Meanwhile, back in the real world: ‘Europe is only half-awake from its long sleep,’ Janan Ganesh, in The FT, https://on.ft.com/4hjxIey
We’re great at summits, sure, but tell me, what guarantees have we in Europe provided the Ukrainians thus far? Where are the actionable commitments for a European peace initiative (if one can even call it that)? It has been more than a month now of ‘emergency summits’—lots of rhetoric and no consensus. How unusual. We are going to let Ukraine down if we continue like this, typically feckless and fractious.
Lamentably, I agree. We hold talks, in order to hold even more talks, so that we can hold more talks. Then we crow about a “solidarity” for which there is scant evidence. This piece from German-born Yascha Mounk, “Europe’s Coming Fall?”, was spot on (if difficult to acknowledge):
Thanks for this. A grim read, which chimes however with much of what I’ve seen on the subject in both the left-leaning Economist and The FT (as well as elsewhere). I hope we can dig ourselves out of this almighty hole.
Fascinating -- loved the part about the free open press in Ukraine reporting on the poorly manufactured mortar rounds (fuzes, et cetera). That is something (free, open press) that Trump is trying suppress in the USA. Having that free press gives me hope for Ukraine.
(Plus the other parts were largely positive for Ukraine but this really stood out for me.)
Thank you. For the update, and thus: The Carlson interview also had a section in which Witkoff says he believes Putin prayed for Trump after Trump got shot, and that Putin is a pretty good guy, not an adversary. But I’ll spare you.» Other news site has not been so merciful.
Yes, Witkoff is less qualified to have a lead roll in “peace negotiations” than a can of spam.
Is anyone really surprised? This whole peace negotiation thing is something of a sham-show, with actors going through the motions, because it gives Mr. T a shot at looking like the guy with his hand on the throttle of international relations - like the big boys. He wants to look strong, get a Nobel Peace Prize, cozy up to his good buddy Putin, and claim to have saved big bucks and lives. International Rule of Law and United Nations be damned.
From before the inauguration, it was obvious the process was going to be Putin’s list of absolutely “non-negotiable demands” clashing into Ukraine’s “absolutely unacceptable refusals”. It was only a matter of how hard could the U.S. arm twist, and whose arm would it be. It’s grown fairly obvious Putin has two negotiation teams; one of which has the following roster:
Treacherous Trump, Vile Vance, Betrayal-Show Rubio and Peskov Witkoff.
Months more of Russian Roman-candle refineries and 1500+/day drone inflicted casualty counts will be needed to convince Russia they can’t win against Ukraine. Convincing Trump of anything that doesn’t fit his framing is a near impossibility.
Very interesting. I think that the two very important point really missing in the discussion is: Will the Ukrainians and the Russians really make a ceasefire because the US says so. The answer is no. The other important point is of course is Ukraine lost without Us support? I think the answer is no there as well. And you are right that this is not understood or discussed in Europe. Still, the European states will support Ukraine and will rearm.
“The other important point is of course is Ukraine lost without Us support? I think the answer is no there as well.”
If the US were to freeze its military aid, Ukraine will not survive, at least not in its present form; this is not debatable. There are many reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs. Among them: we in Europe cannot scale up our manufacturing defence capacity quickly enough to cover a sudden shortfall in American aid; the lion’s share of military aid has come from the US (no, not the total aid, which sits at about 40% for the US although—whatever does or doesn’t come of Trump’s mineral deal—that money was almost entirely given in American grants, whereas we in Europe provided 35% of our aid in the form of concessional loans on favourable terms, with the remaining 65% in grants or in-kind support); more importantly, defence officials have indicated that the “cream” of the military aid has been primarily provided by the Americans, eg, advanced platforms or weapons like Patriot batteries, HIMARS, etc, as well as system-affiliated missiles such as ATACMS, or PAC-2s and PAC-3s, which we cannot replace easily or at all; likewise, the US surveillance and intelligence assistance—even if it does not show up numerically in aid contribution figures despite being costly—is absolutely critical to the targeting of modern weapons systems, to the tracking and defending of incoming missiles, and to the effective projection of military power (Ukraine’s capabilities, like NATO’s, would be significantly degraded were it to lose this aid alone; no other nation is even a near-US-peer in this domain).
