Reisner for Europe’s rearmament: “Putin is trying to ride out the West”

The West is providing Ukraine with enough weapons to defend itself, but not enough to win the war. This leads to a war of attrition that only knows one winner in the long term: Putin. But what happens if the Russian leader actually wins the war against Ukraine? The ntv podcast “Learned something again” warns Markus Reisnerthat the international legal system, which was “painstakingly put together” after the Second World War, could become worthless. The colonel of the Austrian armed forces is urging Europe to seriously address this possibility and decide on appropriate measures.

ntv.de: The counteroffensive did not go as Ukraine and its allies had hoped. Is there a risk that the Russian army will achieve a breakthrough in the next few weeks or months and could occupy more land again?

Markus Reisner: This danger exists when Ukraine does not have the sufficient means to defend itself or to go on the offensive itself. The dilemma is: Military measures and offensives require a lot of resources. Ukraine has achieved some very spectacular successes. Remember that the Russian invasion initially failed and that the Ukrainians were able to quickly liberate the space that was initially conquered by Russia. Also think of the offensives near Kharkiv and Kherson. But this has used up military resources that need to be replenished. Ammunition and armored equipment had to be delivered. That’s why it took a while until Ukraine could go on the offensive in June. This offensive did not produce the desired results. The breakthrough towards the Sea of ​​Azov and the isolation of the Russian troops were missed. This prevented Russia from coming to the negotiating table.

You have to put that aside and look to the future. For Ukraine, this means, on the one hand, surviving the winter, especially protecting the hinterland and preparing for spring, when it will be time to fight back to liberate the occupied territories. To do this, Ukraine needs resources that must be made available now.

You once said: “The West is providing Ukraine with enough weapons to hold the front line against the Russians, but not enough to defeat the Russians.” Why is that?

Several aspects play a role here. It should not be forgotten that this conflict is not only between Ukraine and Russia, but also has a global dimension. It is essentially a confrontation between the USA and Russia or the so-called Global North against the Global South. Against this background, the key players act strategically in such a way that escalations worldwide are avoided as far as possible. This can also be seen in the massive measures taken by the Americans to pacify or at least calm the situation in Israel. It’s the same in Ukraine: it gets what it needs to fight, but not what it needs to win.

Isn’t the West afraid that Russia could win the war and then become dangerous for Europe and NATO?

NATO is doing exactly what it was created to do: protect its members and do what is necessary to support Ukraine. It gives her what she needs to put enormous pressure on the Russian side, but obviously not enough to get the Russians to give in. Why use a moderated approach? One argument is that the USA wants to put the Russians in their place so that such attacks that violate international law do not become widespread. But they don’t want to destroy Russia. This means that the war goes from one round to the next. There may also be fears of an escalation. It could well be that Russia is cornered by massive arms shipments and uses its nuclear arsenal, or that the Russian state collapses if defeated. Then, from the US perspective, the legitimate question is: What happens to all the thousands of nuclear weapons?

The exact causes still remain hidden. We are currently experiencing history. Historians will have to judge whether it was right or wrong to wait. In any case, we must realize that things will not just get back on track. We need to think about what we want with the necessary seriousness. Based on this decision, the appropriate measures must then be taken.

What consequences would a Russian victory have for Europe and NATO?

It is always said that Russia should not win the war. This is mainly due to the fact that after the end of the Second World War they wanted to prevent this type of war. The UN Charter therefore precisely defined when war may be waged and when not. The word “war” has even been banned and replaced with “conflict”. Of course, the rules of the UN Charter were repeatedly violated. But fundamentally, during the Cold War, the major powers were able to clearly define their areas of interest and roles. In the meantime, however, many countries have become more self-confident and are demanding leadership themselves, regionally and nationally. If Russia gets through with its war of aggression and achieves its goals, there is a risk that the painstakingly put together legal system of the post-war period will become worthless and that in the future everyone will do whatever they want. This can already be seen in the example of sanctions, which are deliberately circumvented because countries pursue their own interests.

If Russia wins this war, will our world order be at stake?

In any case. This does not have to mean that complete chaos breaks out and there is war everywhere. But we must accept that Europe’s dominant role, which guaranteed our prosperity and our supply of raw materials, will no longer be the same. We will have to define what our role is in a multipolar world, what security policy we pursue, what role European armed forces will play and where our raw materials come from.

How high do you assess the risk that Russia could attack countries like the Baltic states after Ukraine?

Putin said three key things in his speech, which he gave three days before the attack on Ukraine: First, he denied Ukraine its statehood and described it as a work of art. Secondly, he said that he could not allow weapons that could threaten Russia to be stationed on the territory of Ukraine – for example, if Ukraine became part of NATO. Thirdly, he said that during the Soviet era there was peace and order. From his point of view, there has been chaos since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even at the time, one could certainly read greater ambitions from these three statements, but Russia completely miscalculated when it invaded Ukraine and is still struggling with the consequences to this day. Now Russia is betting on the “time” card and trying to wait out the West. It cannot be ruled out that Russia, with the support of countries like China or India, can become more powerful in the coming years or decades and may actually become an existential threat to Europe. To prevent this, Europe must also become a counterpoint from a military perspective so that Russia doesn’t even have the idea of ​​attacking.

If we change perspective again: How realistic do you currently think a Ukrainian victory is?

Ukraine continues to define the complete liberation of Russian-occupied territory, including Crimea, as a victory. That is their war aim. From Ukraine’s perspective, the means that it can use for this seem to be sufficient, at least for the moment. If it realizes that this path is no longer the right one and that the means and resources are no longer sufficient, it must change its strategy and set the goal shorter. Then you might give up Crimea or tolerate the fact that Russia owns 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. That can happen, but we are still a long way from it. And of course one should not forget that Europe and the USA have a significant influence because they provide Ukraine with resources and define options together. That is why it is also in our hands how this conflict will continue.

Vivian Micks spoke to Markus Reisner