Latest news with #Globsec
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
The new Iron Curtain: Eastern Europe mobilises for defence against Russian aggression
US President Donald Trump's threat not to respect America's Nato obligations has spurred Europe into action. Europe is preparing for war with Russia. On the one hand that seems like a statement of the obvious since European powers have been providing military support to Ukraine over the past three years. On the other hand it is striking to see and hear preparations for war taking concrete form along Nato's own eastern borders. To see the mobile air defence missile launchers recently deployed along the perimeter of the runway as you step off an aircraft at Poland's Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport, about 100km from the border with Ukraine. And Poland is mining its frontiers with Russia's Kaliningrad enclave and with Russia's close ally Belarus as part of its East Shield defence barrier, which some have likened to a new Iron Curtain rising across Europe. War with Russia — when it might happen, how to prepare for it — dominated discussion at the big Globsec security conference in Prague last week. The recent warning by German intelligence chief Bruno Kahl that Moscow could soon launch an attack on a European Nato member to test the alliance's Article 5 mutual defence obligations was the leitmotif of the conference, evidence that the threat was being taken very seriously. Europe jolting into action to assume greater responsibility for its own defence against Russia was the focus of discussion. 'Putin didn't wake up Europe. Trump did,' said Estonia's Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, pertinently describing how the US president's threats not to respect America's Nato obligations had finally concentrated Europe's collective mind. At next week's summit in The Hague, Nato states are expected to increase defence spending from 2% of national GDPs to 3.5% on hard military items such as tanks, warplanes, air defence, missiles and extra troops. A further 1.5% will be spent on things like roads, bridges, ports and airfields. But there are differences about how and how soon to do that, with frontline states in the east demanding much faster, firmer action than western European states. Read more: War in Ukraine 'I believe there is no point to start preparing for the war after the war,' Estonia's Defence Minister Hanno Pevkur remarked dryly, in response to suggestions that the increased defence spending of Nato member states could take place over three to five years. No state is more frontline than Estonia, probably the most vulnerable of all Nato member countries, because of its exposed geography and relatively large Russian-speaking minority. When Kahl, head of Germany's Federal Intelligence Service (BND), said he had evidence Russia was preparing to test Nato's resolve, he added: 'They don't need to send tanks for that. They just have to send 'little green men' to Estonia to defend the allegedly oppressed Russian minority.' The little green men referred to the clandestine Russian soldiers without insignia who seized key strategic facilities in Crimea in 2014 in the opening phase of the Russian occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula. Romania's Defence Secretary Sorin-Dan Moldovan agreed with Tsahkna, saying his country needed extra Nato spending in 'three to five days, not three to five years'. And he dismissed talk of the eastern flank being more exposed than the western flank, saying increased defence spending was about the collective defence of all of Europe. For countries like the Czech Republic (aka Czechia) and Poland, the threat is not only about geography but also about history. As Czech Deputy Foreign Minister Jan Marian told visiting African journalists last week, 'in these two countries the understanding of the Russian threat is even more imminent' than for some other Nato countries, because 'we have our historical experience with Russian aggressive behaviour'. He refers to the fact that after World War 2 both countries were forced to become part of the 'Eastern Bloc' — satellites of the Soviet Union — and in 1968 Moscow and other countries of the Warsaw Pact sent tanks into what was then Czechoslovakia to crush the 'Prague Spring', a fragile blossoming of very modest freedom. Poland and Czechoslovakia then contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, finally gaining their independence. Behind, but improving The EU took an important step towards greater autonomy and integration in its own defence last year when it appointed its first Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius. He was asked at the Globsec conference, though, why the European members of Nato had collectively spent more than $3-trillion on defence over the past decade and yet still had 'tiny tank forces, smaller air forces and still felt threatened by a much smaller and weaker Russia'. Kubilius answered that Nato's European members had underspent on defence for too long while looking for peace dividends from the US. He said the European defence industry had become very fragmented and had failed to use the power of a single market to improve its competitiveness. European nations were spending only 20% of their defence budgets procuring European production versus 60% on US defence production, undermining European defence productions. But he noted that things were changing. He recalled that Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte had said when Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, Russia was able to produce more ammunition in three months than all Nato members, including the US, were able to produce in a year. However, Nato was improving. When the war started, EU states had promised Ukraine one million artillery shells and had only produced about 300,000 a year. This year it got up to two million shells. 