Ukraine is also heavily dependent upon Starlink for comms. Were the US (or Musk) to pull the plug on this, there is no comparable alternative. Starlink’s terminal-to-satellite infrastructure—now almost ubiquitous throughout Ukraine—would take time and manpower to replace, and the alternatives are feeble by comparison. Presently, Europe’s closest parallels to Starlink are Spain’s Hisdesat (NG) and FOSSA services, and these are either yet to be established or not nearly as formidable in scope (more ambitious plans are in the works such as the EU’s IRIS^2, but that is a long way off and will be dwarfed by the continuing Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) nano-satellite constellation buildouts of the United States and, eventually, China). One could very much go on, but supper beckons.
I’ve invested years of study into defence and foreign policy and work for a UK-based defence think-tank (RUSI), though all opinions herein are my own.
Thanks for your analysis. First, let me stress that I hope the situation does not arrive. I accept that US has been the strongest supporter of Ukraine when it comes to military equipment. I also agree that intelligence information and Starlinks have been important. But Ukraine has survived 6 months of almost no support. Has developed a lot of equipment that is Ukrainian made, not US made. Drones are the obvious example. Others have been discussed here before. How quick Europe can support military is to a certain degree a political decision, how much equipment are we willing to send? As I said I hope it doesn’t come to that. It will hurt. But I am not completely convinced. If
Thanks for the feedback, Hans. Fingers crossed the strategic think-tanks are wrong and we analysts are all guilty of some short-sighted groupthink. It can happen, however much one tries to avoid such things! All the best.
I respect you knowledge. I just added some points to the other side of the scale. We agree that we hope it want come to that. Thinking about it the real problem is that if USA does withdraw then Ukraine might not have any options but try.
I have all sympathies for your words and good cause, mr. Korshak. But politically and diplomatically the American era in Europe is at its very and final end. With these kinds of amateurs and dilettantism from the patient and vice-patient in the 'white house', in a former old European colony - that is the very explanation. Europe and the western civilisation can't be run by Americans - it goes without saying. Europe must enter fast into the post-American era. For our own good. People just want to get rid of their Tesla cars and unhealthy consumption of Coca-Cola, now when even the fiscal reports in America realise they must stop using Europe's position and play James Bond all over the world - and just lose all American conflicts and wars. Good bye Washington.
I guess you need to drop Substack too? Plus Google, Netflix, ChatGPT, Windows-based computers, YouTube, Instagram, X/Twitter, BlueSky, Facebook, Apple products (iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc), countless films (popular and acclaimed, Hollywood and indie), countless shows, Amazon, Snapchat, Teams, Amazon’s own products (Echoes, Kindles), Uber Eats, Pinterest, Uber, Lyft, Ring, Gemini, Llama, GoogleMaps….
Be serious, my friend. There will be a period of turbulence, I agree, but the Trump administration will not be with us forever. His approval is already dropping steadily, and many of his foreign policies do not have broad American support according to polls: his voters primarily wanted less inflation from Trump, not this! Nor did most Americans want either 2024 candidate to win apparently. When one takes into account the voters who stayed home, in addition to the ones who voted for Harris, only about a third of their country even voted for Trump. Two-thirds did not. Democracy is messy sometimes.
Additionally, unless *a lot* changes—and quickly—our great continent will continue its decline. Unfortunately some of the most significant headwinds, such as demography and a rapidly aging population, are unlikely to reverse course. In my home country, two decades ago our per capita GDP was 90% of that of an American’s. Today it is less than 60%! We have been left in the dust, like our fellow nations of Europe. A welfare state is noble, but we will struggle mightily to afford it should the security situation change. You want America out? Are you also happy to shoulder the burden of the increased defence spending that will be essential if we’re to defend ourselves? The “peace dividend” provided by Pax Americana in Europe has served us well, subsidising as it has our high standard of living and generous welfare states (one sees a similar phenomenon in Israel, which has the benefit of generous US military aid). That will be unrealistic without the benefit of continued American protection and our relatively low defence spending, yet there is no appetite—according to recent polling by YouGov and Gallup on behalf of the EU—for the very cuts to benefits, social care, public services and healthcare that will eventually be required to support an independent European defence posture —nor for substantially greater taxation, which would be also inevitable barring massive economic improvement. Europe is already deeply indebted—without the benefit of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
Right now, to avoid this thorny political reality, our leaders have agreed to “fund” some rearmament by taking on even more debt: when more is required, and when we can no longer try to borrow our way out of this predicament, things will get politically ugly. Indeed this may well embolden the hard left and far right parties which have already exploded in popularity across much of the continent—a threat in its own right.
