It’s Premature For Russia’s Supporters To Celebrate The Coalition Of The Willing’s “Slow Death”
Instead of recklessly risking World War III through the deployment of their troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire, they might instead more pragmatically strengthen European NATO’s overall military-security capabilities with a view towards ultimately outmatching Russia in all respects except for nukes.
The Telegraph’s article about “The slow death of the coalition of the willing” has been widely reported on by Russian social media and “Non-Russian Pro-Russians” alike in a celebratory tone. The outlet’s Diplomatic Editor and Europe Editor warned that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s resignation and the end of French President Emmanuel Macron’s final term next spring could create a diplomatic void that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz can’t fill. That could then upend European plans for Ukraine.
For background, the coalition of the willing (COW) refers to the collection of countries that are prepared to play varying roles in post-war Ukraine, with the E3 led by Britain, France, and Germany already committing to deploy troops after a ceasefire. With Starmer’s successor Andy Burnham assessed to be more focused on domestic issues while Macron’s could be much cooler on NATO, Merz might balk at leading such a dangerous effort, ergo why the Russian infosphere is exuberant after reading this article.
It’s premature to pop the champagne, however, since the COW can still cause a panoply of problems for Russian interests that keep tensions with the European members of NATO high in the post-war era. For starters, Trump 2.0 assembled a loose “cordon sanitaire” around Russia in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, along Russia’s entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and in Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts. This noose is expected to tighten.
In practical terms, the Arctic-Baltic, Central European, and Black Sea theaters will gradually merge into a single security space through the predicted expansion of the “military Schengen” for optimizing the dispatch of troops and equipment eastward. Closer security coordination between Sweden, Poland, Romania, and Turkiye is probable. Moreover, the embarrassingly underdeveloped “EU Defense Line” stretching from the Baltic States’ borders with Russia to Poland’s with Belarus will likely be prioritized.
The militarization of the EU as a whole and of the Weimar Triangle (France, Germany, and Poland) in particular will continue apace with the goal of “dwarfing” Russia’s military-industrial capabilities per the US’ National Defense Strategy’s vision for the European members of NATO. The potential expansion of France’s nuclear umbrella over the rest of the bloc per its new “forward deterrence” policy could precede Germany possibly going nuclear for maximally containing and indisputably threatening Russia.
Instead of recklessly risking World War III through the deployment of their troops to Ukraine after a ceasefire, the COW might instead more pragmatically strengthen European NATO’s overall military-security capabilities with a view towards ultimately outmatching Russia in all respects except for nukes. The “security guarantees” that its leading members already clinched with Ukraine throughout 2024 could then serve as tripwires for a major war in the future should Russian-Ukrainian hostilities resume.
Many of the same accounts prematurely celebrating the COW’s “slow death” might predictably declare that divisions with NATO will inevitably impede what was described above and thus create plenty of opportunities for Russia to politically pick apart this unprecedentedly militarized bloc. That’s almost certainly wishful thinking, however, so they’d arguably do much better to listen to former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov and thus prepare Russians for what might be decades of serious tensions to come.
Andrew, sorry if my post is long but I can't reduce it to few words.
Yes, Andrew, I agree. As usual, the NRPRs greatly exaggerate their reasons for enthusiasm. We know the dozens of times over the past four and a half years when Escobar, Johnson, Simplicius, Mercouris, Crooke, Ritter, McGregor, and others have been lamentably wrong in their enthusiasms. I could make a list (non-exhaustive) for anyone lacking memory. However.
However, you may be jumping the gun when you describe an EU capable of surpassing Russia quickly enough to become an offensive threat.
The EU is starting from very, very far behind.
It has no effective anti-missile system. Its air defense systems have proven pitiful on the European theater. Its artillery is not up to the standards of high-intensity warfare. It has not manufactured a single tank chassis in over 15 years. And all its equipment is similarly lacking. It has no real hypersonic missiles, limiting its supersonic options to the Storm Shadow or the German model. It is behind everyone in drone technology. It no longer has the manufacturing know-how. It is already drowning in debt. The USA is not far from this grim picture. In fact, for over thirty years, the entire Western military apparatus was geared toward neo-colonial wars against under-equipped guerrillas. Everything must be rebuilt for high-intensity warfare—engineers, scientists, technicians, skilled workers must be retrained.
Even with funding, it will take 10 years. And in the meantime, Russia is also advancing by leaps and bounds. And for now, China has not yet put its colossal industrial means at the service of the Russian military-industrial complex. We know that China does not dislike the idea of a Russia bogged down in an endless war with NATO, but we also know it will not let Russia lose.
As for manpower: who will agree to fight in the EU? No one in the West. For 50 years, we have been hammering that the EU means peace, that patriotism is the absolute evil, and that our ancestors were fools to go and get killed 'for nothing.' It is said, repeated, in schools, on TV, on radio, in newspapers—everywhere. The 30 to 40% of young people from immigrant backgrounds will not go and get killed for a country they generally hate, if not despise. Are leaders counting on drones to expand the ranks? Drones do not replace boots on the ground, and they will find their countermeasures. Officers? Apart from France, which maintains a serious training curriculum, the others are trained in less than a year and generally have no scientific background. A joke. As for containing Russia, that is a project, not a fact. To the east, Japan contains nothing and will never be able to contain Russia, China, AND North Korea. To the south, Erdogan is cunning, and his belly-dancer machinations have had some success, but Russia only needs to cut the Azerbaijani knot for the pan-Turkic house of cards to collapse. Moreover, the USA should beware as if of the plague of a Muslim NATO that could well escape them and turn against them. To the northwest, the Baltics and Scandinavians are dwarfs led by a degenerate UK. These people stir up a lot of wind, like a yapping dog behind a fence, but they are far from daring to block Russia, and they will not dare any more. Unless Putin lets them... And then, it will be up to the Russian people to ask the right questions and then decide.
The elites behind the war will never abide such an outcome and will succeed in imposing their own puppets, as usual.