As the US and its European allies head to the Munich security conference, Europe must learn from its tragic history and oppose appeasement, writes Guardian columnist Timothy Garton Ash
That is the big question since the start of the Invasion, as they didn’t went all in from the start and were only increasing military support and decreasing the limitations on its use (such as not being able to use it against Russian Territory) in a drip-drip away.
Same question could be posed to Biden’s America.
My guess is a mix of trying to avoid the whole thing turning into a nuclear conflict and the edging their bets (no point in giving all kinds of kit up front to Ukrained and then they were overwhelmed for other reasons such as lack of manpower and Russia just got a whole lot of Western kit on their hands). Also if there is one thing most European politicians are definitelly guilty of, is being hesitant and over-cautious.
There’s also the possibility that they were following the Machiavelic strategy of drawing Russia further into that War by keeping the Ukranian military power around the level that defeating them was just barelly outside the reach of Russia. The purpose would be to drain Russian military assets and power to reduce its danger to everybody else and to give time for European nations to grow their own military power back to the level it was at before Russia started to be seen as a peaceful partner which no longer held imperialist dreams. If that was the intention, it seems to have worked wonderfully on the first part and so far so good on the second part, though the Ukranians would have been sacrificed beyond what they need to for it (hence why I called it a “Machiavelic strategy”)
Independently of that, at this stage going back on all of that sunk investment is a completelly difference level of changing their actions than the slow, step by step increase in supportting Ukraine of the last 2 years, and somebody having a history of hesitation and step by step change does not in any way form or shape support a thesis that they desire a sudden large scale change in exactly the opposite direction of the one they have been following for two years in a step by step way, quite the opposite (people who are extra cautious in increasing their investment into something don’t just dump 2 years of increasingly investing and accept failure just because one of the “partners” wants to quit)
For your last paragraph, let’s wait and see what happens. I doubt European countries will provide support for Ukraine much longer if the US withdraws its support completely.
I hope Europe does rise up to the challenge and replaces the US part of the military help to Ukraine (and I hope to they don’t have strings attached to it which was an American inspired things), not just for Ukrainians but also because strategically its the smart move (as if Europe chickens out and Russia succeeds now, they will sooner or later act militarily against EU countries) but we can’t really know for sure either way until they do.
It’s not looking promising. Even France and the UK, who are the only powerful countries talking about deploying troops on the grounds, would only do it after a peace deal is reached, and only if the US provides a backstop. It’s hard to take them seriously as this point.
That is the big question since the start of the Invasion, as they didn’t went all in from the start and were only increasing military support and decreasing the limitations on its use (such as not being able to use it against Russian Territory) in a drip-drip away.
Same question could be posed to Biden’s America.
My guess is a mix of trying to avoid the whole thing turning into a nuclear conflict and the edging their bets (no point in giving all kinds of kit up front to Ukrained and then they were overwhelmed for other reasons such as lack of manpower and Russia just got a whole lot of Western kit on their hands). Also if there is one thing most European politicians are definitelly guilty of, is being hesitant and over-cautious.
There’s also the possibility that they were following the Machiavelic strategy of drawing Russia further into that War by keeping the Ukranian military power around the level that defeating them was just barelly outside the reach of Russia. The purpose would be to drain Russian military assets and power to reduce its danger to everybody else and to give time for European nations to grow their own military power back to the level it was at before Russia started to be seen as a peaceful partner which no longer held imperialist dreams. If that was the intention, it seems to have worked wonderfully on the first part and so far so good on the second part, though the Ukranians would have been sacrificed beyond what they need to for it (hence why I called it a “Machiavelic strategy”)
Independently of that, at this stage going back on all of that sunk investment is a completelly difference level of changing their actions than the slow, step by step increase in supportting Ukraine of the last 2 years, and somebody having a history of hesitation and step by step change does not in any way form or shape support a thesis that they desire a sudden large scale change in exactly the opposite direction of the one they have been following for two years in a step by step way, quite the opposite (people who are extra cautious in increasing their investment into something don’t just dump 2 years of increasingly investing and accept failure just because one of the “partners” wants to quit)
For your last paragraph, let’s wait and see what happens. I doubt European countries will provide support for Ukraine much longer if the US withdraws its support completely.
Oh yeah, we won’t really know until we see it.
I hope Europe does rise up to the challenge and replaces the US part of the military help to Ukraine (and I hope to they don’t have strings attached to it which was an American inspired things), not just for Ukrainians but also because strategically its the smart move (as if Europe chickens out and Russia succeeds now, they will sooner or later act militarily against EU countries) but we can’t really know for sure either way until they do.
It’s not looking promising. Even France and the UK, who are the only powerful countries talking about deploying troops on the grounds, would only do it after a peace deal is reached, and only if the US provides a backstop. It’s hard to take them seriously as this point.