Published
on
By
The United States and Germany tried to resolve a stand-off that has so far prevented the West from sending heavy tanks to Ukraine – U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Germany’s new Defence Minister Boris Pistorius talked in Berlin just hours after Pistorius was sworn into office, informs Reutres.
Berlin has so far blocked allies from sending its Leopard-2 tanks, workhorse of militaries across Europe. Washington and many Western allies say the Leopards – which Germany made in the thousands during the Cold War and exported to its allies – are the only suitable option available in big enough numbers.
A German government source said Berlin would lift its objections if Washington sends its own Abrams tanks. But U.S. officials say they have no plans yet to send the Abrams.
Tying the Leopards to U.S. Abrams tanks could shift the onus onto Washington. Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s top policy adviser, said Abrams tanks were not likely to be included in Washington’s next massive $2 billion military aid package, to be headlined by Stryker and Bradley armoured vehicles.
“The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It’s expensive. It’s hard to train on. It has a jet engine.” Abrams tank is too smart and advanced to be delivered for Ukraine Army.
Europe divided: ‘New Europe’ sees security “against Russia,” ‘Old Europe’ as “with Russia”
Turkey undermines NATO unity
Asia, Eurasia and the European Crisis: Results of 2022
Unprecedented Sanctions? By No Means
The Ukrainian Crisis and its Impact on the European Security Governance and Global Legal Order
Ukraine And Pakistan: The Games Politicians Play
Russia’s Policy Review Stresses Creating Multipolar World Order
Donald Lu’s Visit: What is its impact on the Political and Social Domains?
Published
on
By
Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the European Union, wrote in his memoirs that “Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises.” The war in Ukraine is only the latest crisis to confound Europe and rip away its illusions, writes ‘The New York Times’, which assesses the current situation in Europe.
A return to full-scale territorial warfare rarely seen in Europe since World War II has altered the European Union and NATO, both their present and their future, with consequences still unclear.
In fact, Europe is divided about how the war should end. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe want Russia defeated and driven back from all of Ukraine’s sovereign territory, including Crimea. They argue that the war has underscored the necessity of NATO and the trans-Atlantic alliance and the primacy of “the United States as the ultimate guarantor of Europe’s freedom and security”.
The countries of Old Europe — including France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Spain — support Ukraine but are anxious about the continuing costs. They don’t expect Ukraine to take back Crimea, and they see the inevitability of a negotiated solution and the durability of Russia as a neighbor whose own insecurities must somehow be assuaged for a lasting peace.
While New Europe sees security as “against Russia,” Old Europe, best articulated by Emmanuel Macron, the French president, still sees security as with Russia.
“It’s astonishing that the Europeans have kept together so far,” said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform. “But the worry is that given stagflation, high energy prices, migration and deficits, populists might exploit divisions and push Ukraine to make an early peace. As the war goes on, divisions in these two camps will get worse.”
Estimates are that Europe cut its gas consumption by nearly a quarter in 2022, but most of that has come from businesses that have shut down production.
Europe will now have to rely on non-Russian sources of energy, especially liquefied natural gas from countries like Qatar and the United States, but that will create new dependencies, especially on Washington, said Robin Niblett, former director of Chatham House, a London-based think tank. Add that to Europe’s need “to turn wholeheartedly to the U.S. to help guarantee its security” in the face of Russia, Mr. Niblett said, and “as a result the E.U. has ditched the idea of European strategic autonomy as a project running parallel to and independent of NATO.”
As for NATO, the war in Ukraine has “rescued it, transformed its status and ensured its relevance” after four years of confusion under President Donald J. Trump and the chaotic exit from Afghanistan, said Leslie Vinjamuri, director of the U.S. and Americas program at Chatham House.
But there are major challenges ahead, with serious questions suppressed in the name of trans-Atlantic unity and solidarity with Ukraine. How the war will end, how Ukraine will be protected and how it will be rebuilt — and by whom and with whose money — will have major consequences for both institutions.
Then there is the looming rise of China and what that means for trans-Atlantic security, cohesion and prosperity.
“There is very little long-term strategic thinking going on in Brussels,” said Mr. Zuleeg of the European Policy Center.
Published
on
By
Mr. Putin is the only winner in the showdown over allowing Sweden and Finland to join NATO, “The Washington post” notes sadly. Sweden and Finland are modest-sized countries — together they would add less than 2 percent to NATO’s collective population of roughly 950 million — but they would pack an outsize punch. Their entry would represent a grievous strategic defeat for Russia, vastly expanding the Western alliance territory along the Russian border.
Short of Russia’s defeat on the battlefield, the war in Ukraine offers little immediate prospect of long-term strategic gain for the West. A critical exception is NATO’s expansion to include Sweden and Finland, a prospect tantalizingly close at hand but blocked for now by one key member of the 30-member alliance – Turkey.
