The Sunday Times of 8 October carried no news about Putin’s war against Ukraine: that is not a criticism but perhaps is a stark warning that this European war, arguably a genocide, is slipping down the priorities of the media. If that occurs, the public may follow and apathy will drive politicians in Europe to appeasement of the mass murderer, and a Ukrainian peace compromise, which means in reality defeat. This rising apathy is the more poignant as it came in a week when Putin targeted a café and grocery store at Hroza, a little village in Kharkiv, killing 52 civilians, followed the next day by a missile strike on a block of flats in central Kharkiv causing multiple injuries and the death of a 10 year old boy. Mass murder continues.
At the same time Putin was broadcasting his declaration that Russia did not start this war, promulgating his universe of lies. Also, at a conference of European leaders, including the UK, concerns were expressed that NATO stockpiles of weaponry are running low – notably shells, missiles and air defence systems. Certain of those leaders also acknowledged that if the USA removes or substantially reduces its military support for Ukraine, Europe is unable to fill the void. All that, and then Hamas commit barbarism in Israel and the Middle East is at war, requiring the USA, and the UK and the EU, to declare their support for Israel: the USA is committed to military support if required. Is China waiting in the wings to invade Taiwan? Does Europe have the moral courage and commitment to combat the existential risks of today?
WITHOUT AMMUNITION UKRAINE IS LOST
In February this year the Economist, in an article on The Defence Industry entitled “Keeping the guns blazing”, recorded that Ukraine was firing roughly as many shells in a month as America can produce in a year; and also, citing a defence publication, an estimate that NATO’s European members probably have only 10% of the necessary stockpiles for “even the early stages of a war in Europe”. Since then commitments to increase production of ammunition in Europe and the USA have been made, and USA is well equipped to rearm more quickly. European defence industries are less so. Without straining the detail, suffice to say there are potential shortages of components required for a number of weapons in volume. Also, procurement processes in an alliance like NATO involves different tensions in different countries and is hardly a rapid process normally. That cumbersome disadvantage inevitable in free societies compares badly from a war conduct viewpoint with Russia and China, both of which can demand and switch on factories to produce whatever they are told. Russia of course has done just that and perhaps their ability to run weapons production 24/7 at will could be the differentiator between Putin’s victory and defeat.
It is nevertheless said that Putin is struggling to get the war equipment he needs, possibly true given his reaching out to his friends in North Korea for assistance. But, even if true, it would be rash to think that Western supplies to Ukraine can continue in the required volumes for a drawn-out war of attrition which Putin, experts say, would favour, relying on Western apathy and fatigue, as well as supply shortages. Nobody thinks that Putin will ever run out of ammo. Should not perhaps now European countries put their defence industries and whatever else is needed, on an effective war footing? Have leaders got the leadership foresight and moral courage to do so? The ramping up of weapons manufacture by European nations becomes so much more pressing as the USA especially is strongly backing Israel with its military might; and there is always the contingent risk, maybe now much sharpened, of China seeing an opportunity for it to take Taiwan with the USA stretched on two military fronts. Strategic planning dictates Europe must bite the bullet and become a major military manufacturer and power, with all the cost that requires. Security is the primary obligation of the leaders of any nation, it is said.
POLITICAL RISK
From a Ukraine perspective, and therefore a European one, in U.S. politics the Ukraine war is a national football. While public support for Ukraine remains strong, some extreme Republicans are against that support, and there is a clear fear that if Donald Trump prevails to become the next President, then Ukraine may not be able to count so much on the USA. That possibility must be planned for now as the lead time to build capacity is long. President Biden himself may be unable to maintain his declared supportive resolve, and, even if he does, may be unable to get Capitol Hill votes to implement necessary measures.
Again, Europe must factor that risk in now, further reinforcing the need to go big on procurement of ammunition and weapons systems. However, in Europe too, and especially within the EU, there are levels of dissent against Ukraine and pockets of support even for Putin. Leaders of Hungary and now Slovakia are pro Putin or at least not opposed. Poland wavers in its military assistance as it argues over grain imports. Ireland, which likes to be neutral and piggyback for defence off others, while sniping from the back at the likes of the UK, has done next to nothing for Ukraine, and yet it boasts economic success. So many big decisions in the EU require unanimity among the Member states, and so the EU commitment to Ukraine can easily be derailed or delayed by antagonistic states.
In France Emanuel Macron could flip flop back to pressing for talks with Putin if other pressures require. In Germany, support has been slow from the start, and while verbally the commitment is there, implementation of military assistance has been inconsistent. Economic pressures all round continue, including the price of energy, and it is notable the EU still buys Russian oil. And then if enough mainstream media and social media turns against European Governments’ spend on Ukraine and the economic cost, and if a long-drawn out war is foreseen, these pressures could endanger Ukraine’s survival, let alone its ability to regain stolen territories. The influence of China and Russia to manipulate social media cannot be overstated. Have Western values been so degraded and its leaders become so weak that European nations could throw Ukraine to the Putin wolf, the modern day Hitler, war criminal, and genocidal killer? If so, it is hoped the UK can continue to be a beacon of reliability for Ukraine.
TOUGHER NOT SOFTER
If a long drawn-out war can possibly be avoided, that should happen, but only if it means a secure Ukraine with all its territory regained: otherwise Putin succeeds and further invasions of other nations, and Ukraine a second time, have to be regarded as inevitable.
It seems the only way to achieve that outcome involves the USA and Europe finally and urgently providing Ukraine with all the air power and defences, and aggressive materials such as missiles that it needs to succeed in counter offensive operations and to stop the wholesale Russian destruction of Ukraine’s infrastructure: if bombing means that the Ukrainian people freeze in the coming winter, Ukraine is dying. The weakness of the Western Democracies’ response to President Zelensky’s cries for air power and defence as well as longer range weapons systems has been to drip feed, always too slowly and late. Failure to take bold decisions and to act because of fear of what Putin may do next, which has marked Western leaders’ attitudes to date, will result in his success.
The European response especially needs to ramp up. The UK continues to lead but its ability to supply ammunition and other weapons is limited by its stocks. EU leadership and nerve is now required, and it needs to shed its soft underbelly. After all it is EU nations which are most in the front line if Ukraine goes down. That NATO is now bolstered by Nordic countries is a huge benefit. But the reality is, especially now there is war in the Middle East, a quick end to the Ukraine war is essential. The risk of turmoil in the Middle East spreading, with Islamists buoyed by the perceived boldness of Hamas evidenced by its barbarism fuelled by a philosophy demanding the absolute destruction of Israel and all Israelis, means it is possible too that Western friendly states, such as the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, could be torn and that friendship put under threat. This new war means all relationships in that region are at risk.
Parents and prospective parents fear for the next generations’ prospects unless climate change is controlled. That project must not be derailed. But now there is true existential trouble looming immediately and, sadly, it requires very serious commitment to military victory on various fronts. Absolute prioritisation of military strength looks the only strategic option to prevent risks becoming reality. That requires unity of political will across parties, not just in the UK but in all of Europe, and that must override comforts and social niceties. Europe’s strategic failures to take defence seriously, preferring to let the USA be its guardian, could cost Ukraine its freedom. And whatever happens, it will be unforgivable if those destructive autocrats and murderous extremists around the world reap the rewards of their violence because of Western Democracies’ shortsightedness and fear, which finally means they run out of moral courage as well as ammunition.
