The Ukrainians need counter UAV weapons more urgently than Patriots. The biggest problem with Patriots is that too few are being produced. And there's a general problem with the US defense industrial base being increasingly run by people with financial background who are only interested in quick returns and don't really understand the industry they are in. Boeing's problems are well known (starting with the management moving far away from Seattle and engineers who actually do the work), Lockheed Martin and Raytheon engaged in huge stock buybacks instead of investing in production capacity etc. These problems have existed for decades, and presidents before Trump did not bother doing anything about them.
They need both certainly--but the missiles are a big threat because they have the accuracy and explosive power to take out some of the really important targets. The withering of the US defense industrial base was definitely a bi-partisan event.
Andrew, truer words have not been spoken. And now that attitude of shareholder profit before defense production/innovation is coming back to haunt us all.
That's the general problem with how MBAs are being taught. They basically see everything as financial assets. But the most important thing for a company is its mission. What does it exist for? The executives need to understand that clearly. Ultimately, it all comes down to producing something that somebody needs and is willing to pay for. Instead many CEOs act like CFOs (why do they even have the latter then?) and focus on reading the balance sheet rather than on big picture. When the going gets tough, those with a clear vision of their mission are much likelier to survive (in part because there will be a lot more political will for bailouts). I still remember how Pfizer went berserk in 2020 preparing for mass production of Covid vaccine (even building their own dry ice factory for packaging, as it was a rare commodity in Kalamazoo). The man in charge of Pfizer logistics later said that his father had been in the NASA control room on July 20, 1969 and that he had never thought he would ever participate in anything nearly as important. Defense contractors could do that too (for crying out loud, my former employer once built 50 aircraft carriers in a year, although he kinda cheated - that period included February 29, so he took 366 days rather than 365). They just don't want to. And nobody's pushing them.
It is all a part of what Paul Krugman and others have called the “financialization” of the economy. I would go one step further and add that is the placement of rent seeking and political influence over the mission of innovation and making continual improvements in products. I see this every day in the energy (power and gas space). It is maddening!
Nah, just teeny-weeny Casablanca class escort carriers barely 500 feet long. What do you expect from a man who did not know terms like aft and bow and referred to them simply like back and front (to FDR's great amusement)?
Delivering 50 Casablanca carriers in less than two years. They were 8 000 tons of mainly steel, going 19 knots. 400 thousand tons of steel and equipment in total. I can not wrap my mind around the scale of the output. For the sake of history I hope they kept archives, photos etc.
In one year. Exactly the same day in mid-1944 as the start in mid-1943. 366 days (including February 29). I haven't seen photos, but when I worked for Kaiser Permanente in the early years of this century (alongside the man who invented the term "evidence based medicine"), they were occasionally sending out emails about company history, and there was something about the speed record in building Liberty ships - 4 days or so from start to finish. It should be noted that Kaiser did not actually own shipyards - he was building ships on the beach. He had his own ways of doing everything. Including healthcare: Kaiser Permanente started with a single doctor providing health care to workers building the Hoover Dam. I can only imagine how fast Henry J. Kaiser would be producing Patriot missiles or 155 mm shells.
Well, of course they don't want to -- that's not how you extract billions of dollars from the government for your personal bank account. Making crap systems at extremely high prices, extremely delayed, has far more opportunities for graft.
But then this analysis has been true since Ronald Reagan went all-in on the corruption. That's when the US military started rotting so bad it stank.
So true Andrew that the most important thing for a company is its mission. Permanently stuck in my mind is a Hollywood movie that depicts this conflict in a company between balance sheet profits and its mission. It is Executive Suite starring William Holden released in 1954. (I love old movies) I’ll try and provide a link to its trailer that I found on YouTube: https://youtu.be/tJ_kIvPp53Q?si=HeGDtieU-vAlJwFI
Ronald Reagan defeated the people who were trying to fix it (the Military Reform Movement) and turned US military procurement into a scheme for corrupt kickbacks, Vail vacations, and private schools for the kids of military contractor executives, where nobody cares whether the weapons are functional, mass produced, and they certainly don't want them to be reasonably priced. And here we are now.
If Europe truly saw the defense of Ukraine as existential, then it would have reacted far more decisively and early re: restarting its own military complexes rather than relying on the USA to fill in many of the strategic gaps.
At present, the EU is largely beholden to US interests / weapons platforms for which there are no good substitutes. See patriot, among others. Much has been ceded to the US military complex.
Granted, some folk have questioned the actual value of having fewer high-cost platforms like the f35 vs. less stealthy but more austere-capable Gripen. An argument can be made either way.
But bottom line, despite the recent increase in spending, I do not see the EU rushing to pre-1989 levels of % GDP spending, nor production, nor willingness to stop the shadow fleet and like smuggling activities. Ie they are not treating Russia as an existential threat.
That will come to bite them in the butt, just like kowtowing to Trump. Playing for time has a place but when you do it, something better be happening in the background. As best as I can tell, it ain’t.
Like you, I have my doubts that most Europeans do (except for maybe the Baltics). It still seems that the Europeans do not want to take on the responsibility of looking after themselves.