Theoretically, there are some things we can do to improve our economic prospects such as reducing the regulatory burden faced by European business, and forming a single unified capital market (CMU). But we have been trying to do this for many years—just ask poor “Super” Mario Draghi, whose EU-commissioned examination into why the EU had economically been “left behind by America” was promptly ignored and found purpose primarily as a doorstop for my fellow continentals. He eviscerated the EU and most economists felt the criticism to be sound. Various Eurozone countries have vehemently resisted the unified capital markets project for various, selfish reasons. Perhaps we will finally get a deep, capital markets union, but I will believe this when I see it, along with everything else our European leaders are currently promising. Am I optimistic? No. Why? The past two decades, just for starters.
Our inability to offer any kind of Europe-backed peace initiative for Ukraine, with credible guarantees, has been typical of broader dysfunction and stupid infighting. We talk endlessly about “solidarity” for the Continent (evidently a lie), and “unprecedented times” that call for Europe to come together. And what is on of the first things we do? We exclude Britain and Turkey from the rearmament fund. Genius! They’re not in the EU you counter? Quite right, but neither is Norway (who was included), and anyway if the urgency of the situation really demands solidarity, are in this together or are we in this primarily for the benefit of French and German defence firms (and our own flagging economies)? Britain and Turkey would bring tremendous assets to the table: both have capable defence sectors or their own. So much for the urgent “coalition of the willing”?
I live in hope we can find our strength as a continent again, but we need to be clear-eyed about our shortcomings if they are ever going to be addressed.
I'll give you that maybe most of the Ukrainians doesn't think we are losing. But we are definitely not thinking that we are winning either. Depression is overwhelming in the society right now.
Meanwhile, back in the real world: ‘Europe is only half-awake from its long sleep,’ Janan Ganesh, in The FT, https://on.ft.com/4hjxIey
We’re great at summits, sure, but tell me, what guarantees have we in Europe provided the Ukrainians thus far? Where are the actionable commitments for a European peace initiative (if one can even call it that)? It has been more than a month now of ‘emergency summits’—lots of rhetoric and no consensus. How unusual. We are going to let Ukraine down if we continue like this, typically feckless and fractious.
Lamentably, I agree. We hold talks, in order to hold even more talks, so that we can hold more talks. Then we crow about a “solidarity” for which there is scant evidence. This piece from German-born Yascha Mounk, “Europe’s Coming Fall?”, was spot on (if difficult to acknowledge):
https://open.substack.com/pub/yaschamounk/p/europes-coming-fall?r=5bp56g&utm_medium=ios
(Apologies for any incorrect English!)
Thanks for this. A grim read, which chimes however with much of what I’ve seen on the subject in both the left-leaning Economist and The FT (as well as elsewhere). I hope we can dig ourselves out of this almighty hole.
ps- your English is better than mine!
Your English is first rate.
Thank you so much, Roland! I appreciate it.
Fascinating -- loved the part about the free open press in Ukraine reporting on the poorly manufactured mortar rounds (fuzes, et cetera). That is something (free, open press) that Trump is trying suppress in the USA. Having that free press gives me hope for Ukraine.
(Plus the other parts were largely positive for Ukraine but this really stood out for me.)
Thank you. For the update, and thus: The Carlson interview also had a section in which Witkoff says he believes Putin prayed for Trump after Trump got shot, and that Putin is a pretty good guy, not an adversary. But I’ll spare you.» Other news site has not been so merciful.
Yes, Witkoff is less qualified to have a lead roll in “peace negotiations” than a can of spam.
Is anyone really surprised? This whole peace negotiation thing is something of a sham-show, with actors going through the motions, because it gives Mr. T a shot at looking like the guy with his hand on the throttle of international relations - like the big boys. He wants to look strong, get a Nobel Peace Prize, cozy up to his good buddy Putin, and claim to have saved big bucks and lives. International Rule of Law and United Nations be damned.
