Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin must be dissatisfied with the Ukraine war and its repercussions. Russia's economy is suffering; the once large cash reserves are dwindling. Huge losses in miltary manpower -- originally seen as a welcome way of limiting the demographic growth of Russia's colored Asiatic populations -- are beginning to come at the expense of white/European Russians, causing resentment among Putin's most loyal populace.
The war economy remains the only activity at which Russia excels. But supporting the war is becoming more and more onerous for Russia's limited economy. New, additional sources of funding and weapons are needed. The friends -- China, North Corea and Iran -- are helping, but much more is needed. And it's there, beckoning right across the borders, up for grabs.
The tiny Baltics cannot offer much substance, but booming, westernized Poland is a handsome prey that could feed Russia's hungry war machine for a few months. And beyond Poland there is Germany: rich, modern, enticing.
Imagine, how Germany could help Russia reattain supremacy in Europe! Trainloads of industrial equipment could be shipped to Russia, bank vaults could be seized, millions of BMW. Volvo and Mercedes cars could grace Russian country roads; Russia and Germany: an invincible combination.
Burkhart Fürst
News suggest that the White House has taken another decisive step toward abandoning Europe and leaving it up for grabs by Russia. In the course of its overall review of foreign assistance (REEVALUATING AND REALIGNING UNITED STATES FOREIGN AID, January 20, 2025), the Trump administration is not only ending European security programs focused on Russia but is also secretly "pausing" sales of American armaments to Europe.
Background: In early July 2025, President Trump stopped providing Ukraine with American arms. However, he opened a loophole: anybody well heeled enough to afford American armaments could order them and gift them to Ukraine. Trump was probably not expecting that his idea of bringing sales and jobs to the US would work, assuming the Europeans would be too poor and stingy to waste sufficient dollars on Ukraine's war. Europe proved him wrong. Instead of abandoning Ukraine it launched a vigorous rearmaments drive at national and regional levels, And: it announced it would purchase lots of US arms for the brave but notoriously corrupt Ukrainians.
This unexpected development had three consquences:
-- it showed that the US currently cannot afford facing two enemies similtaneously, China in the Pacific and Russia in Europe, because the US arms industry lacks the capacity to step up output sufficiently in response to demand.
-- Trump is focused on blocking China's efforts to replace the US as the world's top power by forcing the Pentagon to concentrate all available firepower in the Pacific arena.
Officials and observers of the Trump administration say the change is on brand with Colby’s (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby) belief that China is the only country that has the ambition, resources, and military might to knock the U.S. off its pedestal as the world’s leading superpower. The only way to stop its bid for global dominance, Colby has argued, is for the U.S. to pour everything it can into securing the Western Pacific—albeit, potentially, at the expense of European security. (The Atlantic)
-- Trump left it up to the Europeans to defend Ukraine and themselves without US assistance.
Unfortunately, Europe's armaments industries are in even worse condition than America's. France is currently submerged in domestic turmoil. In Germany, traditional peaceniks are trying to impede a vigorous rearmament effort. Italy and Spain are considering themselves well protected by Germany and France and therefore prefer to spend their money on things less boring than defense.
It will likely take a decade for Europe to face up to the military power of a Russia freed from the shackles of the Ukraine war. For Europe the question is how long Ukraine could last in protecting Europe -- long enough for the old continent to become able to defend itself?
Europe should fear a Russia that would result from the merger with a defeated Ukraine. Moscow would inherit all those modern Western NATO-style armaments which Ukraine has obtained, as well as those magnificent hidden Ukrainian arms factories. Ukraine's battle hardened soldiers would face the choice of either fighting for Russia or being punished and killed in Siberian prison camps. It is troubling to imagine a Putin now grinning when watching Western industries setting up fancy armaments factories in Ukraine. Today a gift to Ukraine -- tomorrow a boon for Russia?
Ukraine now has by far the largest and most battle-hardened army in Europe, and an innovative defence industrial sector with much to teach European firms. The overall capacity of Ukraine’s defence sector at the time of Russia’s full-scale invasion was $1 billion; this year it is expected to reach $35 billion (Centre for European Reform)
Heinrich von Loesch
-
What if Ukraine goes nuclear and becomes invincible?
Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia.
Strictly speaking, the missiles belonged to the Soviet Union, not to its newly independent former republics.
But a third of the USSR’s nuclear stockpile was located on Ukrainian soil, and handing over the weapons was regarded as a significant moment, worthy of international recognition. (BBC).
Ukraine has surely regretted giving up its nuclear arsenal a thousand times over.
However, there is still a way for Ukraine to regain nuclear protection without provoking Russia into a nuclear attack:
--
„Dies ist ein sehr gutes Beispiel dafür, dass wir nicht nur wachsam sein müssen, sondern auch entschlossener handeln müssen“, sagte Peter Bator, ehemaliger slowakischer Botschafter bei der NATO.
Obwohl der Grund für den Vorfall weiterhin unklar ist, bezeichnete Bator es als „inakzeptabel“, dass die Drohnen in den Luftraum der NATO eindringen konnten, was bedeutete, dass das Bündnis auf eine Bedrohung reagierte, anstatt sie abzuschrecken, wie es eigentlich seine Aufgabe ist.
Er stellte die Frage, ob es akzeptabel gewesen wäre, wenn ausländische Truppen in das Gebiet der NATO eingedrungen wären, so wie es die Drohnen konnten. „Es gibt keinen großen Unterschied zwischen Drohnen und Truppen“, sagte er.
BILLIGE DROHNEN STIESSEN AUF STARKE REAKTIONEN
Der Vorfall warf auch Fragen darüber auf, ob das vor mehr als 70 Jahren während des Kalten Krieges gegründete Bündnis über die richtigen, kosteneffizienten militärischen Strukturen verfügt.
Einem Medienbericht zufolge geht die Nato davon aus, dass mehrere der Drohnen den Logistik-Hub Rzeszów treffen sollten. Über den Flughafen im Südosten Polens wird seit Beginn der russischen Invasion ein Großteil der westlichen Waffenlieferungen zur Unterstützung der Ukraine abgewickelt.
Polish authorities have made clear that this time is different. They are treating this as a deliberate provocation, rather than an accident.“When one or two drones does it, it is possible that it was a technical malfunction,” said Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister. “In this case, there were 19 breaches, and it simply defies imagination that that could be accidental.”
VOX
,