I am not so sure about that entirely. The Nordics and Baltics are doing so, and Germany under Merz is turning the ship and industrial capacity around. It takes time and investment. The fact that the Germans are increasing production investing in Western Ukraine is a major step forward.
I agree that the Baltic states and Poland are exceeding 2% GDP spend targets for defense but they are a drop in the bucket relative to the rest of Europe. England doesn’t have enough personnel to even stock every boat in their Navy!
Europe famously stopped buying natural gas from Russia and stopped many gas intensive processes like turning said gas into fertilizer. Instead, they’re buying fertilizer from Russia.
Europe is also buying oil products from Russia and selling lots of dual use technology and bits into the Russian market via Dubai, Kyrgyzstan, and like places. They’re also ignoring the vast amount of goods China is selling into Russia.
To me, Europe is not really acting like Ukraine is a serious issue, likely because the Ukrainians have done such a good job of keeping the Russian bear at bay. That status quo cannot last forever.
The only hope in all this is that the Russian economy will start crashing down as the ongoing war spend exceeds the carrying capacity / reserves of the place. However, hope is not a strategy.
I can’t agree enough about how disappointing Europe has been in helping Ukraine and dealing with the Russian menace. The UK seems to be paralyzed with concern about inclusivity quotas and the like. (they seem incapable of dealing with immigration) Macron doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Merz certainly seems serious.
What is it going to take to make Europe serious in truly helping Ukraine? Is it Russia massing troops and military equipment across the Narva river or at Brest?
You have hit on the lynchpin of it all…collapsing Russian economy. Putin made noises in the last day or two about needing to slash budgets including defense spending. Let’s see if that happens. But the economy is in bad shape, and I wonder if the oligarchs are getting nervous.
As for avoiding sanctions, you are right this is a problem and the screws need to be tightened. In that sense, I agree Europe is not taking it seriously.
It is surely a bad strategy to praise the bully, for it only encourages him toward further bad behavior. I am losing hope that Europe will take to heart the fact that the U.S has fundamentally changed and is not an ally. NATO countries need to immediately cancel all contracts for US military equipment. In the rare instances where the US systems are superior, e.g., Patriot, they should be prepared to ignore normal legal conventions and build copies of their own, entertaining offers from, in this case Raytheon to set up factories beyond US jurisdiction. In other words, play dirty.
In reality the US has power that is amplified by the willingness of others to follow along. That needs to change.
Well, more and more the analysts and politics have become event-based. The general trend in this war is a WWI trench based stalemate on the ground with staggering losses, with the arrival of a new air weapon in drones and AI warfare. The future is for mass production of cheap drones that can take out much bigger and more expensive armour. Europe has already pledged to mass produce drones. A significant step forwards. Also, do not underestimate the versatility and innovative power of the EU, we will come with a solution for the missing Patriots. And, lest we forget, we will never forget the betrayal of the USA for not sending the Patriots. Someone has to be accountable, and it will be Trump. Also, we will never forget the brown-nosing Rutte did. It's despicable, as is the horrendous way the USA took over The Hague area during the NATO top. The way the White House afterwards depicted our royal palace Huis ten Bosch as Daddy's home is typical for the total lack of empathy for European culture, hospitality and diplomacy. In a way, MAGA is all that we loathe in Europe about the USA.
Watching the NATO summit was like watching one of the most groanworthy episodes of Yes Prime Minister. Which reminds one that the latter was designed as entertainment - though with a subversive intent - which is a substantial part of Trump’s modus operandi - at their expense.
Perhaps like Shakespeare’s fools?
Given that substantive commitments have been made, and are being better followed up than those of the Biden or Trump administration, is part of the intent to marginalise the US further because of the deficit of trust and need for secrecy, which Trump is scarcely conscious or capable of?
Or have we Europeans - through our politicians - simply taken civility just too far for anyone’s good?
Europe is not Europe...unfortunately. But as a Dane it gladdens me that the Baltics are noted for understanding the threath and acting on it? But which countries are included in the term Baltics? 3? 5? 7? Just to make clear: Denmark was the first to invest in arms production IN Ukraine. And there is an overwhelming support for Ukraine and using 5 % of BNP on defense. Also in Parliament.
SecyGen Mark Rutte and other NATO "leaders" [sic] should hang their heads in collective shame. Sucking up to autocrats who aren't even reliable allies in such a shameless way simply debases Europeans and gives MAGA a free gift which they are exploiting with glee.
Don't do it again! In fact, the sooner the US is excluded from NATO the better. Having the Americans as part of NATO and fawning to the tyrant in change in DC only slows things down and degrades the level of public and practical support European nations must give to Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian aggressor.
America is not a reliable partner under MAGATrump and may never be again, even when (and if) the US is able to shake off the toxic embrace of the regime. Indications are that they won't fulfill their treaty obligations under Art 5 anyway when one of the Baltic states is attacked by Putin. They have to go.