From before the inauguration, it was obvious the process was going to be Putin’s list of absolutely “non-negotiable demands” clashing into Ukraine’s “absolutely unacceptable refusals”. It was only a matter of how hard could the U.S. arm twist, and whose arm would it be. It’s grown fairly obvious Putin has two negotiation teams; one of which has the following roster:
Treacherous Trump, Vile Vance, Betrayal-Show Rubio and Peskov Witkoff.
Months more of Russian Roman-candle refineries and 1500+/day drone inflicted casualty counts will be needed to convince Russia they can’t win against Ukraine. Convincing Trump of anything that doesn’t fit his framing is a near impossibility.
The show will go on.
Very interesting. I think that the two very important point really missing in the discussion is: Will the Ukrainians and the Russians really make a ceasefire because the US says so. The answer is no. The other important point is of course is Ukraine lost without Us support? I think the answer is no there as well. And you are right that this is not understood or discussed in Europe. Still, the European states will support Ukraine and will rearm.
“The other important point is of course is Ukraine lost without Us support? I think the answer is no there as well.”
If the US were to freeze its military aid, Ukraine will not survive, at least not in its present form; this is not debatable. There are many reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs. Among them: we in Europe cannot scale up our manufacturing defence capacity quickly enough to cover a sudden shortfall in American aid; the lion’s share of military aid has come from the US (no, not the total aid, which sits at about 40% for the US although—whatever does or doesn’t come of Trump’s mineral deal—that money was almost entirely given in American grants, whereas we in Europe provided 35% of our aid in the form of concessional loans on favourable terms, with the remaining 65% in grants or in-kind support); more importantly, defence officials have indicated that the “cream” of the military aid has been primarily provided by the Americans, eg, advanced platforms or weapons like Patriot batteries, HIMARS, etc, as well as system-affiliated missiles such as ATACMS, or PAC-2s and PAC-3s, which we cannot replace easily or at all; likewise, the US surveillance and intelligence assistance—even if it does not show up numerically in aid contribution figures despite being costly—is absolutely critical to the targeting of modern weapons systems, to the tracking and defending of incoming missiles, and to the effective projection of military power (Ukraine’s capabilities, like NATO’s, would be significantly degraded were it to lose this aid alone; no other nation is even a near-US-peer in this domain).
Ukraine is also heavily dependent upon Starlink for comms. Were the US (or Musk) to pull the plug on this, there is no comparable alternative. Starlink’s terminal-to-satellite infrastructure—now almost ubiquitous throughout Ukraine—would take time and manpower to replace, and the alternatives are feeble by comparison. Presently, Europe’s closest parallels to Starlink are Spain’s Hisdesat (NG) and FOSSA services, and these are either yet to be established or not nearly as formidable in scope (more ambitious plans are in the works such as the EU’s IRIS^2, but that is a long way off and will be dwarfed by the continuing Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) nano-satellite constellation buildouts of the United States and, eventually, China). One could very much go on, but supper beckons.
I’ve invested years of study into defence and foreign policy and work for a UK-based defence think-tank (RUSI), though all opinions herein are my own.
Very informative, cheers
Thanks for your analysis. First, let me stress that I hope the situation does not arrive. I accept that US has been the strongest supporter of Ukraine when it comes to military equipment. I also agree that intelligence information and Starlinks have been important. But Ukraine has survived 6 months of almost no support. Has developed a lot of equipment that is Ukrainian made, not US made. Drones are the obvious example. Others have been discussed here before. How quick Europe can support military is to a certain degree a political decision, how much equipment are we willing to send? As I said I hope it doesn’t come to that. It will hurt. But I am not completely convinced. If
Thanks for the feedback, Hans. Fingers crossed the strategic think-tanks are wrong and we analysts are all guilty of some short-sighted groupthink. It can happen, however much one tries to avoid such things! All the best.
I respect you knowledge. I just added some points to the other side of the scale. We agree that we hope it want come to that. Thinking about it the real problem is that if USA does withdraw then Ukraine might not have any options but try.
I have all sympathies for your words and good cause, mr. Korshak. But politically and diplomatically the American era in Europe is at its very and final end. With these kinds of amateurs and dilettantism from the patient and vice-patient in the 'white house', in a former old European colony - that is the very explanation. Europe and the western civilisation can't be run by Americans - it goes without saying. Europe must enter fast into the post-American era. For our own good. People just want to get rid of their Tesla cars and unhealthy consumption of Coca-Cola, now when even the fiscal reports in America realise they must stop using Europe's position and play James Bond all over the world - and just lose all American conflicts and wars. Good bye Washington.
