On 5 July, writing about the Great West’s leadership problems, from Macron to Biden, I said, “US President Biden is one step away from capitulation.”
Capitulation has happened. Major political shifts are taking place in America, both in the short term and in the long term. It is difficult to predict what they will bring. In the short term, only one thing is clear—Kamala Harry is predictable, and Donald Trump is unpredictable.
Whatever the outcome of the elections in the United States, the key questions to be answered throughout the transatlantic community, especially in the European Union, will remain the same: Ukraine and the Russian war. Only they may become even more acute. And they will require us to have clear arguments, which we must start making now.
Looking at the whole picture, and in particular, at the political debate in the United States, but also in the European Union and in Ukraine itself, there are two fundamental debates to be prepared for: a) on the scope and duration of Western military support for Ukraine, and b) on the terms and consequences of peace talks with Russia, both for Ukraine itself and for Russia and the West as a whole.
This debate could lead to major geopolitical shifts worldwide, both in the East and the West.
The two topics are closely interlinked. Declining Western military support for Ukraine will inevitably force it to negotiate on terms that are unfavourable to it. The consequences of such negotiations will be catastrophic for both Ukraine and the West.
ON MILITARY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE AND ON WESTERN CAPITULATION
On the American side, and especially in the Trump camp, it is often argued that the US should stop its military support for Ukraine, because the European Union should bear the entire burden of such support. And anyway, it is a hopeless business to provide Ukraine with military support because Russia will still produce more artillery shells than the West can produce. Therefore, according to those who talk like this, the only way forward is to do what Mr Trump is promising to do, which is to end the war in one day, by some miracle. This is how the fundamental difference is formulated: weapons and a costly war or a mystical peace without weapons.
The main argument for the second option is very simple: there are no weapons in the West, and there will be none. This argument was most consistently made by Senator J.D. Vance (now Trump’s choice for Vice President) in his famous speech to the US Senate this year. His main argument is that US industry has moved to China and that the US is therefore incapable of producing either the number of artillery shells or the number of air defences needed to defeat Russia in Ukraine.
Such arguments, combined with strong oratorical skills, sound impressive and convincing enough at the beginning. But very soon you realise their capitulatory shift.
Talks of the US or the European Union not being able to produce the number and type of weapons needed for Ukraine’s victory are in no way consistent with simple economic facts: the combined economic potential of the US and the European Union is 25 times stronger than Russia’s potential. The West produces a surplus of top-quality cars, passenger and military aircraft, and is on an unstoppable drive into the vastness of outer space, all of which is technologically and economically beyond the reach of the aggressor, Russia. Therefore, from an economic point of view, the explanation that the West cannot produce as many weapons as it needs sounds completely unconvincing. The only logical argument could be that if the West lacks the production of some weapons today, then tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, that production must have already been developed.
Obviously, there are other (non-economic) reasons why such arguments are being put forward in the West: a general lack of understanding of the importance of the Ukrainian war; a lack of basic political will and leadership (“it’s no skin off my nose”); the fear that losing the war could make Russia more dangerous than it is today.
Each of these reasons can be analysed separately and in-depth. Still, the kind of in-depth analysis that Western pundits love to engage in makes it easy to escape from the main, simple conclusion: if the West is unable to produce and supply Ukraine with enough weapons to force Russia to pull out of Ukraine, it will only mean that the West, despite the West’s economic power, is politically and geopolitically weaker than Russia. If it is weaker than Russia, that means it is also weaker than China. It would be difficult to understand why, in the face of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the West is incapable of producing the necessary weapons, but in the face of China’s aggression against Taiwan, it would already be capable of doing so. Moreover, suppose the West is not capable of repelling Russian aggression in Ukraine. Why should Lithuanians believe that the West would be able to do so in the event of Russian aggression against Lithuania?
Capitulation by the West, and by the US in particular, to Russian aggression in Ukraine would only weaken the geopolitical potential of the US and encourage aggression not only from Russia but also from China. The shift towards capitulationist thinking in the West on Ukraine would be a shift towards defeating the fundamental geopolitical interests of the West, including the US.
