Main Edition
US
FR
March 7, 2024 - 7:00am
What a difference 12 months can make. In February 2023, the Wall Street Journal detailed how the Russia-Ukraine war invigorated Nato. A year later, however, a growing number of cracks are appearing within the alliance.
Some of these issues have been around for a while, especially the constant haggling over who is meeting the required 2% of GDP spending requirement on defence. Only 11 out of 31 member countries are on target, and the laggards include such supposedly formidable states as France and Germany. These two cause a particular headache for other members, since they are unable to formulate a strategy vis-à-vis Russia that is supported by both ends of the Berlin-Paris axis.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has become the latest leader to expose these divisions, expressing reservations about sending Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine and risking being drawn into a direct war with Russia. The fallout from his remarks has come just as the Chancellor deals with the embarrassment of a German military intelligence leak, which revealed that Britain may already have boots on the ground in Ukraine
France’s President Emmanuel Macron made headlines recently by suggesting that Western troops may be sent to Ukraine. He also mocked Scholz for sending “sleeping bags and helmets” instead of weapons, not an entirely fair claim given that, according to the Kiel Institute’s Ukraine Support Tracker, Germany has contributed around €17.7 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid (only the US has provided more), compared to France’s meagre €635 million.
Unsurprisingly, Macron’s suggestion was rejected by almost all the other Nato states, but the damage was done. The moral and political leadership of France and Germany is being seriously questioned in Eastern Europe, where a revolution is brewing against the likely next secretary general of Nato, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. According to former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the question is “What moral credibility does this guy have?” — especially given the fact that during Rutte’s tenure the Netherlands has not once spent more than 2% of GDP on defence.
These divisions are running deep and play into Moscow’s hands, reviving Vladimir Putin’s most likely original strategy: bank on the Europeans — especially Germany — to accept a new status quo in order to keep Russian energy flowing.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhy interfere when your are opponents are busy digging a hole for themselves ?
Russia can’t even “handle” a poor and delapidated NATO client. How is Russia supposed to be able to do anything with an attack on an actual NATO member? At the beginning of the war I thought Russia would roll in in no time and tale Kiev. The Russian miltary can’t make significant gains in 2 years of fighting on its south-west border so how would an attack on multiple fronts go against the whole of the west? I don’t think Putin is willing to find out.
No one (especially not the Germans) take Macron seriously. This article gives too much credit to a “Franco-German axis”. Any German will tell you they call the shots because they pay the bills. France’s moral leadership was effectively hobbled by Macron’s attempts at statesmanship at the beginning of the war where Putin played him expertly – the gulf between theory and experience.
It’s amazing how many people are so naively “certain” of what the Russian objectives were at the time of the invasion. It’s obvious to anyone actually paying attention that the attacks on Kiev were a feint to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table so as to end the conflict and keep Ukraine neutral thereby preventing missile batteries on their borders. The Russians have never had any intention of conquering the entirety of Ukraine let alone invading a single NATO country. Well done Boris Johnson.
No significant gains? They control the majority of the Eastern ethnically Russian oblasts ( prime farmland and geologic resources ). They obviously understand that occupation of the whole of Ukraine would be a disaster akin to Afghanistan or Vietnam (if they were directly on the US border! ). Trying to understand their strategy from a Western MIC perspective is foolish as is attempting to understand China’s strategic moves by what an American would do if the roles were reversed. Diplomacy could have so easily avoided this disaster. We’ve pushed Russia into China’s arms instead of playing them against each other to the West’s benefit. What a waste of life. We play the short game once again. Ring up more billions for the MIC…
Medvedev’ map
As I see, some people don’t like my post with this map. I’m sorry, it was publicly presented few days ago by the deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev.
I only reposted this map, so I would like to know what kind of complaints you have against me?