Phillips, we should all be down on NATO. NATO is for all intents and purposes a dead institution. However, rather than reading the communique leaving this up to the individual sovereign states to take up the mantle (which many have including Germany increasingly so in other ways) can also be taken as telling Trump and the US to go “fuck off” as they will do this without “NATO”. That is a very different read in that context and matches the increasing contributions from various European states.
The big issue, as you point out, are Patriot systems. They are the most effective AD system available. There are also needs to be a better way to take out Shaheed drones as that is really what is saturating the night sky. Yet, Putin’s strategy looks and feels like the Blitz in 1940 increasingly and does nothing to further achieving the military objective, while simply terrorizing civilians which will make Ukrainians more resolute.
The bottom line is the US under Trump is a malign influence in the world now and Europe is politely moving on. Would I prefer they act more like Canada and PM Mark Carney? Sure. But they are moving on in their own way.
Phillips it's not often that I disagree with you nor the majority of contributors in the comments section. However, Europe played Trump like a fiddle. Allow me to explain.
The objective of the NATO summit was to publicly present a unified front and in order to do that they needed to keep Trump on side. Controversial subjects like Ukraine in NATO, supply of weapons by the US and criticising Putin didn't materialise. The last thing NATO wanted was for it to fracture over a matter that they know Trump is never going to agree to. So, they stroked his ego, made things as bland as possible so that a unified statement could be published which Russia could not exploit. In fact, Russia focussed on the 5% of GDP commitment.
So why did they do this. Simple, it gives Europe time to rearm and maintains that element of uncertainty as to whether or not the US would come to the aid of Europe. Now we all know Trump is a coward and there is a 99% chance he wouldn't lift a finger but there will always be that uncertainty in Putins mind that R's in the US could grow a spine given the right provocation and he knows that many view Russia as the true enemy.
Many comments here have articulated their disgust at the Europeans placating Trump but this I feel sure is them playing Trump in pursuit of the bigger goal and all the while, in private, increasing material support for Ukraine. Even President Z was muted, he knew what was going on, and he focussed on the purchase of AD systems. It is a toss up as to whether Trump will oblige more than likely not. President Z knows this.
Much of the material support from Europe to Ukraine is NOT being published but the sums of money is increasing and why would Europe telegraph to Russia what support is being provided. No, Europe, UK and Norway have the measure of both Trump and Putin because they are both playing on the same side. They are not going to advertise all that they are doing so that Putin can take advantage but they will butter up Trump because he is a stupid man and will not see through it. All the while, behind the scenes, an awful lot of work is going on in support of Ukraine.
There has been considerable talk of stopping the purchase of US systems. Unfortunately, that cannot happen but I do suspect that new technology and systems will be concentrated in Europe and the only purchases from the US will be for legacy platforms but for new replacement platforms it will be buy Europe. It will take time so why piss off Trump now.
Trump is laying the groundwork for Europe to rebuild not only its militaries but also their DIBs and they are doing it on the quiet which is why Europe has just played not only Trump but Putin like a fiddle.
europe has provided ukraine with 35b euros assistance so far this year, last year the provided 64b, so by the end of 25 they will have increased funding massivly over 24
Thanks. Helpful as always. In your book, The Strategists, I recall and I'm paraphrasing; you reference Stalin talking to Molotov and saying of Roosevelt that he, [Stalin] won't be fooled by this pretence by Roosevelt that he's answerable to Congress, which acts as a handbrake, to the President. Which back then it clearly was.
Perhaps Putin no longer has to worry and 'Daddy' doesn't even bother with any pretence.
Rutte's comments were nauseating. If Europeans have determined that the best way to deal with Trump to get what they want/need is to treat him like a spoiled three year old then they are making a huge mistake. They should take a "page" from Mark Carney. Realistically, I think they know exactly who he is and Rutte was designated the "sacrificial lamb" to placate him. As for NATO, it appears to have reached the end of its usefulness. Without U.S. participation ("real participation"...not the word salad affirmations coming from Trump) then the stage is set for a separate European/Canadian defense pact along the lines of the Nordic Defence Cooperation agreement and the sooner they start working on it, the better. I still believe Ukraine can prevail in this conflict. In fact, given the right weapons, in a timely manner, this could have happened a year ago. I don't think the fact that NATO's ending communique didn't mention Ukraine is that significant. Europe has already earmarked billion of Euros in aid, inked agreements to establish manufacturing plants in Ukraine proper (Rheinmetall, among others) and now Australia (!) has provided at least one AWAC's aircraft and the personnel to support it...outside of NATO. It's difficult to get an accurate "read" on the state of the war at any given moment (as it has from the beginning) because of the wide range of analysis from diverse sources. One is left searching for the proverbial "middle ground" which seems to be: Ukraine hasn't won or lost.
The worst take of the last week is the hopium from UK analysts projecting Trump's bombing of Iran as a sign that he may be a changed man who could get tough with Putin. Trump supports Putin. He took a relatively painless 2-day swing at a defenseless Iran. Not comparable.
