against Ben Hodges.
But one should not only see the cracks or weaknesses of the West, or of the classical transatlantism, especially since Trump, but also that Putin-Russia also shows considerable cracks, although not yet up to its immediate fall, especially after the Prigozhin march, as also Xi- China shows serious crisis symptoms, whereby Biden thinks that he is a ticking time bomb. But the other way round, one should not ignite and escalate it it by bringing fire to the glowing fuse again and again by US provocations around Taiwan with the DDP, although the USA should act decisively against Chinese threatening gestures in order to contain Xi- China. And even if it comes to a Korea or Israel solution in Ukraine or for the time being to a ceasefire, this is then rather to be seen as a breather in the continuing struggle for world power between the USA and China and Russia, whereby Russia is now more and more in the role of China’s junior partner, while Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe are polarized in this conflict between the USA and China, perhaps even torn apart. Like Carl Schmitt: friend or foe. But or to speak with Brecht: He who fights can lose, he who does not fight has already lost.