Ukraine Crisis: A Quarrel Between Merkel And Obama?

In the U.S., the demand to dispatch weapons to Ukraine is becoming more intense. The chancellor refuses to cooperate. Is the threat of a transatlantic conflict imminent?

When Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks with Barack Obama in Washington today about the serious subject of the Ukraine crisis, they could once more reach a crossroads in the talks. At the moment, everyone is talking about the danger that, if the wrong course of action is taken, the fighting could quickly turn into open warfare.

So which is the right and which is the wrong route to take? Should we, as Merkel suggests, rely solely upon the slow but unstoppable force of diplomacy? Or, in the face of this stubbornness from the Russians, should we consider military tactics, such as arming the Ukrainian army? More and more American politicians are campaigning for the latter option.

Everyone wants Putin to back down but how can he be persuaded to do that? Furthermore, a heated debate between the Europeans and Americans is ensuing. This tension was evident last weekend at the international Munich Security Conference. If they are not careful, they could dig themselves a grave in this transatlantic conflict, like in 2003, when Germany and France refused to join America in the Iraq war.

Vladimir Putin would indeed be pleased if this were to happen. For a long time, he has tried every tactic to drive a wedge not only between the nations within Europe, but also between Europe and America.

Chancellor Merkel and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen vehemently oppose the demand for granting defensive weapons to Ukraine. The equipment would include night vision devices, as well as modern radar, which were previously used to detect Russian missile launchers, and also anti-tank missiles, which can be used either defensively or offensively.

In short, on the subject of the great debate between war and peace, there exists a hidden transatlantic conflict. Merkel claims that military conflicts with an opponent such as Russia do not allow themselves to be resolved in a military manner. They can and should only be solved at the negotiating table. For this tactic to be successful, one needs to show eternal patience, perseverance and above all, cohesion and commitment between the Western partners and confederations. Merkel chose to remind the attendees of the security conference in Munich that no war ensued after the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, and that she had to wait for freedom for 28 years as a citizen of the DDR.

Politicians in the US Are Judging Arrogantly

America is following a different philosophy, however, and the mantra is: “All options are on the table!” No measures – including military action – can be ruled out from the outset, because this would show America to be weak.

In relation to the Ukraine crisis, American politicians from parties on the left and the right are indeed saying the same as Merkel: that the conflict cannot be resolved through military action. However, as diplomacy has failed them so far, they also say we need to decisively increase the pressure on Moscow by arming the Ukrainians so that they can defend themselves and cause harm to Russia. The theory: when the first coffins arrive in Russia with Russian soldiers killed in action, Putin will show incredible understanding.

Theoretically, this does not sound implausible. In the real world, however, this presumption is highly dangerous. Who can really guarantee that Russia’s president will actually back down? Recent history has shown that the victims of the wars in Chechnya and Georgia have not frightened him. It is more likely that Putin, in response to the delivery of weapons, will arm his own troops and provide the East Ukrainian separatists with state-of-the-art equipment. Then he could gradually escalate the conflict in a military fashion, until the Western world could no longer keep pace, and then he would be obliged to intervene with his own troops.

Of course, no one can say with any certainty which measures from the West would have the biggest impact on Putin. However, the brutality shown by some American politicians, who are being led by a handful of notable Republican senators who in turn are pushing for weaponization, and the audacity with which they accuse the chancellor of naivety, stupidity and of making a “big mistake” by refusing to deliver weapons, unfortunately emphasizes the inherently bad side of our American friends. It illustrates the brutal arrogance with which they instruct others and the excessive pride they employ to always remain on the right side of an argument.

Obama Is Still Relying on Strategic Patience

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham took the situation too far in Munich. He admitted that he did not know whether weaponization would result in a different and improved situation. He did admit, however, that he would personally feel better if this were to come to fruition.

America’s president and secretary of state want to keep America out of this debate and instead enhance solidarity with Paris and Berlin. They are going to repeat this mantra during Merkel’s visit to the White House. And they will point out that Obama is relying upon strategic patience, as could be seen clearly in his recently presented security doctrine – which was clearly based on Merkel’s ideas.

Yet how long this unity continues will largely depend upon Merkel’s diplomatic success at the talks in Minsk on Wednesday; and most importantly, whether Vladimir Putin will not only agree to it in writing but whether he will actually take action. Should he continue to play his usual tricks, however, Barack Obama will no longer be able to avoid the increasingly loud demands to weaponize the Ukrainian army.