There are layers of motives behind motives. European leaders may know it makes little sense in the short term to appease Trump, but they may also think that one day Trump will be gone, and by then, the transatlantic relationship should not be in tatters. In the next layer, most politicians are sufficiently hard-nosed to know that when that day comes, US leaders will act according to US strategic interests and seek to restore alliances in order to stand strong against China. This idea could free the Europeans to play hardball with the US, but there is another obstacle: Politicians depend on voters, and they cannot afford to be perceived as too rash. This would give populist opponents good ammunition against them. Add to this the short-term trouble that Trump is causing and may exacerbate with tariffs. No politician wants to be seen as responsible for a recession.
While the NATO statement was very weak, previous stronger ones have hardly deterred Russia. Individual state contributions have counted for most in 'NATO ' aid. Rheinmettal's vast boost in artillery shell production to outstrip Russia's is surely significant in the direction of the war.
Other commentators I trust are describing the NATO statement that direct contributions to Ukraine will count towards NATO members' commitments to spend 5% of GDP on defense as a significant step forward because nations can contribute to Ukraine more easily and quickly than they can build their own armed forces. You quote this statement but don't comment on it. I would be interested to know if you think it has any significance (whether positive or negative).
The most depressing thing is that while the SBU does an excellent job with what it has, the Ukrainian command makes the same mistakes over and over. The obvious example of this recently was the failure to adequately fortify the Sumy region - why then attack Kursk if not to buy time to fortify? And why wasn't it already deeply fortified after years of full scale war? Syrsky's record is a mixed bag from what I can tell. The decision to reinforce Bakhmut instead of the drive towards Orikhiv in 2023 has to my knowledge been a controversial one to say the least and discussed often. The organisational failures such as with the Anna de Kyiv brigade, with brigades supposed to be being rotated out of the line only to actually lose positions due to poor coordination with their neighbours - well, as the more pessimistic Ukrainians say - a small soviet military can't beat a large soviet military. So far I have seen little proof that they have fully abandoned Soviet style thinking - and the kidnappings by the TCC really just reinforce this. In my extremely armchair general opinion, it would make more sense to try to trap Russian troops inside of Ukraine using mechanised reserves instead of expanding into Russia. But what do I know, Syrsky is in charge. He must know best or Zelensky wouldn't have put him there.
Re "The NATO 'Daddy' Summit And The Martyrdom Of Ukraine": Because we're approaching the second anniversary of the murder of Victoria Amelina by an Iskander missile strike in Kramators'k in 2023, I'd like to share an essay by Askold Melnyczuk, who co-taught a zoom course with Ms. Amelina in Aug. 2022 on Ursula Le Guin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” All of the students were Ukrainian.
Following is an excerpt from Melnyczuk's essay that is relevant to today's post by Prof. O'Brien:
"It's a brilliant, densely written four-page story about a utopia, Omelas, whose citizens are always happy, a place full of festive celebration and cheerful collaboration among its cooperative citizenries.
"Alas, every utopia has its price, and this one is no different. It turns out that the easy life enjoyed by the town’s denizens is possible only so long as they agree to complicity in a crime. A child of indeterminate sex is to be kept locked away in a basement where it is regularly abused."When they reach a certain age, usually between eight and twelve, every citizen of Omelas is told about 'the child.' Many are taken down to the dingy basement, a dungeon, really, to see it:
"It could be a boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits hunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and nobody will come. The door is always locked; and nobody ever comes, except that sometimes – the child has no understanding of time or interval – sometimes the door rattles terribly and opens, and a person, or several people, are there. One of them may come and kick the child to make it stand up. The others never come close, but peer in at it with frightened, disgusted eyes. The food bowl and the water jug are hastily filled, the door is locked, the eyes disappear. The people at the door never say anything, but the child, who has not always lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and its mother's voice, sometimes speaks. 'I will be good,' it says. 'Please let me out. I will be good!' They never answer. The child used to scream for help at night, and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of whining, 'eh-haa, eh-haa,' and it speaks less and less often. It is so thin there are no calves to its legs; its belly protrudes; it lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day. It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually.
"And every citizen is told that the price for their happiness is maintaining the abuse and imprisonment of the child.
"Seeing the child for the first time, most of the young people are shocked to discover the price they’ve been secretly paying for their idyll. They wrestle with their conscience. Some weep. They have a few bad nights or maybe bad hours. In the end, most conclude that the happiness of the many outweighs the suffering of one. After all, it’s just one child, while they are a village! And so, they mostly forget about it — until the time comes to bring their own child face to face with the truth."
Because the students in this zoom course were Ukrainian, they immediately recognized the child in the basement as Ukraine.
The Ukrainians need counter UAV weapons more urgently than Patriots. The biggest problem with Patriots is that too few are being produced. And there's a general problem with the US defense industrial base being increasingly run by people with financial background who are only interested in quick returns and don't really understand the industry they are in. Boeing's problems are well known (starting with the management moving far away from Seattle and engineers who actually do the work), Lockheed Martin and Raytheon engaged in huge stock buybacks instead of investing in production capacity etc. These problems have existed for decades, and presidents before Trump did not bother doing anything about them.
