Should the war in Ukraine escalate into the primal catastrophe of the 21st century?

pk. Lieutenant General Harald Kujat, former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces and Chief of Staff of the Military Committee of NATO’s forces in Brussels, urgently warns those responsible against a further escalation of the war in Ukraine.
  European NATO states have given in to the demand of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to increasingly attack targets on Russian territory with Western high-tech weapons. This is not just about disrupting Russian supplies or other tactical targets, but also targeted attacks against the Russian early warning system on nuclear missiles. This is a clear Western escalation with the risk of moving more and more towards a strategic level of war, with all its consequences. As in the Cuban Missile Crisis in the middle of the Cold War, this once again increases the risk of triggering a global nuclear war, which is not controllable any longer.
  The following key statements made by Harald Kujat in an interview with the Swiss magazine “Weltwoche” provide important insights and raise crucial questions.

“The military situation in Ukraine is difficult up to hopeless. The Russians are making major territorial gains, especially in the Kharkiv region. However, their military objective is clearly not the capture of the major city, but to create a buffer zone between the border and the Ukrainian armed forces.”
  In view of Ukraine’s hopeless military situation, the Zelensky government is pursuing a desperate course of provocation.
  What will become of that? With the help of Western equipment, the Ukrainian army recently crossed a red line in defiance of the US conditions: “Ukraine recently attacked two radar systems of the Russian early warning system. This was an irresponsible act by a political plunger. Because these systems are used to detect an intercontinental strategic attack on Russia and to initiate the necessary measures. But if we blind this system, Russia will not be able to recognise such an attack and might tend to overreact in order to ward off an imminent (or even not imminent!) attack. […] From July, the Ukrainians are to receive F-16 fighter jets, which are capable of intervening far into Russian airspace with their long-range air-to-air missiles. If you look at all this together, one understands that the Ukrainian leadership is trying to grasp at any straw. We have to reflect on that: What does this mean?”

Panic is a bad advisor

“The slogan has always been: Ukraine must not lose, Russia must not win. Now the opposite has happened. Despite all support measures, which have digged deep into the European citizens’ pockets, the situation today is much more difficult than at the beginning. That’s why, even with a certain mood of panic, they are trying to save what can be saved. Biden has justified his rejection of the deployment of US weapons on Russian territory by saying that he wants to avoid a third world war. In other words, he was aware of the implications. […] However, there is a risk of not recognising the point when the enemy reaches the tolerance threshold. Specifically: The release of their weapons is regionally limited to a small area. Only short-range weapons can be used. For the time being, and I emphasise: for the time being, the Americans have reacted cautiously. But in Europe, the claims go far beyond that. The fact that a French president and other European heads of government are prepared to intervene in Russia is irresponsible in my view. I already can hear the first voices in Germany saying the Chancellor should now release the Taurus. But these are two different things. Biden’s authorisation only concerns a regionally limited tactical situation. The Taurus, however, is a strategic system […]. With that, Ukraine can turn the Kremlin into rubble. […] They could also, as once Ukraine has already tried to do, attack the airfield of an intercontinental bomber fleet. If, at that time, the system had not hit the airfield directly, but the nuclear weapons depot a few kilometres away, then you and I would not be able of speaking anymore today.” […]
  “We have to ask: What are the alternatives? Nuclear escalation is possible, but unlikely. Putin himself has said: We are not crazy. We know what a nuclear war means. But Russia also has conventional weapons that can cause great destruction and can be deployed over many thousands of kilometres. We always have to take that into account and answer the question: What can and what do we want to achieve? No longer achievable are the strategic goals of Ukraine – to conquer the Donbas, drive the Russians out of the country, conquer Crimea. That is out of the question.”

The West has three options

So, what to do?
  “I see three options: The first option is that this war simply continues. Even by the Russians, who are not interested in a breakthrough and occupation of the whole of Ukraine, so that a zone is created within Ukraine in which fighting continues, but in which there is basically no decision. It could even be that the Russians, when they have completely conquered the Donbas, will say: we have achieved our goals and we will stop fighting. […] The second option would be a conventional escalation, with the West wanting to prevent a Russian breakthrough and NATO states sending national troops into the fight. If they are then destroyed on the scale we have been talking about, then NATO as a whole will have to intervene and a major European war will ensue. However, it will not be limited to Ukraine. […] European states would also be drawn into this conflict. That is an option that I consider completely out of the question for a rational politician, completely out of the question for a responsible politician.”

There is no way
around negotiation, except disaster

And the third option?
  “To say: people, Ukraine can no longer achieve its goals. We, the West, have done everything we can. At some point it has to end so that we don’t all get sucked into this maelstrom – and the war in Ukraine turns into a war over Ukraine. We can’t want that. And that means sitting down at the table with the Russians. And we must try to achieve a ceasefire, which can then be followed by peace negotiations as quickly as possible.”

“Do you see any chance of that?”
“There is a very interesting development. Before his recent visit to China, Putin said, in essence, that Beijing’s proposal from February 24 last year made sense and was convincing. And the Chinese president then added certain principles during the visit of the Chancellor and elaborated on certain principles. Last week, Putin once again saw it as a sensible approach. However, he attached two conditions to this. Firstly, the realities that have emerged must be recognised. In other words, what the Russians have conquered is no longer up for discussion. Secondly, the security interests of both sides must be taken into account. But that is a perfectly reasonable starting point for negotiations.” […]
  “You rightly said that the First World War was the original catastrophe of the 20^th century. World War II would not have happened if World War I had not taken place, and the Cold War would not have happened either. Also, the partition of Europe would not have happened and many millions of people would not have lost their lives. The people didn’t actually want the Second World War, the rulers did. That is the situation we are in today. The Ukrainian people want peace, they want negotiations. The approval ratings for the Ukrainian president have fallen to 17 percent. There is considerable resistance in Ukraine. People are seeing people being forcibly rounded up on the street and sent to the front line. In most families, the father, the son, the brother-in-law, some family member has lost his life or has been seriously wounded. A war is being waged here over the heads of the Ukrainian population.”

“And in the West?”
“My impression is that this is also the case in the West. I can only speak about Germany. But we have a large silent majority. I also notice this in the reactions to what I say publicly. That many people are concerned about how we deal with this war. The aggressiveness of the language, that Putin is being made into a demon. […] It is not acceptable that we continue to support a war against the will of the Ukrainian people that will eventually be directed against us.” […]

“Do you believe that today’s governments in Germany, France and the USA will be able to get off this warhorse again?”
“I am very sceptical. And I’m very much afraid that the war in Ukraine really will become the catastrophe of the 21^st century”.  •

Sources: Weltwoche-daily special of 3 June 2024; “Ur-Katastrophe des 21. Jahrhunderts”,
in: Weltwoche of 6 June 2024