Europe’s Strategic Moment
By George Friedman - February 27, 2024
It’s been two years since Russia invaded Ukraine, so it’s time to lay out the strategic situation as I see it. In February 2022, I argued that Russia invaded Ukraine primarily to enhance its strategic depth. The wars on Russia prosecuted by Napoleon and Hitler were foiled by the great distances the invaders had to travel to reach Moscow – and by no small amount of Russian blood. That distance exhausted the attackers, breaking them by the time they reached the Russian heartland. The events of 2022 to me were no different: The war was intended to put more miles between Moscow and the West, especially NATO. Russia’s suspicion owes to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine in 2014, which toppled a pro-Russian leader and installed a pro-Western government and for which Moscow believes Washington was responsible.
In my opinion, America’s intentions were not to launch an eventual invasion of Russia, though it did have a small interest in limiting Russian influence. Russian intelligence is competent, and it is unlikely that the Kremlin received reports of American invasion plans ahead of the war in Ukraine. But in statecraft, intention is simply the quacking of ducks. Intentions can change in minutes. What Russia paid more heed to was capabilities. Whatever their intentions, the U.S. and NATO were in no position to invade Russia. Yet Russia feared that their intentions could change, as could their capabilities. A war should begin when the enemy has no intention to fight and has limited capability.
This calculation led Russia to invade Ukraine and thus acquire a vast buffer against American incursion if the U.S. changed its stance. The attack on Ukraine has been a failure. Moscow clearly meant to overrun Ukrainian forces quickly, before the U.S. or NATO could join the fray. Instead, Russia has experienced a significant number of casualties, a coup attempt from a private military group, significant economic losses and a reckoning with its own demographic problems.
Russia also failed to begin the war with the advantage of surprise. No doubt it was motivated by the assumption that the threat of a Russian invasion would cause fear and unrest in Ukraine. That propaganda campaign went on for months and convinced the U.S., through intelligence on Russia’s capabilities, that Russia was going to attack. This caused Washington to undertake an emergency surge in armaments and joint planning with Kyiv. The U.S. imperative was that there be no Russian attack that would cause Ukraine to fall and thus bring Russia to the border of NATO. The Americans weren’t clear on what would happen if Russia occupied Ukraine – and likely the Russians weren’t either – but here again, capability rather than intention must inform decisions.
The signal that Russia would invade meant that Russia could not smash Ukraine with a single decisive blow. The military thus had to change its plans, reorganize its forces and develop a logistical system able to sustain an extended ground offensive. During that time, there was disarray among Russian forces, with a battle breaking out between the Wagner Group and Russian general staff that ended in the aforementioned coup. Moreover, in tipping off the invasion, Russia gave Ukraine time to develop an agile defensive strategy, and gave the U.S. time to provide advanced weapons systems.
The past two years have cost the Russians greatly, the Ukrainians even more. Russia did not fight or organize well, but it performed just well enough to bring the conflict to a point where the U.S. commitment is now at risk – and with it the strategy that caused Russia to fall into the type of war it didn’t expect. That strategic retreat is the point Russia had to reach – and at the moment seems to be reaching.
If Russia takes the whole of Ukraine, the question that is fundamental to the war is what Russia’s next move will be. Putin has made it clear that he believes Ukraine is part of Russia, as are other nations in the region in his mind. Intentions are irrelevant, but if Russia occupies Ukraine and then seeks to drive back NATO, the intentions might be matched by capability.
The U.S. will likely send more weapons, but Russia has ventured too far into Ukraine to be stopped by anything less than overwhelming force. The U.S. fought World War II and the Cold War to prevent Europe from being overrun and controlled by a single power. The inherent resources of Europe pose a potential threat. President Woodrow Wilson saw this. So did Franklin Roosevelt, and so did the various presidents who presided during the Cold War. Blocking Germany and Russia have long been fundamental principles of U.S. foreign policy – not exclusively for its own benefit but fundamentally in pursuit of its own interests.
