July 19, 2024 - 7:00am
In every conflict, there comes the “guns or butter” question: the tradeoff between spending on civilian goods and social programmes or on national defence. For a while, governments can do both and kick the can down the road, but at some point reality will set in. This moment apparently has now come in Germany, with Berlin announcing that it will cut its military aid to Ukraine by 50% in 2025.
Instead of the 2024 amount of €8 billion, the Scholz government will only be providing around €4 billion next year. That a major supporter of Ukraine is halving its support only months after China and Russia declared their “no limits” partnership shows that the level of resolve on one side of the conflict is wavering.
Unfortunately for Volodymyr Zelensky, almost every poll on German public opinion is moving in the wrong direction. There are, for example, two that show that a majority of Germans are opposed to supplying heavy weapons and long-range missiles that could strike into Russian territory. And given that only about 50% of Green and FDP voters — the two most pro-Ukraine parties — approve of heavy arms deliveries, support for assisting the Ukrainian war effort is clearly waning. Meanwhile, the most ardent critics — with a rejection rate of 90% — are members of the Right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Left-wing Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), both of which are continuing to rise in the polls.
It is not only a potential Donald Trump presidency, with the isolationist J.D. Vance confirmed as his running mate, that would raise questions over continued Western support for Ukraine. In fact, there are further signs of an attitude shift across the continent. Remember the ambitious plans to entirely wean Europe off Russian gas? Well, some have decided to change course. Greece, for example, has put plans for further LNG terminals on ice and increased supply of Russian pipeline gas via Turkey. In Austria, the Russian share in gas supply increased from 87% in 2023 to 91% (so far) in 2024, and Hungary signed renewed contracts with Gazprom as recently as 2023.
Whatever headlines one reads in the news, there seems to be an emerging trend of countries preparing for a gradual re-normalisation of relations with Russia. If one adds the recent self-declared and, by some, strongly criticised “peace mission” of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the tectonic plates are shifting.
To be clear, this shift will not be unanimous, and will most likely lead to further divisions both within Nato and the EU. The Baltic states and Poland remain committed to supporting Ukraine, as does the EU’s incoming foreign policy chief and former prime minister of Estonia Kaja Kallas. It is unlikely, however, that Brussels can do much to stop these changes in attitude, especially given the political troubles in France. President Emmanuel Macron, who himself has been a strong pro-Ukrainian voice, must deal with a new National Assembly in which more Moscow-friendly parties now hold a majority.
These signs will worry Zelensky, and the situation is unlikely to change anytime soon. If Germany is a bellwether, 2025 could become a very difficult year for Kyiv.
Ralph Schoellhammer is assistant professor of International Relations at Webster University, Vienna.
Raphfel
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.
SubscribeGermany can help Ukraine fight Russia now, or it can fight Russia itself in a few year’s time. It should choose wisely. As to Greece taking more Russian gas, it would do best to take some care. Pipelines carrying Russian gas have shown themselves prone to exploding.
Ya. This is a totally reasonable statement.
Well, the pipeline carrying gas from Russia to Germany mysteriously exploded….
But Nordstream 1 is still operational.
Current planning horizon is 2027 for that eventuality. War cycle rising and may be inevitable given its links to the debt cycle, inflation, and mounting government interest payments. Playbook of history for a reset … so that is certainly one outcome.
Russia has barely been able to mount a conventional attack on Eastern Ukraine. How in a few years’ time is Russia going to mount a conventional attack on Germany, having first got through Western Ukraine and Poland?
The only attack Russia can make on Germany is non-conventional. The defence or not of Ukraine is irrelevant to such an attack.
As for gas pipelines exploding, the only one that did was the one to Germany. There are 7 in total that cross Russia’s Western border. Amazingly, all the pipelines that run through Ukraine not only survived but are still operational. How odd.
The inevitable outcome of this conflict is a compromise. At some point their will have to be new lines draw on the map. That’s not to say I agree with Russia’s invasion or support them, but pragmatically a settlement is needed, the longer the war continues the more lives are lost for nothing.
The alternative is to fully commit to Ukraine and join a war again Russia on Russian territory, and I don’t see the will from anyone in Europe or America to do this.
Draw a new line, then allow Ukraine into NATO and Europe if need be to strengthen the new border.
The current situation is unsustainable and while our government commits more funds to Ukraine it refuses to provide more funds for our military or NATO, it’s an illogical stance to take.
“If need be”? Of course Ukraine needs to be in NATO, with a rapacious predator like Russia on its doorstep!
An interestingly self denying comment. Not really seeking for peace but rather compromise. Stop fighting while accepting Ukraine into NATO. Or.. even better.. let’s fight on the grounds of Russia had we gotten the guts…!
It brings to mind the endless fights between English and French royals over power, dominance and.. family disputes.. of times passed but ever present..!
The idea that current royals of Russia can not (yet) be accepted in the northern European stratosphere, includes a serious amount of sentimental idealism. The reality on the other hand, that communities of the many are seriously left behind in all of Europe, with northies following the southies in neglect and despise from the side of ever declining elites, is not ringing any bell of reason sofar..!
All this, defines sinking into moving sand with our backs turned away from any possibility of holding onto a solid rock or even better stepping on stable ground, while our eyes are fixated on pushing someone else first into the all consuming depths of self denial, destruction and death..!
God have mercy on us..!
Military aid is just that. Donations of either money to buy weapons or actual weapons. Writing cheques with printed money can’t win a war unless those cheques can be cashed for weapons. At some point weapons have to be delivered.
