Leaked German plot to attack Russia spoils Nuland's 'surprise'
After Victoria Nuland promises "surprises" for Russia on the Ukraine battlefield, Western proxy warriors get their own surprise: embarrassing German leaks and Nuland's resignation.
On two recent occasions, veteran war hawk and senior State Department official Victoria Nuland has vowed that Russia will face “surprises” – both “nice” and “nasty” -- on the Ukrainian battlefield this year.
Nuland’s proxy war partners have already spoiled the surprise.
Russian media has published the contents of a conversation between four top German Air Force officers that was intercepted in Singapore. On the call, the Germans discuss providing Taurus missiles to help Ukraine strike targets including the Kerch Bridge, which links Crimea to Russia. They also mull how they could hide their role to avoid a direct conflict with Moscow. On that front, they additionally admit that US, British, and French troops are stationed in Ukraine to operate advanced weapons systems for strikes on Russian forces – an allegation these states have long denied. While accusing Russia of using the intercepted call for an “information war,” German officials have nonetheless confirmed that it is authentic.
The recording’s disclosure is an embarrassment for Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has resisted calls both from Ukraine and within his own government to send the Taurus, Germany’s most powerful guided missile. And it came just days after Scholz caused an outcry of his own when he publicly acknowledged that French and British forces are operating inside Ukraine to help operate long-range missiles. The latter admission outraged former UK defense minister Ben Wallace, who declared that Scholz “is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time.”
In outing NATO allies’ covert role in Ukrainian attacks, Scholz was clear to draw a red line around deploying his own forces. “What other countries are doing... is something that we cannot do in the same way,” Scholz said. Yet on the leaked call, the German officers discuss how to circumvent Scholz’s edict.
Under one discussed scenario, the Germans would pass targeting data to Ukraine via hand delivery. “In the worst case, I might even have to commute back and forth by car,” one officer says. Another proposed option is to farm out the task to US forces already on the ground in disguise. “Many people with American accents run around in civilian clothes” in Ukraine, Gen. Ingo Gerhartz, the commander of Germany’s air force, is heard saying.
General Gerhartz goes on to make another telling admission: even if Germany gives Ukraine all of the 100 Taurus missiles that it has, he says, it won’t make a significant difference on the battlefield. He attributes this to Ukraine’s shortages in both artillery and troops, along with its inability to recapture or even maintain control of territory. As a result, the officers conclude, even if Ukrainian forces could use German missiles to destroy the Kerch Bridge in Crimea, they won’t be able to follow up with a ground offensive that would turn the tide. As Gen. Gerhartz puts it: “This will not change the course of the war, we must be clear about that.”
The very fact that German military leaders would plot how to circumvent their elected leader’s official policy underscores that the proxy war in Ukraine, while fought in the name of protecting democracy, has in fact undermined it in the NATO capitals from which it is waged. It also shows that Western states have continued to fuel the conflict despite recognizing that their heavy weaponry will not change its outcome. Additionally, as the New York Times’ Roger Cohen observes, Ukraine’s “reliance on the United States for weapons has underscored Europe’s ongoing dependence on Washington.” Cohen’s remark underscores yet another overlooked aspect of the Ukraine war: in the name of protecting Europe from an exaggerated Russian threat that they themselves helped create, its member states are only cementing their “ongoing dependence on Washington.”
Understanding that their weapons won’t make a difference on the battlefield, NATO leaders can only offer warnings that veer between alarmed and unhinged.
Before the German controversy erupted, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico complained that other NATO and EU states “are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.” These plans, he warned, “send shivers down your spine” and confirm “that the Ukraine strategy of the West has completely failed.”
Seemingly confirming Fico’s fears, French President Emmanuel Macron then declared that sending NATO troops to Ukraine “should not be ruled out.” While NATO leaders quickly distanced themselves from the remark, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed Macron’s call as “good for the whole world.” Unfortunately for those who see World War III as “good for the whole world,” the French leader’s statement was just bluster: France, a senior official anonymously said, is committed to avoiding “a confrontation between the Alliance and Russia.”
Meanwhile in Washington, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, while lobbying Congress to approve President Biden’s stalled $61 billion request to prolong the Ukraine war, issued a threat of his own: “If Ukraine falls, I really believe that NATO will be in a fight with Russia.” Austin is of course well aware that NATO is already in a fight with Russia, provided that Ukrainians are the one spilling the blood. As German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock put it last year: “We are fighting a war against Russia” – just one by proxy.
With the NATO proxy war coalition recognizing that its hands are tied, it is unclear what “surprises” Nuland and fellow Washington neoconservatives have in mind for the year to come. One option under discussion is for the US to send the longer-range version of ATACM missiles that it has already provided. But as the New York Times notes, Germany’s Scholz has “made it clear he did not trust that Ukrainian forces could restrain themselves from bringing the war home to the Kremlin.” The Biden administration, whose strategy has centered on fighting Russia so long as the combatants and casualties are Ukrainian, not American, undoubtedly faces the same quandary.
If the House does manage to pass Biden’s request, then $61 billion will undoubtedly purchase more heavy weaponry to hit targets like the Kerch bridge or even deeper into Russia. But that will not solve the core problem that Ukraine is running out of troops to sacrifice. As the Washington Post notes: “Ukraine’s dwindling number of battle-ready troops is now a strategic crisis.”
Whatever happens with Biden’s $61 billion proxy war lifeline, Victoria Nuland will not be around to oversee it. The State Department has just announced that she will retire this month – a high-level recognition, perhaps, that Western proxy warriors are in for even more unwelcome surprises this year than embarrassing leaks.