The war in Ukraine is the continuation of a consistent U.S. foreign policy going back to the beginning of the last century. But what happens in Ukraine will affect what happens in the rest of Europe. The two world wars cost more than they might have if the U.S. had acted sooner. The question now is whether the U.S. confronts Russia – which is pursuing its own interests, as all nations do – sooner or later. The answer to that question necessarily involves Europe. The Cold War was a true alliance. This war is hard to make out on that score. The truth is Europe has the most at stake and needs to put up most of the funding and support for Ukraine.
The situation on the Continent has reached a point in which choices have to be made, and all choices have costs. It is easy to claim that Ukraine is not important to the U.S., but then again our fathers and grandfathers could teach us a great deal about the fantasies of the Philippines or North Africa not meaning much to us. They paid their price, and so did the Europeans. What now? -
About: George Friedman
George Friedman is an internationally recognized geopolitical forecaster and strategist on international affairs and the founder and chairman of Geopolitical Futures.
Dr. Friedman is also a New York Times bestselling author. His most recent book, THE STORM BEFORE THE CALM: America’s Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond, published February 25, 2020 describes how “the United States periodically reaches a point of crisis in which it appears to be at war with itself, yet after an extended period it reinvents itself, in a form both faithful to its founding and radically different from what it had been.” The decade 2020-2030 is such a period which will bring dramatic upheaval and reshaping of American government, foreign policy, economics, and culture.??
His most popular book, The Next 100 Years, is kept alive by the prescience of its predictions. Other best-selling books include Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, The Next Decade, America’s Secret War, The Future of War and The Intelligence Edge. His books have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Dr. Friedman has briefed numerous military and government organizations in the United States and overseas and appears regularly as an expert on international affairs, foreign policy and intelligence in major media. For almost 20 years before resigning in May 2015, Dr. Friedman was CEO and then chairman of Stratfor, a company he founded in 1996. Friedman received his bachelor’s degree from the City College of the City University of New York and holds a doctorate in government from Cornell University.
++++++++++
Demand for fossil fuels not likely to diminish anytime soon: Saudi energy minister
RIYADH: Saudi Arabia aspires to become one of the largest producers and exporters of clean energy, said Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman.
In an interview with the quarterly bulletin issued by the Saudi Association for Energy Economics, the minister said the Kingdom is capable of producing green and clean hydrogen at competitive prices.
Prince Abdulaziz said the Kingdom is focussing on all energy sources including solar, wind and green hydrogen as well as nuclear and geothermal.
This will help the Kingdom to reduce the consumption of liquid fuels in generating electricity and reaching the optimal energy mix, he added.
The minister cited the establishment of the largest green hydrogen production plant in NEOM as an example. The plant will have an annual production capacity of 250,000 tonnes by 2026.
Talking about the fluctuations in the oil market, he said the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has mechanisms in place to deal with global crude market challenges.
Despite highlighting Saudi Arabia’s energy transition plans, Prince Abdulaziz said the need for fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, will continue for decades as also indicated by several industry reports.
The minister added that Saudi Arabia is working to reduce carbon emissions, and that it has a program to replace liquid fuels.
He explained that the program aims to run industrial facilities to rely on natural gas or alternative fuels as well as building renewable energy sources.
Furthermore, Prince Abdulaziz highlighted how Saudi Arabia has quadrupled its current renewable energy capacity from 700 megawatts to 2,800 MW by the end of 2023, with more than 800 MW of renewable energy sources still under implementation and about 1,300 MW in various stages of development. On top of that, the Kingdom plans to produce 200 additional MW this year.
The energy minister also revealed that work is underway to build one of the largest projects to capture, transport, and store carbon dioxide with an annual capacity of up to 9 million tonnes by 2030 and 44 million tons annually by 2035.
He reiterated the Kingdom’s goal to reduce emissions to 278 million tonnes annually by 2030.
