day 89 of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and in the editorial offices of the Western media, boredom is already spreading. Of course, the West doesn’t like wars, but it especially doesn’t like long wars. And that’s what Putin is counting on to save face and reverse a situation that seems endangered today: the belief that the United States and its European allies will end up tiring, election cycles, inflation, and the purchasing power crisis will work against the images of destroyed cities, deaths and rapes prevail.
Will history prove him right? It’s too early to tell. On the other hand, this violent, repetitive war, high-intensity conflict on a continent that thought it had abolished war is not an end but a beginning. To prepare for the future, it is high time to share a set of truths that are shattering the illusions the West has harbored since the end of the Cold War.
Ukraine saved NATO
Bush, Obama, Brown, Cameron, May, Sarkozy, Hollande and Merkel bear a heavy responsibility before history. Their misjudgment of the Russian situation, the unprecedented cut in military spending in Europe and the Kremlin’s pursuit of an unconditional policy of appeasement have led to the current situation.
The other reality is that Europe narrowly escaped. Putin’s hubris drove him to a huge misjudgment, because Ukraine was arguably the country best equipped to contain the Russians: 200,000 soldiers who know the enemy better than anyone, battle-hardened by eight years of conflict in Donbass, are benefiting Years of training by NATO personnel and use of a modern command, equipment adapted to the conflict and terrain, tactics proven in the integrated and multidimensional theater of operations, mobility, subsidiarity and real-time intelligence (thanks to the Americans).
Let’s imagine for a moment that the Russians decided to annex the Baltic countries, Georgia or Moldova. These countries would have fallen within days. Would NATO have risked all-out war with a nuclear power to save Estonia? Putin’s massive miscalculation has provided the West with an opportunity not only to rearm but also to rebuild an alliance that has become obsolete.
NATO has everything to gain in a long war
By wanting to “moralize” war at all costs, the West has reached an impasse. Especially since this moralization is of variable geometry: We are outraged by war crimes and applaud the 15,000 to 20,000 Russians who have fallen in less than three months.
However, the reality is simple, this war represents a unique opportunity to permanently weaken Russia: huge losses in equipment – a Russian MI-28 attack helicopter costs $12 million (11.3 million euros) and the Ukrainians already have more than one destroyed a hundred; a T-14 tank is worth 7 million dollars, and the Russian army has already lost 650 of them – in men, lasting impact on morale, on the command structure (already shot down twelve Russian generals) and of course the fall of the rubles, risk of one economic collapse, gradual exit from Russian energy dependence, etc.
To offer Putin a way out today would be counterproductive: he would learn from his mistake and embark on a new warlike adventure next year, this time with the right aim and strategy. The standstill of months or years buys the European armies twenty years to repair the damage caused by the culpable military and diplomatic negligence of their governments.
Russia’s diplomatic isolation is a decoy
The international financial system is controlled by the West, which explains the partial focus of many countries on condemning Russia. But China, India, Saudi Arabia and many others refuse to side with the West.
As for civilians in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, available surveys show they are very divided about the conflict. If the war images do not arouse admiration for Russia, the West’s “implacability” towards Moscow is too reminiscent of decades of economic and cultural dominance and evokes selective self-pity based on nationality, religion or skin color (see Treatment of Ukrainians and Syrian Kurds at the Polish Border).
Until the West realizes its growing ideological isolation in a complex and diverse world, Russia, China, Turkey and all authoritarian countries will continue to redefine the future world order.
Russia has ousted the United States in the Middle East
Since the conflict began, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have refused to take sides. Interpretations vary: a welcome rise in oil prices, a desire to reduce dependence on the United States, the role of Russia, a new “mediator” in the region thanks to its hold on Syria and Iran. ..
But the real reason lies elsewhere: twenty years of catastrophic, unpredictable, and above all instructive American diplomacy. Something to think about. The more Westerners try to promote their “universal” values in countries that reject them, the more those same countries will seek alliances with dictatorships whose authoritarian and conservative values they share…
On the way to multidimensional warfare
For centuries, military success has depended on manpower, logistics, and equipment, sometimes on the genius of an ancient general who was able to invent tactics still studied in the schools of war (Hannibal) or instill legendary courage in his soldiers (Leonidas ). . But the war was mainly fought on the ground, while the refugee population in the cities (Rome, Athens, Sparta, Carthage) waited anxiously for the outcome of the battle.
In the era of integrated and multidimensional theatre, based on combined arms, multi-specialization and the synergy of bodies in the field made possible by technology, ‘theater’ has never been so less isolated, never has it been so much real-time. The official size of the troops has never been so low in a high-intensity conflict (150,000 men deployed on the Russian side in Ukraine versus 3.8 million men on the same ground in 1943-1944); never made out the counts in tanks, helicopters, fighters, fighter planes, transports, etc. even little.
A high-intensity war against a comparable enemy can only be won at the expense of a transformation of the military apparatus, its training and tactics, which requires general professionalization, modern equipment that requires increasingly expensive maintenance, and sophisticated, cutting-edge technology – satellite intelligence, cyber capabilities, Sigint (signal intelligence), communications encryption and encryption systems, etc. This comes at an increasingly exponential financial cost, making it increasingly impossible for most of the world’s armies to engage in the range of potential conflicts.
With the notable exception of the American military apparatus, although it has shown its human intelligence and counterinsurgency limitations in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence at low intensity. Given the multidimensional nature of warfare, armies will increasingly specialize in certain types of conflict and, thanks to military alliances, will be able to handle the variety of possible missions.
France is not ready for a high-intensity conflict
First, the intelligence has completely failed. While the Americans and British were convinced that Putin was not bluffing, the Directorate of Military Intelligence and the Directorate General of External Security did not believe him. At that time, the Ukrainian resilience was completely underestimated, as the statements of the army chiefs of staff a few days after the beginning of the war prove.
The operational situation is no better: lack of training related to Operation Sentinel, equipment availability between a third and a half for helicopters and tanks, lack of transport aircraft, minimum stocks of ammunition at all levels (rockets, grenades, etc.), not to mention the weakness in ground-to-air defense, delay in drones, in satellite reconnaissance.
After twenty years of budget cuts, the French army has a nuclear deterrent and extensive experience in low-intensity wars in Africa and the Middle East, but it would not be able to fight a traditional war in a European theater. Not acceptable for a medium power with a global deployment strategy.
The war in Ukraine not only heralds the need for a new European security framework, it is also the opportunity for a new diplomatic and military agreement for the West and Europe. It’s time to pack it up.