VERÖFFENTLICHT 27. MÄRZ 2022

When Russia invaded Ukraine it was necessary to react immediately. Western leaders told Putin in no nonsense terms that an attack on Ukraine would be answered with unprecedented sanctions, that NATO would not be part of the war, and that every inch of NATO territory would be defended by all NATO member states. The treatment Putin gave to the Western leaders showed that he did not take that for serious – he detested them as weaklings and expercted that they would not be willing to sacrifice their prosperity for Ukraine.

The first month of the war was a surprise. I admit that I did not expect that the Ukranian Army was so well motivated and prepared that – different from the Crimean crisis – it could resist the Russian onslaught with so much heroism. I was also surprised that the population of Ukraine was so unified behind President Zelensky, independent from ethnic or linguistic identities. And I did not believe that the Russian agression would become stuck that quickly.

The first month must have been a much worse surprise for Putin, Lavrov and others who greeted the aggression in the Duma. He believed that democracies are weak, because they debate everything and are split into many factions. But he had to learn that once triggered by an outrageous aggression the resistance of the democratic West it is far more resilient than autoritarian coercion. He believed that sanctions will be as always: hypocritical, easy to forego and slowly unravelling. That was different this time. Imperial Putin and Liar Lavrov have changed the West. When President Trump was in office, NATO continued functioning as an organisation, but its political brain was mad – if not dead. Thank god it’s President Biden now in Washington. Thank’s to Russia’s great effort NATO has been successfully revitalized.

A great change took place in Germany. North Stream II is dead, a new budget line of 100 billion Euros has been opened for military expenditures, the 2% goal for NATO will be implemented immediately. This had been unthinkable a month ago – especially with a Social Democrat – Green – Liberal coalition in place. Chancellor Scholz spoke of a „Zeitenwende“ (times of change).

But now it is time to discuss what the West should do in the longer perspective. The future is always uncertain – in a war it is unforeseeable. However, there must be a contingency planning for different scenarios. It was a great advantage that President Biden based on US intelligence could explain the Russian actions including their propaganda moves even before they happened. We should continue to be very open about denouncing the lies and the atrocities of war and not leave any room for the Russians in the information war.

The information campaign must be taken on to the whole world. It is a shame that countries like India or South Africa do not take for serious what is an existencial threat for European security – and what could lead to a nuclear war and then to a nuclear winter which would starve all of humanity including in India, South Africa or China. Most people do not believe that Putin wants to commit suicide – but in case he attacks any EU country he risks, and if he attacks any NATO country he triggers a World War which will affect every country without exception.

This is the worst scenario, where nobody can win – and where Russia risks complete destruction. But I hope that blind anti-americanism does not lead to a failure of appreciation in third countries that this is a deadly serious conflict concerning them as well. I still believe that this scenario is very unlikely. However, Europe will certainly not forget who stood on its side in these times!

The assessment of the military situation given by experts shows that Russia may have expected a fast track war, capture Kiev and put a puppet government in place. This did not happen and even if Russia can still mobilize much more material and people, the cost of the war is very high. Putin claims Ukraine as a „brother country“. At the same time he is killing his brothers, sisters and their children. At the same time Russia is destroying its own propects for a prosperous future for decades to come. Whatever the military situation will be, the West should make clear that it will not tolerate an unlimited escalation of atrocities and the use of weapons of mass destruction. There is no need to tell Putin exactly what would be the reaction – but he must know that it would be strong.

The second worst scenario, the occupation of Ukraine, would mean that Russian soldiers and secret police must move around in enemy territory for a long time. There will be fierce resistance whatever form it takes. A terror regime will try to cope with that – no good prospect for neither side. Crippling sanctions against Russia must then go on and Ukranian resistance supported by Western material and logistics.

The best case scenario may be a Russian defeat. Most experts do not believe that this is possible.

The second best result is a negotiated settlement that guarantees Ukraines sovereignty and democracy. Whatever is negotiated, it is not the task of the West to give advice which concessions may be possible for Ukraine or for Russia. President Zelensky has already made clear that he accepts a very flexible agenda. The bigger problem is how to make a deal with a liar regime, with politicians who do not deserve any trust any more. Every deal with such a regime needs firm guarantees from more trusted partners, including solid military guarantees – stronger than anything Ukraine did have up to now.