They need both certainly--but the missiles are a big threat because they have the accuracy and explosive power to take out some of the really important targets. The withering of the US defense industrial base was definitely a bi-partisan event.
Andrew, truer words have not been spoken. And now that attitude of shareholder profit before defense production/innovation is coming back to haunt us all.
That's the general problem with how MBAs are being taught. They basically see everything as financial assets. But the most important thing for a company is its mission. What does it exist for? The executives need to understand that clearly. Ultimately, it all comes down to producing something that somebody needs and is willing to pay for. Instead many CEOs act like CFOs (why do they even have the latter then?) and focus on reading the balance sheet rather than on big picture. When the going gets tough, those with a clear vision of their mission are much likelier to survive (in part because there will be a lot more political will for bailouts). I still remember how Pfizer went berserk in 2020 preparing for mass production of Covid vaccine (even building their own dry ice factory for packaging, as it was a rare commodity in Kalamazoo). The man in charge of Pfizer logistics later said that his father had been in the NASA control room on July 20, 1969 and that he had never thought he would ever participate in anything nearly as important. Defense contractors could do that too (for crying out loud, my former employer once built 50 aircraft carriers in a year, although he kinda cheated - that period included February 29, so he took 366 days rather than 365). They just don't want to. And nobody's pushing them.
It is all a part of what Paul Krugman and others have called the “financialization” of the economy. I would go one step further and add that is the placement of rent seeking and political influence over the mission of innovation and making continual improvements in products. I see this every day in the energy (power and gas space). It is maddening!
Building 50 aircraft carriers in a year, like the Gerald R. Ford class type of aircraft carriers?
Nah, just teeny-weeny Casablanca class escort carriers barely 500 feet long. What do you expect from a man who did not know terms like aft and bow and referred to them simply like back and front (to FDR's great amusement)?
Delivering 50 Casablanca carriers in less than two years. They were 8 000 tons of mainly steel, going 19 knots. 400 thousand tons of steel and equipment in total. I can not wrap my mind around the scale of the output. For the sake of history I hope they kept archives, photos etc.
In one year. Exactly the same day in mid-1944 as the start in mid-1943. 366 days (including February 29). I haven't seen photos, but when I worked for Kaiser Permanente in the early years of this century (alongside the man who invented the term "evidence based medicine"), they were occasionally sending out emails about company history, and there was something about the speed record in building Liberty ships - 4 days or so from start to finish. It should be noted that Kaiser did not actually own shipyards - he was building ships on the beach. He had his own ways of doing everything. Including healthcare: Kaiser Permanente started with a single doctor providing health care to workers building the Hoover Dam. I can only imagine how fast Henry J. Kaiser would be producing Patriot missiles or 155 mm shells.
Well, of course they don't want to -- that's not how you extract billions of dollars from the government for your personal bank account. Making crap systems at extremely high prices, extremely delayed, has far more opportunities for graft.
But then this analysis has been true since Ronald Reagan went all-in on the corruption. That's when the US military started rotting so bad it stank.
So true Andrew that the most important thing for a company is its mission. Permanently stuck in my mind is a Hollywood movie that depicts this conflict in a company between balance sheet profits and its mission. It is Executive Suite starring William Holden released in 1954. (I love old movies) I’ll try and provide a link to its trailer that I found on YouTube: https://youtu.be/tJ_kIvPp53Q?si=HeGDtieU-vAlJwFI
Sorry, here is the climactic scene in the movie. Much better than the trailer.
https://youtu.be/vcEOsGvT0qA?si=uvn6BzsLBQBoJhD1
Here is the climactic scene in the movie
Ronald Reagan defeated the people who were trying to fix it (the Military Reform Movement) and turned US military procurement into a scheme for corrupt kickbacks, Vail vacations, and private schools for the kids of military contractor executives, where nobody cares whether the weapons are functional, mass produced, and they certainly don't want them to be reasonably priced. And here we are now.
If Europe truly saw the defense of Ukraine as existential, then it would have reacted far more decisively and early re: restarting its own military complexes rather than relying on the USA to fill in many of the strategic gaps.
At present, the EU is largely beholden to US interests / weapons platforms for which there are no good substitutes. See patriot, among others. Much has been ceded to the US military complex.
Granted, some folk have questioned the actual value of having fewer high-cost platforms like the f35 vs. less stealthy but more austere-capable Gripen. An argument can be made either way.
But bottom line, despite the recent increase in spending, I do not see the EU rushing to pre-1989 levels of % GDP spending, nor production, nor willingness to stop the shadow fleet and like smuggling activities. Ie they are not treating Russia as an existential threat.
That will come to bite them in the butt, just like kowtowing to Trump. Playing for time has a place but when you do it, something better be happening in the background. As best as I can tell, it ain’t.
Like you, I have my doubts that most Europeans do (except for maybe the Baltics). It still seems that the Europeans do not want to take on the responsibility of looking after themselves.
So sad. For them, Ukraine, and the world.
I am not so sure about that entirely. The Nordics and Baltics are doing so, and Germany under Merz is turning the ship and industrial capacity around. It takes time and investment. The fact that the Germans are increasing production investing in Western Ukraine is a major step forward.
