Ever since Ukraine lost Avdiivka to the Russians, the country has been on the defensive. The West is struggling to supply sufficient ammunition and weapons. Has the Western dual strategy of arms deliveries and Russia sanctions failed? Military expert Wolfgang Richter has answers.
SRF News: Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky wants to expand air defense. What can Ukraine do in this area?
Wolfgang Richter: There are two ways: Ukraine must strengthen its own weapons industry again. Previously, a third of Soviet military equipment was produced in Ukraine. Despite a decline in arms production in recent decades, Ukraine still had a fairly potent arms industry before the Russian invasion. However, to what extent this can still produce is unclear. The other way is further deliveries of anti-aircraft systems and, above all, suitable ammunition from the West.
Zelensky would also like to have Taurus cruise missiles. What military use would they have?
Taurus is suitable for accurately and reliably destroying hardened targets such as bunkers or bridge pillars at distances of up to 500 km. For example, Ukraine could use it to attack distant underground ammunition depots or aircraft in shelters.
Olaf Scholz wants to prevent Germany from being drawn into the war.
However, the precision of the Taurus, combined with its range, also creates risks: it could also attack targets deep in the Russian heartland – and this is where there are indeed risks of escalation. That’s why German Chancellor Olaf Scholz doesn’t want to deliver any Taurus to Ukraine. He wants to prevent Germany from being drawn into the war.
What is the situation on the war front?
Ukraine’s counteroffensive failed last summer despite large deliveries from the West – 1,500 armored vehicles of all types and several hundred artillery pieces. The West should have recognized that the resource comparison was not in Ukraine’s favor. This has now worsened because the USA has stopped supplying weapons. And this raises the question of whether Europeans would be willing and economically able to close this gap.
Legend:
On the front in the east and south, the Ukrainians are on the defensive. The Russian attacks must be repelled from trenches.
Reuters
Is Europe capable of this?
You cannot simply convert a free market economy to war production. And we underestimated the economic and political risks of the dual strategy – arms sales to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. That should give us something to think about.
Despite the risks, we stick to the potentially unrealistic victory rhetoric.
The West’s strategy was to sail on sight in the fog of war – but the risk assessment should have been different. Now we are faced with these risks – the elections in the USA, the economic risk in Europe. And yet we cling to the possibly unrealistic victory rhetoric.
So is the capture of Avdiivka by the Russians just the beginning?
I think so – even if the Ukrainian defense lines are not completely broken after the loss of Avdiivka. But the Ukrainians were in a precarious position. They had not been able to sufficiently expand their rear defenses and there was a danger that the Russians would overrun the Ukrainians. But apparently the Russians lacked the military forces to do so. But the situation remains precarious for the Ukrainians and they may lose more towns.
The interview was conducted by Ivan Lieberherr.