To help Ukranians in their war effort the West must continue to send weapons. The deliveries must be adapted to the facts in the war theatre: if more sophisticated weapons may be necessary to keep up the Ukrainian defence this should be done. May be it is not a good idea to send NATO airplanes, but why should the sovereign Ukraine not have the right to buy airplanes abroad? There should be a special effort to produce more weapons for the Ukrainian military (temporarily we may possibly need Russian gas – as long as it is running through the pipelines – for use in weapon’s factories).

The ideology of „Eurasian imperialism“, which Putin uncovered in his aggression speech, follows the teachings of a fascist called Alexander Dugin. His geopolitical publications are as candid as was Hitler’s „Mein Kampf“. He wants a Russian Empire in its historical borders and a sphere of influence with satellites from Ireland to the Pacific – in the end Russia should also overwhelm China. Like Hitler’s Lebensraum phantasies this means war against the world. This ideology must be denounced worldwide as what is is: a repetition of fascism in the nuclear age.

Since the war may lamentably take longer – the West must urgently develop a strategy to maintain the resilience in the economic, information and political campaigns.

First of all it is important to maintain the unity of the first hour. Putin will do everything to drive his adversaries apart. The Europeans should renounce mutual reproaches and postpone grievances. There must be a democratic debate about the best way to take, but unity must prevail even at a cost and motivation to help must be upheld in different governments as well as in the populations. The suffering in the war is awful and the destruction is cruel. But solidarity cannot work by sharing the suffering, but by sharing resources. Without a strong German economy Europe is less resilient. There must be a will to sacrifice, but sacrificing what is needed for our own strength may be stupid.

Second there should be a road map how to get independent from Russia’s economy. We must stay realists: a country that needs Russian grain may not embark on a grain embargo before the feeding of the population is secured. An army must not march before all preparations are ready, and oil and gas embargoes may be necessary – but must be prepared in a way not to weaken ourselves instead of the Russians. We should stay prepared for an embargo in due time but secure deliveries from other sources before.

Third: we should study a general stop for trade with Russia – but we must be careful. It is necessary to study case by case if our resilience is strong enough. We may discover strong dependency on raw materials other than oil and gas. We may also need to compromise with other more peaceful despots to beat the aggressive despot.

Fourth: we must take on third countries depending on the specific characteristics of each country. We must win over some to follow the sanctions or face a reduction of relations themselves, if we can do that without damage. We must use sticks and carrots to win support, and we should stop each country giving support to Russia openly or clandestinely. Economic assistance must be bound to recognizing our existencial problems. Where our position is weaker, we should try to convince the other side that our open markets may become less open when much resources must be reserved for our defence spending and securtity concerns become overwhelming. The West should use its financial clout in this struggle for influence towards third countries.

Fifth: Nonwithstanding all this, the West must concentrate on the Russian problem now, and avoid unnecessary additional conflicts. We may need more international allies and must at least keep possible sympathizers of Russia neutral. Relations to China should be very carefully balanced.

When China is parroting Russian propaganda on the war in Ukraine we should take them on and make clear that a mutually favourable relationship needs more respect for our essential security interests. We keep our one-China-policy as does the leadership in Beijing (we understand that the leaders in Taipeh – who behave more friendly to us – also keep the one-China-view), but China must know where the essentials are: If China supports Russia against European security concerns, it can no longer be seen as a reliable partner for the European Union.

We must carefully study our strong and our weak points and devise a strategy of resilience that can be upheld for at least three years. This must include the diversification of energy resources but also other raw materials as a common Western effort.

We should make clear the conditions for a future better relationship with Russia: a different regime, based on free democratic elections and freedom of expression, a government that respects the borders and the sovereignty of Russia’s neighbours, wants friendly relations with the West and actively fights fascist and imperialist ideologies. With the existing regime there may be co-existence but no trust. Therefore military precautions must be enhanced to deter any more aggressions.

The security of Sweden and Finland has been openly threatened by the Russian regime. These countries must decide for themselves how they want to enhance their security. We should declare – not in the future, but here and now – that in case of an aggression against any EU member state the other EU countries will help the victim of aggression with all means. That includes appropriate military means. Any aggressor should be aware that this will also involve NATO member states.