That impasse is bound up in a matrix of problems, not least Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s domestic political challenges, a mess largely of his own making. Mr. Erdogan is a tireless haggler and certain to use the leverage he has to extract concessions from his NATO allies and excite his nationalist base ahead of Turkey’s elections, scheduled for June 2023.
Mr. Erdogan has taken advantage of NATO rules that give any member a veto on expansion — to amplify Turkey’s grievances with the two Nordic candidates and the alliance generally, including the United States. Some of those grievances are rooted in Turkey’s own security concerns. Others reflect the disconnect between the intolerant and increasingly despotic state Mr. Erdogan has built and the robust democracies buttressed by vibrant civil societies in other NATO member states, as well as Sweden and Finland.
Turkey’s loudest complaint is the toughest to satisfy. Mr. Erdogan has been adamant that Sweden, whose Kurdish population is around 100,000, crack down on alleged activists and sympathizers linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has carried out terrorist attacks in Turkey; Ankara as well as the United States and European Union regard it as a terrorist organization.
A much larger arms issue is Turkey’s $20 billion request to expand and modernize its existing fleet of U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets. Despite support from the Biden administration, the sale has been blocked on Capitol Hill, apparently over human rights concerns in Turkey and at the behest of lawmakers sympathetic to Greece, which opposes the deal. The congressional roadblock is myopic, and the rationale for it pales against a big-picture consideration of Turkey’s vital role in NATO and its expansion.
There’s no question Turkey, which joined NATO in 1952, just three years after the alliance’s birth, has been at times an awkward partner for its allies. Mr. Erdogan has compounded those challenges since coming to power in 2014, forging closer ties with Russia. In 2019, over heated objections from the Trump administration, Turkey deployed S-400 missiles, a Russian air defense system that the United States feared could compromise the crown jewel of NATO’s own arsenal, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Mr. Erdogan’s insistence on that move was rightly seen in Washington as a betrayal.
Published
on
By
Bold and urgent collective action is required not only to restore peace and security in Europe but also for the world, leaders told participants at the 53rd World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.
Andrzej Duda, President of Poland, warned that Russia is likely preparing itself for a new offensive in the next few months. “We must urgently send additional military support to Ukraine, especially modern tanks and missile systems to stop the Russian offensive,” he said. Europe should listen to the voice of Ukraine – they want to be part of Europe and they want to be part of NATO. “The next few months will be crucial to decide the outcome of the war,” he added.
The importance of acting now was also stressed by Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of NATO. Russia is planning new offensive attacks and is conscripting more soldiers and restocking ammunition, he said. There is an urgent need for more advanced support including air defence systems. “We must fight for our democratic values – we have to prove that freedom wins over tyranny.”
Avril Haines, US Director of National Intelligence, said fighting continues along the frontlines but the tempo of the war has materially decreased. “It’s a not a stalemate, but a grinding conflict at this stage.”
The Canadian government has said it will donate 200 more armoured vehicles, which is part of the additional $500 million in military aid for Ukraine. Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada, said: “Supplying Ukraine with weapons and money to win the war is in our own self-interest.”
Yuliia Svyrydenko, First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, described how Ukraine’s ability to function despite the war is improving over time. “In the 329 days of the war so far, we have gained unique experience in how to keep the economy and essential services running,” she said. “No one doubts that Ukraine will win this war, but every day brings more death and damage. Assistance now will significantly speed up Ukraine’s success.”
Sri Lanka is facing hardships immensely. People are struggling to fulfill their basic needs and they have sacrificed their mid-term…
The military-political crisis in Europe has created demand for the most important quality of the vast majority of the countries…
The “sanctions tsunami” against Russia is rightly considered unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. Strictly speaking, it is…
Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the European Union, wrote in his memoirs that “Europe will be forged in…
The United States and Germany tried to resolve a stand-off that has so far prevented the West from sending heavy…
Tani Malhotra Sondhi is a boutique progressive matchmaker who has connected people living globally and has helped people find soulmates….
Authors: Abhinav Mehrotra and Amit Upadhyay* As the attack on Ukraine continues by the Russian Military, there is a need…
Africa and the Grand Diplomacy with Chinese characteristics comprehensively
The end of the US ‘Shale Revolution’
Former Greek king’s funeral briefly rekindles political passions of a forgotten era
Vietnam’s Prime Minister visit to Laos
RCEP’s Intellectual Property Rights Chapter: Relevance, Implications, and Contributions to Asia-Pacific’s IP Regime
Putin’s Crimes Against Peace in Ukraine: “Friction”-Based Risks of Nuclear Conflict
The Chinese maritime theory of linking and networking the five seas in the Middle East
Global CEOs Back Plan to Unlock $3.4 Trillion Potential of Africa Free Trade Area
Copyright © 2023 Modern Diplomacy