Ukrainian front, Western Europe
LONDON — A stormy geopolitical weather front is converging on Western Europe as the Ukrainian war in the East has entered its third year with no end in sight. Though the conflict remains largely frozen in a military stalemate, its political consequences reverberate throughout Europe, not to mention the United States, refocusing on supplying the necessary military aid to Kyiv as spring approaches.
There’s more than a hint of handwringing and political angst in European capitals over Ukraine’s fate, which may soon unravel as an under-supplied Ukrainian military faces Russia’s unrelenting battering.
NATO nations, especially Britain, Germany, France and Poland, have already supplied considerable military hardware, but supplies have dwindled. And let’s face it, the fighting has severely depleted munitions stocks in NATO countries, including the U.S. Now, Ukraine needs the artillery shells it was promised. European Union countries pledged to send one million shells last year, but they delivered about a third. Ukraine has about 300 155mm big guns, but they blast through limited ammo supplies.
French President Emmanuel Macron pompously grandstanded that NATO troops could be sent to Ukraine to train and assist the beleaguered defenders. Mon Dieu! Macron’s comments sent capitals from London, Berlin and Washington to issue a resounding, no thanks! But let’s be frank. British special forces units and trainers, and probably Americans too, are already inside Ukraine.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking in a State of the Nation address, warned, “The consequences for possible interventionists will be … tragic.”
Having spent a week in Britain, there’s a surreal sense of not only the Ukrainian war coming to a climax but the very real threat of its political and military effects spilling over into comfortable Western Europe.
Speaking in Paris, French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné told the radio channel France Inter Radio, “First of all, there is a risk of Ukraine collapsing, and there are consequences to this risk.” The minister claims that a collapse could send ten million refugees to Europe. The figure doesn’t include five million already in Europe.
Then there’s the recurring fear that Russia may or will use nuclear weapons in the conflict. War talk in British newspapers, even without the colorful hyperbole of the popular tabloids, has become an uncomfortable staple. It has an eerie tone echoing what it must have been like back between 1938 and 1939 when threat emotions were often changing as fast as London’s weather.
While renewed talk of Putin’s Russia probing NATO’s weak frontiers in the Baltic states is nothing new, has the time arrived for Putin to play his nuclear cards, tactical ones first? It’s still not likely … but.
Putin warned, “We also have weapons that can hit targets on their territory,” adding, “All this really threatens a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of civilization. Don’t they get that?” Is this classic Kremlin blackmail or bluffing?
Clearly, a “cornered Russia,” the perennial illusion and the theme of Putinism, especially now in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s embarrassment after the regime orchestrated the death of Russian pro-democracy leader Alexei Navalny, could change Putin’s political calculus.
All this comes against the backdrop of defense cuts in Britain’s budget. While the country has been among a select handful of NATO states to contribute over 2 percent of GDP to defense, the fact remains that Boris Johnson’s government opened the spigot of massive munitions to Ukraine at the expense of British security, causing munitions shortfalls and overstretched commitments.
The current British defense budget stands at 2.2 percent of GDP. British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps is pressing to expand the spending to a more realistic budget of 2.5 percent this year with a $11.4 billion jump. An increase in military spending “will resonate with our Allies and adversaries,” he affirms.
All of this aims to stiffen the underlying message which is “we need to help Ukraine more.”
Outside of massive American military and economic aid already provided to Ukraine during both the Trump and Biden administrations, there’s the promise to send yet another $60 billion if the administration can get its wider $95 billion bill past an intransigent Republican Congress rightly concerned over Biden’s blank check policies to Kyiv.
Thus, the additional $60 billion for Ukraine lingering in Congress should be linked to a verifiable ceasefire and truce negotiations. Neither Ukraine nor Russia is going to clearly “win” this war; the long-suffering Ukrainian people are living in the twilight of fear.
The Ukraine war, since Russia’s occupation of Crimea, has been going on for a decade. Now, its spillover threatens Western Europe, which stands on the brink.