I guess you need to drop Substack too? Plus Google, Netflix, ChatGPT, Windows-based computers, YouTube, Instagram, X/Twitter, BlueSky, Facebook, Apple products (iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc), countless films (popular and acclaimed, Hollywood and indie), countless shows, Amazon, Snapchat, Teams, Amazon’s own products (Echoes, Kindles), Uber Eats, Pinterest, Uber, Lyft, Ring, Gemini, Llama, GoogleMaps….
Be serious, my friend. There will be a period of turbulence, I agree, but the Trump administration will not be with us forever. His approval is already dropping steadily, and many of his foreign policies do not have broad American support according to polls: his voters primarily wanted less inflation from Trump, not this! Nor did most Americans want either 2024 candidate to win apparently. When one takes into account the voters who stayed home, in addition to the ones who voted for Harris, only about a third of their country even voted for Trump. Two-thirds did not. Democracy is messy sometimes.
Additionally, unless *a lot* changes—and quickly—our great continent will continue its decline. Unfortunately some of the most significant headwinds, such as demography and a rapidly aging population, are unlikely to reverse course. In my home country, two decades ago our per capita GDP was 90% of that of an American’s. Today it is less than 60%! We have been left in the dust, like our fellow nations of Europe. A welfare state is noble, but we will struggle mightily to afford it should the security situation change. You want America out? Are you also happy to shoulder the burden of the increased defence spending that will be essential if we’re to defend ourselves? The “peace dividend” provided by Pax Americana in Europe has served us well, subsidising as it has our high standard of living and generous welfare states (one sees a similar phenomenon in Israel, which has the benefit of generous US military aid). That will be unrealistic without the benefit of continued American protection and our relatively low defence spending, yet there is no appetite—according to recent polling by YouGov and Gallup on behalf of the EU—for the very cuts to benefits, social care, public services and healthcare that will eventually be required to support an independent European defence posture —nor for substantially greater taxation, which would be also inevitable barring massive economic improvement. Europe is already deeply indebted—without the benefit of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
Right now, to avoid this thorny political reality, our leaders have agreed to “fund” some rearmament by taking on even more debt: when more is required, and when we can no longer try to borrow our way out of this predicament, things will get politically ugly. Indeed this may well embolden the hard left and far right parties which have already exploded in popularity across much of the continent—a threat in its own right.
Theoretically, there are some things we can do to improve our economic prospects such as reducing the regulatory burden faced by European business, and forming a single unified capital market (CMU). But we have been trying to do this for many years—just ask poor “Super” Mario Draghi, whose EU-commissioned examination into why the EU had economically been “left behind by America” was promptly ignored and found purpose primarily as a doorstop for my fellow continentals. He eviscerated the EU and most economists felt the criticism to be sound. Various Eurozone countries have vehemently resisted the unified capital markets project for various, selfish reasons. Perhaps we will finally get a deep, capital markets union, but I will believe this when I see it, along with everything else our European leaders are currently promising. Am I optimistic? No. Why? The past two decades, just for starters.
Our inability to offer any kind of Europe-backed peace initiative for Ukraine, with credible guarantees, has been typical of broader dysfunction and stupid infighting. We talk endlessly about “solidarity” for the Continent (evidently a lie), and “unprecedented times” that call for Europe to come together. And what is on of the first things we do? We exclude Britain and Turkey from the rearmament fund. Genius! They’re not in the EU you counter? Quite right, but neither is Norway (who was included), and anyway if the urgency of the situation really demands solidarity, are in this together or are we in this primarily for the benefit of French and German defence firms (and our own flagging economies)? Britain and Turkey would bring tremendous assets to the table: both have capable defence sectors or their own. So much for the urgent “coalition of the willing”?
I live in hope we can find our strength as a continent again, but we need to be clear-eyed about our shortcomings if they are ever going to be addressed.
Worth the read but I could do with a condensed version!
I'll give you that maybe most of the Ukrainians doesn't think we are losing. But we are definitely not thinking that we are winning either. Depression is overwhelming in the society right now.
Thank you again for a very interesting article Stefan, now on to part B
So does today's miniscule agreement change the picture or is it just a piece of gristle in the nothing burger?
b oth witkoffs grandparents are russian, so he has a russian interest in the war