ABOUT CAPITULATORY PEACE
The increasingly loud talk in the West about peace talks, diplomatic solutions and a mystical end to the war in one day is a “beautiful” continuation of the same arguments for not giving arms to Ukraine: we don’t need to give arms because we don’t have them and we can’t make them, and besides, arms only delay peace, and peace is the most important humanistic goal, no matter by what the means and with what consequences. We hear such arguments with increasing frequency. The apologists for such a peace do not explain how and under what conditions such a peace can be achieved, because it is enough for them to say that it can be achieved diplomatically. But it is clear that behind the so-called “humanist” arguments there is a simple logic: Ukraine must hand over the occupied territories to Russia, and in return, Russia will promise to cease its aggression, as if this will save thousands of lives and preserve the destruction of cities.
Putin will see such peace as a victory for him and will treat it as a surrender by the West.
Any alleged commitment by Putin to guarantee the inviolability of the remaining territories of Ukraine will be completely null and void, like Hitler’s promises not to touch the remaining territory of Czechoslovakia after Chamberlain and Daladier promised to give up the Sudetenland to Hitler at the Munich Peace Conference (the real name of the “Munich Agreement”). Six months later, Hitler occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia despite his earlier promise.
If not stopped in Ukraine, Putin will behave just like Hitler. Only in this case, the “new Hitler” of the 21st century will have been created by the West, by choosing the path of conscious or unconscious capitulation.
After such a “peace” and the Russian victory, Putin will become ten times more aggressive. And he will choose new targets in the neighbourhood. Putin will certainly not become a peace dove. China will take its cue from Russia and consider the West to be just as politically and geopolitically weak. The West’s geopolitical weakness has only strengthened the aggressiveness of an authoritarian Russia or China.
Peace is absolutely necessary for Ukraine and Europe. But not just any peace. A Western capitulatory peace with Putin on Putin’s terms would not be a peace for Ukraine, but an incitement to Putin’s aggression. It would only fan the flames of war even further.
The West must finally realise that a real peace with an undefeated Putin is impossible, especially if there is a capitulatory slide towards peace on Putin’s terms.
HOW TO AVOID CAPITULATION SHIFT?
It has been 2.5 years since Russia’s war against Ukraine started. The West has had enough time to realize that Putin’s Russia is the greatest threat to European security and reflect on what strategy to pursue in this war. Unfortunately, no clearer strategy has emerged so far, or no one is naming one.
Simple common sense tells us that if you are attacked by an enemy who is your most significant threat, your strategy can only be threefold: a) capitulate and surrender; b) defend and wait for the enemy to tire; and c) attack and destroy the threat yourself.
So far, despite the plethora of strong and loud statements and visits to Kiev, the West has essentially balanced only between the first two options: some have suggested that Ukraine should not be armed and that it should pursue a capitulatory peace; others have looked for ways to help Ukraine defend itself. And all the military support has been enough to barely allow Ukraine to defend itself.
Why is Ukraine not receiving more support?
It is not because the West is economically incapable of providing such support. I have already written about this.
My answer is that it is only because the West still does not dare to have a strategy for attacking and destroying the threat. And in the West they themselves are getting tired of their own timidity and their own political and leadership impotence. And, feeling increasingly tired of their impotence, they themselves are moving closer and closer to capitulation without noticing it.
This summer must be the “last summer” in which the West still lives without such an offensive strategy. If the West does not soon develop a strategy of destroying the threat and attacking it, it will have to start calculating which summer will be the “last summer” for the West.
First and foremost, if Putin’s regime falls, the threat of Putin’s Russia can be eliminated. Let us dare to talk about the fact that the West’s strategic objective with regard to Russia is a “regime change” in the Kremlin, which will be implemented by the Russians themselves. However, only the West can create the conditions for this if it defeats Putin in Ukraine.
The capitulatory shift in the West will only be halted if the West finally starts to shift towards a strategy of destroying the threat. The West must finally realise that Russia and Putin are on a long-term path of self-destruction that could be bloody and dangerous for everyone around them, while Russia, which the West would help to free from Putin, would have the opportunity to become a normal state.
Lithuania has the potential to influence Western strategic thinking. But to do so, it needs to be able to think strategically itself. And to act. Otherwise, we will inadvertently find ourselves in a capitulatory shift, occasionally still repeating in the standard way that we support Ukraine, that we are concerned and that we condemn Putin. The West, too, will do exactly the same thing when it finds itself in a capitulatory shift.
We need to learn to swim against the tide…
The easy way is not our way!
Be the first to comment