领英推荐
+++++++++++
Column:?Nikki Haley keeps losing — and revealing something important about Trump and Republicans
BY JONAH GOLDBERG - COLUMNIST?- FEB. 27, 2024
Celebrating his victory in the South Carolina primary Saturday, Donald Trump declared, “I have never seen the Republican Party so unified as it is right now.”
It was an indisputable victory for Trump, particularly given that it was in the home state of his last remaining rival for the nomination, Nikki Haley, a twice-elected, popular former South Carolina governor. Trump beat Haley by about 20 points, and she doesn’t look likely to do much better than that going forward. Barring some shocking development, it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump will be the nominee.
But the GOP is not unified, never mind like never before. It’s actually as divided as it was in 1992, which was not a great year for Republican unity.
That was the year that Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush for the nomination. Buchanan got just under 38% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary, and it was widely regarded at the time — and ever since — as a devastating rebuke and a sign that the GOP was in deep disarray.
Buchanan stayed in the race until the end despite failing to win a single primary, much as Haley is threatening to do now. The challenger contributed to Bush’s subsequent defeat in the general election, and his candidacy established a lasting Buchananite faction within the party.
Now, Trump isn’t an incumbent, but countless observers (including me) have made the point that he’s running as a quasi-incumbent. Indeed, last week, Haley referred to him as a “de facto incumbent.” Trump has 100% name identification, and the party’s infrastructure has largely acted as if he were still its leader.
More important, Trump falsely claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and many Republican voters believe him. This lie is often denounced for lofty reasons having to do with democracy and fitness for office — rightly so. I think Trump disqualified himself from political office with the conduct that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot. But its practical effects on the GOP are often overlooked.
Much of right-wing media and many elected GOP officials, including most of Trump’s primary opponents, refused to acknowledge that he lost. This prevented the party from turning the page on Trump or having a healthy debate over whether to move on from Trumpism.
Normally, when a party loses, its opposing faction gets a shot. That couldn’t happen in this case. As a result, Trump operates as an incumbent — a very weak incumbent.
But while the internal party reckoning that comes with a loss can be delayed, it can’t be denied. Over time, the opposition girds for its turn in power. Indeed, when Trump was elected in 2016, many — including Buchanan himself — hailed his victory as a long-postponed vindication for Buchananism.
There’s a key difference, however, between 2024 and 1992. Buchanan’s campaign was about issues — immigration, trade and foreign policy chief among them. Today, with the partial exception of support for Ukraine — opposition to which is largely a proxy for supporting Trump and his Russophilia — Republicans aren’t badly divided over any issue other than Donald Trump himself.
In the old days, Republicans who were moderate on abortion, defense or taxes were often dubbed “RINOs,” Republicans in name only. Today, the term is reserved almost exclusively for Republicans who are insufficiently loyal to Trump.
Texas Rep. Chip Roy, for instance, is easily one of the most consistently conservative Republicans in Congress. But his support for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ campaign was enough for Trump to dub Roy a RINO and call for a primary challenge to him.
Trump has vacillated on abortion, fidelity to the Constitution and other former conservative litmus tests without paying a price among self-described conservatives. Moreover, the need to paper over his myriad character defects invites a kind of pathological defense of the man in full that has erased the “character issue” entirely. Indeed, it’s fair to say that many voters who describe themselves as “very conservative” mean they’re very supportive of Trump.
Similarly, Haley enjoys strong support among self-described moderate Republicans. But on the issues that once defined the party, she’s a conservative.
Haley’s determination to stay in the race probably won’t lead to her being president one day. But if the GOP is ever going to have a traditional conservative as a standard-bearer again, it will be because she helped preserve a safe space for them within the party.
Read more:
Opinion: Nikki Haley can still beat Trump. Just not by winning the nomination - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
The End++++++++++
The first article particularly provides interesting perspective...