'But still we are behind,' Kubilius said, adding that Nato was so far only meeting 53% of its targets for increasing its defence capabilities. He proposed various remedies, such as cutting red tape so that European defence companies could produce weapons jointly, and also said European countries should increase the joint procurement of weapons. These measures would both increase demand and decrease the costs of European defence production. But political will is clearly the key. War fatigue Daily Maverick likewise asked both Czech President Petr Pavel and Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky why Ukraine's many allies were unable to give it all the backing it needed, given their massive economic superiority over Russia. Lipavsky suggested the collective political will was lacking, saying: 'It goes back to the domestic debate in every allied state on how to support Ukraine and to what extent. 'You can follow the debate in the US, you can follow the debate in Czechia, you can follow the debate in Germany. 'So, yes, we have the power to do so (to help Ukraine win), we need to find a will, and I'm calling for that will regularly.' Pavel's reply was that Czechia and Ukraine's other allies did not aim to defeat or destroy Russia but just to help Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. He agreed that the West had the power to defeat Russia but remained cautious because it did not want to provoke Russia into a major conflict since it was armed with about 6,000 ballistic nuclear weapons. And even if Russia only deployed tactical nuclear weapons that would be disastrous. He said some European countries were cautious as they wished to resume economic relations with Russia when the war ended. But Pavel also observed that if Ukraine's allies had shown greater political will and fully supported the Ukraine from the start, it would have won the war in the first year and avoided the current stalemate where it now only seemed possible to reach a compromise settlement in which Ukraine would have to cede up to 20% of its territory that Russia occupies. And there is a danger that the unity of Europe's political resolve to support Ukraine may be weakening, even as the EU steps up its efforts to increase support. 'War fatigue' seems to be setting in among populations grown weary of war talk, and war spending. Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has opposed military support to Ukraine from the start. Slovakia's recently elected populist Prime Minister Robert Fico has also suggested that his country might be better off neutral. Karol Nawrocki, Poland's newly elected president, who takes office in August, is ambivalent on Ukraine. He has publicly expressed opposition to Ukraine's accession to Nato and the European Union while also saying Poland should 'support Ukraine from a strategic and geopolitical point of view'. And in Czechia, the opposition ANO party led by former prime minister Andrej Babiš, which is leading in the polls for October election, is also ambivalent about the war. He has criticised current Prime Minister Petr Fiala's shipping of heavy weapons to help Kyiv and his initiative to find and fund artillery ammunition for Ukraine's defence. Globsec published a list of seven possible scenarios for the progress of the war over the next two years, which assigned the highest probability, 38%, to a scenario in which the war of attrition continued but with 'lowered intensity of hostilities due to draining out of resources on both sides'. It noted: 'The trajectory of the war will be increasingly shaped by whether Europe, particularly a 'Coalition of the Willing', can swiftly and quickly construct a credible, unified military and economic support framework for Ukraine in the absence of strong US leadership. Failure to do so risks weakening Ukraine's long-term capacity to resist and may create openings for Russian coercive diplomacy or territorial advances.' DM
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Russia preparing strategic reserves for conflicts beyond Ukraine, Ukraine warns
Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha warned on June 13 that Russia has begun preparing strategic military reserves, signaling plans for military operations that may extend beyond Ukraine. "According to our intelligence, Russia has started to prepare strategic reserves, which indicates plans for combat operations not only in Ukraine," Sybiha said during the Globsec conference in Prague, calling for urgent diplomatic and economic pressure. "Allies need full diplomatic mobilization to stop this war. This is not just a question for Ukraine. (Russian President Vladimir) Putin only understands strength, and right now it's crucial to apply sanctions in a timely manner, using them as economic weapons to pressure Russia," Sybiha said. The comments come as Russia intensifies its military offensives and missile strikes across Ukraine, despite participating in two recent rounds of peace talks in Istanbul. The first talks were held on May 16, followed by a second meeting on June 2. While both rounds produced agreements on prisoner exchanges, they failed to secure a ceasefire. President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a June 12 interview with Germany's Bild newspaper that Russia is using the talks to delay tougher U.S. sanctions, while continuing to escalate attacks on Ukrainian cities. Russia also continues to issue nuclear threats to Western countries. Putin claimed on June 11 that Russia possesses the world's most advanced nuclear systems, with 95% of its strategic nuclear forces reportedly made up of modern equipment. Putin emphasized the need to significantly strengthen Russia's ground forces. Russian defense spending has surged to 6.3% of GDP, the highest level since the Cold War, as Moscow continues to ramp up its military investment amid the ongoing war. Read also: What Russia's 1 million casualties mean for Ukraine We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ukraine summit in Paris exposes divisions, lack of coherent plan, experts say
The emergency Ukraine summit held in Paris by European leaders on Feb. 17 exposed divisions between European countries, highlighting how they have so far failed to agree on a coherent plan for supporting Kyiv, analysts have told the Kyiv Independent. French President Emmanuel Macron convened the summit after Brussels and Kyiv were sidelined from negotiations in Saudi Arabia on ending Russia's war in Ukraine, as concerns mount that both Europe and Kyiv may be left without U.S. support. Adding to tensions on the continent, U.S. Vice President JD Vance stunned those watching on Feb. 14 when his speech at the Munich Security Conference turned into a searing attack on Europe's ideals and a call to embrace far-right political parties. "This is the EU's final call to show leadership," Federica Mangiameli, defense and security senior programme manager at Globsec, told the Kyiv Independent. "It is time to honour the promises the EU has made, for Ukraine, for Europe and for all of us believing in a democratic free world." The Paris summit was attended by leaders of Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The participants considered increasing defense spending, providing security guarantees to Kyiv, and sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine. Speaking after the summit, Macron reaffirmed the need for strong security guarantees for Ukraine, warning that a ceasefire without them risks collapsing like the failed Minsk agreements. "Europeans must invest better, more, and together in their security and defense — both for today and for the future," he said in his statement on X. Yet there were no concrete agreements, and little consensus among statements issued by others in attendance. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that he is "prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground, alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement." But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz argued that it was "highly inappropriate" to discuss sending peacekeepers before a specific peace plan is approved. Here's what five European experts think about the results of the Paris summit and what Europe should do next to support Ukraine:Looking at the outcome of the Paris meeting, it is still clear that Europeans do not agree on how, and to what degree to support Ukraine, particularly if they need to defy the United States to do so. This extends to issues beyond just the headline question of deploying European troops to Ukraine and extends to issues such as security guarantees, the level and kind of military assistance, reconstruction aid, and even the definition of victory. Unless and until they reach such agreement, Europeans will not have much if any say in the negotiations. Whether they feel they need that and whether they are willing to put in more resources and make compromises with their EU partners is, I guess, a question they need to ask themselves. Read also: A ceasefire in Ukraine could end martial law — what would lifting restrictions mean?We Europeans still have difficulties accepting that — at least for now and for this presidency — the United States is no longer a reliable ally, and is possibly even an opponent. Regime change has happened in Washington, however, and the informal summit in Paris tried to come to terms with the implications — that Europe will have to do a lot more to support Ukraine. The emphasis here is on "do," rather than just "say" things that help Ukraine. Europe's problem is that it will find that difficult even if it wants to support Ukraine, beyond providing money — too many countries in Europe have neglected their defenses and their defense industries for too sense is that European leaders are converging on a set of financial measures to mobilize additional money for defense. The goal is to allow European states to boost defense spending to build up