Shadow of US presidential campaign on Russia-Ukraine war
LAST month, Russian President Vladimir Putin invited former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson to conduct an interview aimed at influencing the debate in the US on ceasing assistance to Ukraine in the ongoing war. Putin’s target was the naysayers among neoconservative and conservatives headed by Donald Trump, who is eyeing a second term as President. His message was that Russia would defend its interests in Ukraine till the end and the latter had no chance of a victory; thus, the US would be better off negotiating with Russia. Putin said he was not thinking of sending Russian troops into Poland or Latvia, but his demands on Ukraine had not changed. He would insist on the ‘denazification’ of Ukraine, which would mean substitution of the current regime by a pro-Moscow figure and its neutral status.
As Trump closes in on the Republican nomination for the presidential race, he has said that he would oppose further military or economic aid to Ukraine. He would encourage Russia to attack NATO countries falling short of the 2 per cent GDP defence spending goal. Trump said he would impose 10 per cent tariffs on all imported goods, much higher tariffs on China and not be averse to a tariff fight with European carmakers.
Trump’s and Putin’s statements have created consternation in Europe. European countries are realising that they are back in the Cold War days, completely unprepared without the comfort of the US military support. Europe has not invested enough in the new armaments for decades, relying on the US military cover. Unlike both Russia and the US, most European countries view the Ukraine conflict as a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation rather than through the prism of East-West rivalry. Many eastern and central European countries think that a victorious Putin would not stop at Kyiv and would want to roll back their Western orientation with a decline in US support to NATO (if Trump comes to power).
Russia’s war against Ukraine has upended Germany’s post-World War II pacifist view, leading to sharp attitudinal changes. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz recently said: “What happens in Ukraine will decide if our rules-based order has a future” and Russia must fail in its attempt to ‘swallow’ its neighbour. Germany plans to spend about 2 per cent of its GDP this year on defence. It became Ukraine’s second biggest military supplier after the US in 2023, sending Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks, artillery systems and Patriot air defence systems.
Scholz asked EU countries to ramp up the production of armaments massively and urgently, saying that the continent “does not live in times of peace”. Germany has set up a new factory to produce shells, ammunition for anti-aircraft guns and other guns to supply to its own armed forces and Ukraine. Scholz has been pushing other EU countries to send more defence supplies to Ukraine.
Poland and Slovakia recently sent most of their MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. Warsaw also sent 325 upgraded T-72 tanks and Leopards. France has supplied air defence systems, light tanks and Caesar howitzers, and Sweden is sending Archer howitzers, infantry vehicles and anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. The EU is promising to deliver one million rounds of artillery ammunition to Ukraine in the next 12 months. Some European companies, including Sweden’s Saab, Norway’s Nammo, France’s Nexter and MBDA and Germany’s Rheinmetall have escalated production of military supplies with their own resources. Ukraine itself is increasing domestic production of armoured vehicles, howitzers, their ammunition, drones and unmanned underwater vehicles.
In 2022, the defence spending by European countries increased by 13 per cent to $345 billion and it went up by another 11 per cent in 2023. The European Commission is looking at using the bloc’s budget to restructure its defence industrial base to reduce its dependence on the US. More pressure is being put on the European Investment Bank to finance new defence projects by procuring capital at preferential rates of interest. Canada and major EU countries such as France, Germany and Italy have signed agreements with Ukraine to provide long-term military assistance and help integrate it into the EU and NATO eventually. The EU has already agreed on a $54-billion package of loans and grants to Ukraine for the next four years.
Trump’s threat to withdraw aid has galvanised the EU countries into determined action to support Ukraine. Even if Trump wins, he would not find it easy to pull the US out of NATO in view of a recent amendment to the annual defence policy Bill which President Biden signed into law last year — it requires a two-third vote in the Senate or an Act of Congress for such a drastic step.
Also, Trump would find that some of the known opponents of the US, such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, are in a much more menacing position now. The US would not be able to manage them alone in view of its involvement in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas and attacks by the Houthis on the US and allied shipping in the Red Sea. If Trump acts foolishly, he would only give an opportunity to China to erode the trans-Atlantic alliance further.
Since both Russia and Ukraine are preparing to induct additional troops into the war and scale up their military deployment, and Europe is determined to not let Russia score an easy victory, the chances are that the war would drag on.
The Ukraine war is a manifestation of the shifting balance of power due to weakening of the existing centres of power, emergence of new ones and attempted reconfiguration of the global order. These conflicts will continue until a consensus is established on the new global order, presaging a long period of political instability and tensions.