I agree that the Baltic states and Poland are exceeding 2% GDP spend targets for defense but they are a drop in the bucket relative to the rest of Europe. England doesn’t have enough personnel to even stock every boat in their Navy!
Europe famously stopped buying natural gas from Russia and stopped many gas intensive processes like turning said gas into fertilizer. Instead, they’re buying fertilizer from Russia.
Europe is also buying oil products from Russia and selling lots of dual use technology and bits into the Russian market via Dubai, Kyrgyzstan, and like places. They’re also ignoring the vast amount of goods China is selling into Russia.
To me, Europe is not really acting like Ukraine is a serious issue, likely because the Ukrainians have done such a good job of keeping the Russian bear at bay. That status quo cannot last forever.
The only hope in all this is that the Russian economy will start crashing down as the ongoing war spend exceeds the carrying capacity / reserves of the place. However, hope is not a strategy.
I can’t agree enough about how disappointing Europe has been in helping Ukraine and dealing with the Russian menace. The UK seems to be paralyzed with concern about inclusivity quotas and the like. (they seem incapable of dealing with immigration) Macron doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Merz certainly seems serious.
What is it going to take to make Europe serious in truly helping Ukraine? Is it Russia massing troops and military equipment across the Narva river or at Brest?
My word for the week last week was lickspittle: noun, 1. a fawning underling or toady 2. The practice of giving empty flattery for personal gain.
Both senses of the word apply to European leaders' treatment of Trump.
You have hit on the lynchpin of it all…collapsing Russian economy. Putin made noises in the last day or two about needing to slash budgets including defense spending. Let’s see if that happens. But the economy is in bad shape, and I wonder if the oligarchs are getting nervous.
As for avoiding sanctions, you are right this is a problem and the screws need to be tightened. In that sense, I agree Europe is not taking it seriously.
It is surely a bad strategy to praise the bully, for it only encourages him toward further bad behavior. I am losing hope that Europe will take to heart the fact that the U.S has fundamentally changed and is not an ally. NATO countries need to immediately cancel all contracts for US military equipment. In the rare instances where the US systems are superior, e.g., Patriot, they should be prepared to ignore normal legal conventions and build copies of their own, entertaining offers from, in this case Raytheon to set up factories beyond US jurisdiction. In other words, play dirty.
In reality the US has power that is amplified by the willingness of others to follow along. That needs to change.
Indeed, Indeed
Well, more and more the analysts and politics have become event-based. The general trend in this war is a WWI trench based stalemate on the ground with staggering losses, with the arrival of a new air weapon in drones and AI warfare. The future is for mass production of cheap drones that can take out much bigger and more expensive armour. Europe has already pledged to mass produce drones. A significant step forwards. Also, do not underestimate the versatility and innovative power of the EU, we will come with a solution for the missing Patriots. And, lest we forget, we will never forget the betrayal of the USA for not sending the Patriots. Someone has to be accountable, and it will be Trump. Also, we will never forget the brown-nosing Rutte did. It's despicable, as is the horrendous way the USA took over The Hague area during the NATO top. The way the White House afterwards depicted our royal palace Huis ten Bosch as Daddy's home is typical for the total lack of empathy for European culture, hospitality and diplomacy. In a way, MAGA is all that we loathe in Europe about the USA.
Watching the NATO summit was like watching one of the most groanworthy episodes of Yes Prime Minister. Which reminds one that the latter was designed as entertainment - though with a subversive intent - which is a substantial part of Trump’s modus operandi - at their expense.
Perhaps like Shakespeare’s fools?
Given that substantive commitments have been made, and are being better followed up than those of the Biden or Trump administration, is part of the intent to marginalise the US further because of the deficit of trust and need for secrecy, which Trump is scarcely conscious or capable of?
Or have we Europeans - through our politicians - simply taken civility just too far for anyone’s good?
I wish it was only civility. I think its far worse than that--a denial of reality.
I fully agree. And as the leaders are denying reality, our media and the populations at large are following them in this denial.
Europe is not Europe...unfortunately. But as a Dane it gladdens me that the Baltics are noted for understanding the threath and acting on it? But which countries are included in the term Baltics? 3? 5? 7? Just to make clear: Denmark was the first to invest in arms production IN Ukraine. And there is an overwhelming support for Ukraine and using 5 % of BNP on defense. Also in Parliament.
SecyGen Mark Rutte and other NATO "leaders" [sic] should hang their heads in collective shame. Sucking up to autocrats who aren't even reliable allies in such a shameless way simply debases Europeans and gives MAGA a free gift which they are exploiting with glee.
Don't do it again! In fact, the sooner the US is excluded from NATO the better. Having the Americans as part of NATO and fawning to the tyrant in change in DC only slows things down and degrades the level of public and practical support European nations must give to Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian aggressor.
America is not a reliable partner under MAGATrump and may never be again, even when (and if) the US is able to shake off the toxic embrace of the regime. Indications are that they won't fulfill their treaty obligations under Art 5 anyway when one of the Baltic states is attacked by Putin. They have to go.