their own armed forces and sustain military aid to Ukraine as US support for both Ukraine and European security more broadly is perceived to be crumbling. Two big questions remained unanswered in Paris on Monday. One, will Europeans deploy troops to Ukraine, under which conditions, and with what mandate? And two, what is the right balance to strike between favoring the European defense industry to assert greater sovereignty from the U.S., and procuring equipment from the U.S. to keep the Trump administration engaged in European security affairs? We'll probably learn more next week after Germany's Feb. 23 federal election. It seems that the democratic parties of the political center have agreed on the contours of a plan to reform Germany's debt break to boost defense spending sooner rather than later and to expand Germany's role as a key security provider in Europe. But they're keeping their cards close to their chest to not add fuel to the populist fire being stirred by the far-right and far-left parties, both of which are decidedly meeting was a clear political reaction to the Munich Security Conference that brought some bad news for the EU and Ukraine, and demanded a political follow-up at the highest level. Only some of the EU countries were invited, especially those that are prominent and powerful enough as well as capable of delivering financial support and dedication to Ukraine. But the results are mixed, exposing the existing divisions among the EU countries and states that want to join the peace-keeping efforts in Ukraine, and those that remain rather lukewarm on this. At the same time, the wide consensus was on more military spending and investments as well as maintaining political unity and a strong Transatlantic bond. At the same time, it is clear that Europe needs both more time and vigilance to respond to the ongoing challenges, and to stand up to the challenges from Russia and more pressure from the United States too. This is both the case when speaking to the general public in the EU as well as when securing additional financial support, investments, and more projects and military Europe certainly still needs to do much more. My expectation from the meeting on Monday would have been that the participants agree to come up with a draft plan within the next week or two of how European countries can provide security guarantees for Ukraine. Since it is unrealistic to do this without some form of U.S. support, the plan should indicate where this support is essential, i.e. what would be the minimal amount of support needed from the U.S. for the plan to succeed. It should also detail what the Europeans are able to provide. This needs to be a realistic assessment but also one which "hurts," i.e. where the European countries leave their comfort zone and pledge to provide the maximum possible support. Even if this requires them to take actions which will negatively affect their own security, they need to do it, because their security is being protected in Ukraine, and if they fail to help protect it there then they will have to sacrifice much more in order to defend it on their own territory or that of allied NATO countries. Even if (U.S. President) Donald Trump is unpredictable, his statements recently and during his first administration leave no doubt that he expects Europe to do more for its own security. So relying on some sort of vague hope that he might change his mind and continue to provide the same amount of support for European security as has previously been the case is naive and dangerous. Unfortunately we did not see any sort of plan, or indication of a forthcoming plan, coming out of the meeting in Paris. European leaders need to realize that in order to have a seat at tables they consider relevant for them in the future, they will need to back up their rhetoric with much more convincing action, and they will need to begin immediately. defense and security senior programme manager at Globsec The interesting decision not to invite all EU leaders was poorly received by the rest of the bloc, once again providing figures like (Hungarian Prime Minister) Viktor Orban and (Slovakian Prime Minister) Robert Fico with an opportunity to push narratives of conflicting interests and divisions among EU member states. The real danger here is that public perception may shift toward believing in a division within the EU — between "warmongers" and "peace supporters." At this stage, rather than wake up calls, we should talk about "final call" for the EU to prove its voice matters and support Ukraine in the negotiation talks. Years of effort to back Ukraine's fight for survival would be wasted if a poor deal is reached — affecting the credibility of the EU project for years to come. This is the EU's final call to show leadership. It is up to (EU Chief) Ursula von der Leyen to engage with the U.S. and ensure that any agreement reached serves Ukraine's best interests — rather than merely ticking an item off a diplomatic to — do list. It is time to honour the promises the EU has made, for Ukraine, for Europe and for all of us believing in a democratic free world. Read also: As Trump's Ukraine envoy is partially sidelined, Middle East negotiator takes lead in Russia talks We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
