A morally questionable approach to end Russia´s aggression

As of January 2025, Russia's war on Ukraine is entering its third year. While Western democracies lack a cohesive strategy beyond imposing lackluster sanctions to end the conflict, there are several ways to bring Russia to its knees and compel it to withdraw from Ukraine.

In its attempt to capture Ukraine, Russia has suffered massive losses in manpower and materiel, to the point where it now relies on North Korean soldiers and artillery shells to sustain its war effort. This reliance indicates that Russia has largely run out of momentum, as evidenced by its minimal territorial gains achieved at the cost of extreme casualties.

As a result, Russia is largely incapable of defending itself against potential aggression from a third-party country and is dependent on China's goodwill to avoid invasion and the annexation of territories that China views as historically or strategically significant.

This situation presents an opportunity for a morally questionable yet potentially effective strategy to bring peace:

A Western alliance could engage with China's leadership and make it explicitly clear that, in the event of a Chinese invasion of Russian territory, Western nations would refrain from intervening militarily and would either minimize sanctions or forego them altogether.

Additionally, Western countries could agree to recognize China's territorial gains as legitimate, provided that China recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation.

China might seize such an opportunity and invade the Russian territories in question. Faced with its inability to defend itself, Russia would be forced to choose between losing significant territory to China or withdrawing from Ukraine to focus its resources on countering its Asian neighbor.

As an added benefit, this scenario would allow Western intelligence agencies to observe China's military capabilities in action, providing valuable insights into its strategic and operational strength.

Germany´s defence spending is eroding NATO´s core principles

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" – If you want peace, prepare for war. This phrase has stood the test of time, and as much as we hope for a peaceful world, there is a danger posed by those who choose violent means to achieve their goals, as demonstrated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Unlike Ukraine, large parts of Europe have implemented an automatic defense mechanism by joining NATO. In theory, NATO functions as a unified system: if one member is attacked, the aggressor faces NATO’s combined military force, which, as of 2024, is undoubtedly the strongest and most capable military alliance in history.

However, this only holds true if NATO members all uphold their commitment to Article 5, arguably the most crucial part of the treaty: an attack on one is an attack on all.

Erosion from Within

While leaders such as Trump have weakened this concept by casting doubt on whether they would honor Article 5, which is concerning enough, some countries seem to avoid responsibility altogether.

Take Germany, for example. Despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries, it is either unable or unwilling to spend the amount it agreed to for its defense. Even worse, Trump’s threats were directly triggered by Germany’s lackluster performance in this regard. For a long time, there was a popular joke that it was perhaps better this way, as Germany had once been a threat to world peace when it possessed a strong, motivated military (see World War I and its much-awaited sequel: World War II).

With its chronically underfunded military, Germany is now posing a new threat to European peace, as a large-scale war rages just 700 kilometers from its borders with the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War.

By failing to meet its military commitments, Germany undermines NATO’s foundation, implying that other countries, like the U.S. or Poland, will have to bear the brunt if the conflict spreads further into Europe. But in a system that relies on solidarity, allowing others to shoulder the hard work is a risky strategy; at some point, this approach could lead to serious consequences. In the worst-case scenario, NATO could fracture or dissolve over these tensions.

Progress is Slow in Germany

Germany frequently points out that it will meet its goal of investing two percent of its GDP in its military by 2024. What it fails to emphasize is that it has only managed this through a one-time investment of 100 billion euros to address the most urgent deficiencies, such as outdated equipment and the lack of stealth fighter jets – an area where European efforts have progressed at a snail’s pace.

This means that meeting the two percent target in 2025 is far from guaranteed. Furthermore, given the underwhelming performance of the current government, it is unlikely to be re-elected, leaving the issue for the next administration to tackle.

It is a shameful, embarrassing, and extremely dangerous stance from the German government in these times. Most of all, it is unnecessary, as one of the richest countries in the world could easily afford greater military spending. Fiscal rigor is worth little if citizens are at risk of being killed in an active war as a result.

Further reading:

Germany hits 2% NATO target for first time since 1992