Phillips, we should all be down on NATO. NATO is for all intents and purposes a dead institution. However, rather than reading the communique leaving this up to the individual sovereign states to take up the mantle (which many have including Germany increasingly so in other ways) can also be taken as telling Trump and the US to go “fuck off” as they will do this without “NATO”. That is a very different read in that context and matches the increasing contributions from various European states.
The big issue, as you point out, are Patriot systems. They are the most effective AD system available. There are also needs to be a better way to take out Shaheed drones as that is really what is saturating the night sky. Yet, Putin’s strategy looks and feels like the Blitz in 1940 increasingly and does nothing to further achieving the military objective, while simply terrorizing civilians which will make Ukrainians more resolute.
The bottom line is the US under Trump is a malign influence in the world now and Europe is politely moving on. Would I prefer they act more like Canada and PM Mark Carney? Sure. But they are moving on in their own way.
Phillips it's not often that I disagree with you nor the majority of contributors in the comments section. However, Europe played Trump like a fiddle. Allow me to explain.
The objective of the NATO summit was to publicly present a unified front and in order to do that they needed to keep Trump on side. Controversial subjects like Ukraine in NATO, supply of weapons by the US and criticising Putin didn't materialise. The last thing NATO wanted was for it to fracture over a matter that they know Trump is never going to agree to. So, they stroked his ego, made things as bland as possible so that a unified statement could be published which Russia could not exploit. In fact, Russia focussed on the 5% of GDP commitment.
So why did they do this. Simple, it gives Europe time to rearm and maintains that element of uncertainty as to whether or not the US would come to the aid of Europe. Now we all know Trump is a coward and there is a 99% chance he wouldn't lift a finger but there will always be that uncertainty in Putins mind that R's in the US could grow a spine given the right provocation and he knows that many view Russia as the true enemy.
Many comments here have articulated their disgust at the Europeans placating Trump but this I feel sure is them playing Trump in pursuit of the bigger goal and all the while, in private, increasing material support for Ukraine. Even President Z was muted, he knew what was going on, and he focussed on the purchase of AD systems. It is a toss up as to whether Trump will oblige more than likely not. President Z knows this.
Much of the material support from Europe to Ukraine is NOT being published but the sums of money is increasing and why would Europe telegraph to Russia what support is being provided. No, Europe, UK and Norway have the measure of both Trump and Putin because they are both playing on the same side. They are not going to advertise all that they are doing so that Putin can take advantage but they will butter up Trump because he is a stupid man and will not see through it. All the while, behind the scenes, an awful lot of work is going on in support of Ukraine.
There has been considerable talk of stopping the purchase of US systems. Unfortunately, that cannot happen but I do suspect that new technology and systems will be concentrated in Europe and the only purchases from the US will be for legacy platforms but for new replacement platforms it will be buy Europe. It will take time so why piss off Trump now.
Trump is laying the groundwork for Europe to rebuild not only its militaries but also their DIBs and they are doing it on the quiet which is why Europe has just played not only Trump but Putin like a fiddle.
Thanks for this Alan. I really hope you are right.
europe has provided ukraine with 35b euros assistance so far this year, last year the provided 64b, so by the end of 25 they will have increased funding massivly over 24
Thanks. Helpful as always. In your book, The Strategists, I recall and I'm paraphrasing; you reference Stalin talking to Molotov and saying of Roosevelt that he, [Stalin] won't be fooled by this pretence by Roosevelt that he's answerable to Congress, which acts as a handbrake, to the President. Which back then it clearly was.
Perhaps Putin no longer has to worry and 'Daddy' doesn't even bother with any pretence.
Yes--Trump certainly feels unencumbered much by Congress, and I imagine he is transmitting that to Putin
Rutte's comments were nauseating. If Europeans have determined that the best way to deal with Trump to get what they want/need is to treat him like a spoiled three year old then they are making a huge mistake. They should take a "page" from Mark Carney. Realistically, I think they know exactly who he is and Rutte was designated the "sacrificial lamb" to placate him. As for NATO, it appears to have reached the end of its usefulness. Without U.S. participation ("real participation"...not the word salad affirmations coming from Trump) then the stage is set for a separate European/Canadian defense pact along the lines of the Nordic Defence Cooperation agreement and the sooner they start working on it, the better. I still believe Ukraine can prevail in this conflict. In fact, given the right weapons, in a timely manner, this could have happened a year ago. I don't think the fact that NATO's ending communique didn't mention Ukraine is that significant. Europe has already earmarked billion of Euros in aid, inked agreements to establish manufacturing plants in Ukraine proper (Rheinmetall, among others) and now Australia (!) has provided at least one AWAC's aircraft and the personnel to support it...outside of NATO. It's difficult to get an accurate "read" on the state of the war at any given moment (as it has from the beginning) because of the wide range of analysis from diverse sources. One is left searching for the proverbial "middle ground" which seems to be: Ukraine hasn't won or lost.