On the front line of an attritional war like Ukraine’s defence, opposing armies can gauge the reality of promised weapons. The frequency of encountering different weapon attacks gives vital clues about the availability of weapons held by your opponent. If artillery barrages fade away, perhaps they’re short of shells. If HIMARS seem absent from the battlefield, perhaps they’re in short supply. If there’s a generalised slowdown, perhaps they’re close to exhaustion and collapse. In Ukraine’s case, short of NATO directly fighting Russia, if NATO supplies falter, then Eastern Ukraine will be overrun.
NATO and Russia have struggled to arm from the start. Almost everything sent to the front line has come from stores. Yet NATO shrunk its Cold War stocks and demolished its military production lines far more than Russia on the pretext of modernisation. The West now simply lacks the industrial capacity to meet the current weapons fire / wastage rate in Ukraine. Promises to expand manufacturing capacity have been met by severe skills and materials shortages. In the UK the major defence manufacturers have a tens of thousands of open vacancies for engineers and technicians that simply aren’t being filled by our many hairdressing apprentices and golf studies graduates.
NATO was quite happy sending shells and bullets – and nothing more – until NATO ran out of shells and bullets. NATO was forced to send ever more modern (and expensive) weapons because the manufacturing of shells and bullets is only meeting a fraction of the demand. As each weapons system goes short supply, there is a new round of political discussion about delivering the next level of weapons to “decisively win the war” when in reality it is to stall a collapse of the defence Ukraine.
NATO has emptied its stores, first of the older numerous weapons and more recently the newer and fewer modern weapons. Where does NATO now go? It is essential this weakness is not revealed on the battlefield otherwise the credibility of NATO will be shot, and that could invite a much worse global calamity. So instead the political promises of military aid have to now wind down to match the capability to deliver fresh weapons. Germany has moved first because politically it easier for it to do so, and because being in central Europe it feels rather exposed and must be mindful of its own defence. The UK’s concern is its heavy investment in new manufacturing facilities, coming on stream between now and 2030, may on paper prove politically wasteful* unless the war continues.
*Having the industrial capacity to fight a sustained war is in my view as important as having a well equipped military. Politically though, the Treasury doesn’t see it like that and economists queue up to trim such waste.
Chalk up another one in the L column for globalism. Does anyone remotely believe that the combined manufacturing capacity of every country in the west, even if they were united in purpose, could compete with just China alone, let alone both China and Russia. It’s long past time to start doing the hard work of climbing out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. About the best we can say is that over the last eight years and two administrations, at least we’ve finally put down the shovel.
The Neocon gamble to dismantle Russia has failed.
Instead it has created a Russia- China axis with considerable influence in “the Global South” and damaged Europe (which may actually have been an aim which has been achieved…).
This result is precisely what wiser US geopolitical advisers sought to prevent since WW2…with considerable success.
The USA now faces “difficulties” in Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific. It will eventually decide that the game isn’t worth the candle and become isolationist.
This seems to be one of the more likely outcomes. I don’t think the US will go entirely isolationist, rather it will circle the wagons around itself and it’s closest and most critical allies, which will probably still include the UK for entirely sentimental reasons, but more importantly is likely to include military dependencies like Japan and South Korea which are key leaders in technology that the US can’t afford to lose with populations that are historically familiar with and none too fond of Chinese influence. If the US can somehow manage to deter China from invading Taiwan, perhaps it includes them, but I rather suspect that’s a chess piece that will be sacrificed somewhere along the way. It will also include fellow China opponents like the Philippines, Australia, and Vietnam (that’s where a lot of the friend-shoring of factories is going). India is the wild card. They will probably try to hue to their traditional neutrality, though I’m unsure if that will hold given their territorial disputes with China and the increasing level of economic competition they’re engaged in. India, with its still growing population, is likely to absorb a lot of the production capacity that China stands to lose as their demographic cliff approaches and labor costs begin to sharply increase, which will likely lead to greater exports and deeper trade ties with the US which will in turn exacerbate the tensions between them. It may be that circumstances become so strong as to create an alliance of mutual need between India and the US that is comparable to the otherwise unlikely Russia/China axis. Either way, I expect the US will lose interest in continental Europe. Nobody wants to be fettered to a corpse.
Selling other people’s souls into slavery is the best way to ensure our peace of mind.
.
I must honestly admit that I have never been so disappointed as in these last years. I thought that you should at least be more honest with yourselves. I was wrong, most of you are no different from politicians like Biden, who only imitated helping Ukraine. You hypocritically blame Zelensky and “respect” Putin, not seeing the struggle of Ukrainians for their freedom and openly fascist Russia.
I agree. It’s nauseating reading the stream of apologias for the vile murderers in the Kremlin every time an article on Ukraine is posted. Even more sickening is the ‘humanitarian’ pose they try to adopt. They’re almost all bitter, sad aging men, warped into cranks and whackjobs by the youtube algorithm.
It’s a winding-down year which means that you’d expect some US aid to continue just to sop the Russians breaking the nationalist lines and marching on Kiev. But that year is anticipated to be one of a territorial settlement to maintain the buffer zone peacefully. Zelensky will have to go too, needless to say.
A negotiated peace with Russia gaining the Don region and Ukraine joining NATO might be the best outcome possible. An endless war always loses support and could drag down anything associated with it. Like alliances.
Putin might view NATO as an alliance that would be less of a threat with Ukraine inside it than out. And an increasingly unfocused and purposeless one to boot.
Giving in to a dictatorship trying to bully a democratic neighbouring country in its imperial ambitions is morally wrong and geo-politically stupid. If this is not resisted by the collective West. It can be rightly assessed as weak and a pushover. And China can confidently apply this lesson to its neighbours as well.
Needs to be put into the context of wider support measures for Ukraine – particularly the recent decision to use the frozen Russian assets to create a constant stream of cash for the Ukrainian war effort.