Germany as Mediator?

A Deutche Welle article cites German luminaries as thinking Germany can mediate the “dispute” between Russia and Ukraine.

For instance, here’s Christoph Heusgen, Under-Secretary for Foreign and Security Policy in the German Chancellery from 2005 to 2017 and upcoming Munich Security Conference Chairman:

Germany overall has assumed a more active role in world politics, and people are asking for this. There are lots of expectations that we play an important role, and we do this. You know, I mentioned the Ukraine crisis. We do this when you look at the Balkans where we are very active.

Reiner Schwalb, ex-military attaché for Germany in Moscow, though, gave the game away (as did Heusgen in the above).

Berlin is a point of contact between Europe and America from the American perspective. Despite our history, the German-Russian relationship has a certain stability. There is a great economic exchange, with cultural exchange and scientific exchange, and repeated attempts by Germany to cooperate more intensively with Russia.

“From the American perspective” is a cynically offered irrelevancy. What’s central are two aspects of the German-Russian relationship. One is this “great economic exchange.” That’s an exchange that’s based on and strengthened by Germany’s dependence—voluntarily entered into by the German government—on Russia for its energy.

The other aspect is that “repeated attempts by Germany to cooperate more intensively with Russia” business. Cooperate with Russia, especially with Russia holding—and having already demonstrated that it does—the whip hand on German energy.

Regarding Heusgen, his “look at the Balkans where we are very active” brag. Germany also has been very active in the Baltics vis-à-vis Ukraine—barring Estonia from transferring badly needed arms to Ukraine if those arms originated in Germany.

Germany as mediator—a risible concept.

Much of His Policy Still Unknown

Aaron Kliegman, in his Saturday piece for Just the News, expressed considerable dismay over President Joe Biden’s (D) foreign policy vis-à-vis northern Korea: much of that policy is still unknown, he wrote.

I think the situation is much worse, and much broader than that.

Biden-Harris’ foreign policy as a whole is still unknown. It’s unknown because Biden-Harris has none; he’s operating with a James Joyce-ian stream of conscious, but without Joyce’s level of awareness.

This lack of policy, this streaming reaction muddle, is demonstrated by the mess Biden-Harris made of our withdrawal from Afghanistan; the mess he’s making of our relationship with the Republic of China; the mess he’s making of our relationship—political and economic—with the People’s Republic of China; the mess he’s making of our relationship with Russia, including our growing oil and gas dependency on it; the mess he’s making of the present Ukraine crisis.

Stream of reaction—it just doesn’t work in the real world, except for the nation initiating the action.

Concerns Regarding Ukraine

James Carafano has some. I have some thoughts regarding a couple of his concerns.

The administration needs a clear strategy for how to look like a real global leader….

Key to looking like a “real global leader,” prior to having a strategy, is to act like one. Stop reacting to what the enemy does, and seize the initiative. Make the enemy react to us. Neither the President Joe Biden (D) half of the Biden-Harris presidency nor the Vice President Kamala Harris (D) half know how to do any of that. Or, as Biden has demonstrated too many times, he’s too timid to. Biden-Harris’ methodology is to completely cede control of the crisis to the one who created the crisis.

Even now, the US can’t muster the full support of NATO allies for bolstering Ukraine’s self-defense. Biden’s good buddies, such as the Germans, have been embarrassingly recalcitrant.

Global leaders—any leaders—don’t wait to take action until they have gained universal consensus. That’s just more reaction, here to the actions of potential allies, rather than initiative-taking. Leaders act as soon as the efforts at coalition building have identified the recalcitrant. Delay beyond that only feeds the enemy. In some circumstances, the pace of events requires leaders to lead, to seize the initiative and act with no delay or hesitation, whether or not any sort of coalition has yet been built.

For instance: Germany has long made plain that they’ve abandoned NATO in all but formal exit—Germany doesn’t even trouble to maintain a viable military for its own defense, much less to support its supposed NATO allies and co-members. They’ve made particularly clear vis-à-vis Ukraine that they’re in the Russian camp, forcing UK arms shipments into Ukraine to go around German airspace and blocking Estonia from transferring arms—arms that Estonia would desperately need in the event of a Biden-Harris-permitted “incursion”—to Ukraine if those arms came from Germany.

There’s this, too, regarding how deeply into the Russian purse Germany has gone:

One German admiral made headlines arguing Germany make nice with Putin and worry about Beijing. (He then immediately resigned.)

That German Admiral was Navy chief Kay-Achim Schönbach, speaking in India at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, and he didn’t say anything that his government hadn’t already approved. He resigned afterward? A knight sacrifice, as any chess player—like Russian President Vladimir Putin, perhaps—would recognize.

A leader would recognize that it’s past time to move without Germany. Waiting on it only strengthens Putin’s control of the schedule and his position concerning Ukraine.

And this:

He [Putin] has never, however, triggered World War III. He’s likely smart enough to figure out how to wring something he wants out of this crisis without setting the world alight.

Putin is very likely to get everything out of this crisis without setting the world alight. He’s smart enough to have already figured out that that Biden-Harris won’t fight back in any meaningful way. All the latter has on offer are inchoate threats of heavy economic sanctions, accompanied by furious Biden-Harris finger wagging, after Putin has gone into Ukraine and seized the nation. See above re reacting.

But, yes, Carafano’s leading concern is spot on. People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping will be the larger winner if—when—Putin conquers and occupies Ukraine. Biden-Harris losing Ukraine will hand the Republic of China to Xi on a cheap pewter platter.

Not Sure Why

Finland and Sweden seem to be thinking about joining NATO in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s overt aggression toward and threat of invasion of Ukraine.

Finland’s Prime Minister Sanna Marin:

We retain the option of applying for NATO membership. We should uphold this freedom of choice and make sure it remains a reality….

And

Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde also asserted that Russia does not have a veto on whatever alliance Sweden chooses to join.

It’s hard, at this date, to see why either nation—or any other—would want to join NATO.

A successful invasion and occupation of Ukraine by Russia would only demonstrate just how impotent NATO has become. NATO is toothless with Germany unarmed and timid under Angela Merkel and now Olaf Scholz and his Social Democratic Party, and the US is just timid under Biden-Harris.

That Ukraine is not presently a NATO member is a coward’s copout. Russian occupation of Ukraine would only magnify the threat to the NATO nations. In recognition of that, very few member nations—you can count them with the fingers of one hand—out of the 30 current members have even been willing to offer Ukraine economic or political support, much less arms with which to defend itself and drive Russia out of currently occupied Ukraine.

NATO would be no protection at all for Sweden and Finland.

Talking Past Each Other

Or one not taking the other seriously. The disconnect between President Joe Biden-Kamala Harris and Russian President Vladimir Putin—or the fact that Putin doesn’t take the Biden-Harris administration seriously—doesn’t get much more clearly demonstrated than by this lead image from a Friday Wall Street Journal article about continuing US-Russia “negotiations” regarding Ukraine.