For an incisive unmasking of the NATO summit listen to former NATO leader Richard Shirreff. **Excellent**
https://youtu.be/U4tqFwAo-vY
The worst take of the last week is the hopium from UK analysts projecting Trump's bombing of Iran as a sign that he may be a changed man who could get tough with Putin. Trump supports Putin. He took a relatively painless 2-day swing at a defenseless Iran. Not comparable.
There are layers of motives behind motives. European leaders may know it makes little sense in the short term to appease Trump, but they may also think that one day Trump will be gone, and by then, the transatlantic relationship should not be in tatters. In the next layer, most politicians are sufficiently hard-nosed to know that when that day comes, US leaders will act according to US strategic interests and seek to restore alliances in order to stand strong against China. This idea could free the Europeans to play hardball with the US, but there is another obstacle: Politicians depend on voters, and they cannot afford to be perceived as too rash. This would give populist opponents good ammunition against them. Add to this the short-term trouble that Trump is causing and may exacerbate with tariffs. No politician wants to be seen as responsible for a recession.
While the NATO statement was very weak, previous stronger ones have hardly deterred Russia. Individual state contributions have counted for most in 'NATO ' aid. Rheinmettal's vast boost in artillery shell production to outstrip Russia's is surely significant in the direction of the war.
Other commentators I trust are describing the NATO statement that direct contributions to Ukraine will count towards NATO members' commitments to spend 5% of GDP on defense as a significant step forward because nations can contribute to Ukraine more easily and quickly than they can build their own armed forces. You quote this statement but don't comment on it. I would be interested to know if you think it has any significance (whether positive or negative).
The most depressing thing is that while the SBU does an excellent job with what it has, the Ukrainian command makes the same mistakes over and over. The obvious example of this recently was the failure to adequately fortify the Sumy region - why then attack Kursk if not to buy time to fortify? And why wasn't it already deeply fortified after years of full scale war? Syrsky's record is a mixed bag from what I can tell. The decision to reinforce Bakhmut instead of the drive towards Orikhiv in 2023 has to my knowledge been a controversial one to say the least and discussed often. The organisational failures such as with the Anna de Kyiv brigade, with brigades supposed to be being rotated out of the line only to actually lose positions due to poor coordination with their neighbours - well, as the more pessimistic Ukrainians say - a small soviet military can't beat a large soviet military. So far I have seen little proof that they have fully abandoned Soviet style thinking - and the kidnappings by the TCC really just reinforce this. In my extremely armchair general opinion, it would make more sense to try to trap Russian troops inside of Ukraine using mechanised reserves instead of expanding into Russia. But what do I know, Syrsky is in charge. He must know best or Zelensky wouldn't have put him there.
Re "The NATO 'Daddy' Summit And The Martyrdom Of Ukraine": Because we're approaching the second anniversary of the murder of Victoria Amelina by an Iskander missile strike in Kramators'k in 2023, I'd like to share an essay by Askold Melnyczuk, who co-taught a zoom course with Ms. Amelina in Aug. 2022 on Ursula Le Guin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” All of the students were Ukrainian.
Following is an excerpt from Melnyczuk's essay that is relevant to today's post by Prof. O'Brien:
"It's a brilliant, densely written four-page story about a utopia, Omelas, whose citizens are always happy, a place full of festive celebration and cheerful collaboration among its cooperative citizenries.
"Alas, every utopia has its price, and this one is no different. It turns out that the easy life enjoyed by the town’s denizens is possible only so long as they agree to complicity in a crime. A child of indeterminate sex is to be kept locked away in a basement where it is regularly abused."When they reach a certain age, usually between eight and twelve, every citizen of Omelas is told about 'the child.' Many are taken down to the dingy basement, a dungeon, really, to see it:
"It could be a boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits hunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and nobody will come. The door is always locked; and nobody ever comes, except that sometimes – the child has no understanding of time or interval – sometimes the door rattles terribly and opens, and a person, or several people, are there. One of them may come and kick the child to make it stand up. The others never come close, but peer in at it with frightened, disgusted eyes. The food bowl and the water jug are hastily filled, the door is locked, the eyes disappear. The people at the door never say anything, but the child, who has not always lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and its mother's voice, sometimes speaks. 'I will be good,' it says. 'Please let me out. I will be good!' They never answer. The child used to scream for help at night, and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of whining, 'eh-haa, eh-haa,' and it speaks less and less often. It is so thin there are no calves to its legs; its belly protrudes; it lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day. It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually.
"And every citizen is told that the price for their happiness is maintaining the abuse and imprisonment of the child.
"Seeing the child for the first time, most of the young people are shocked to discover the price they’ve been secretly paying for their idyll. They wrestle with their conscience. Some weep. They have a few bad nights or maybe bad hours. In the end, most conclude that the happiness of the many outweighs the suffering of one. After all, it’s just one child, while they are a village! And so, they mostly forget about it — until the time comes to bring their own child face to face with the truth."
Because the students in this zoom course were Ukrainian, they immediately recognized the child in the basement as Ukraine.
https://www.arrowsmithpress.com/journal/teaching-ukrainian-students