By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Kyiv and its partners concur that strengthening Ukraine and Europe is achievable within five years, though a three-year timeline is considered more desirable and feasible. This accelerated approach necessitates a significant collaborative effort, including increased production across allied nations to establish robust security guarantees. Crucially, this involves bolstering Ukraine’s military—a shared responsibility due to the substantial financial burden—and developing Ukrainian technologies to fortify the nation’s long-term security and economic prospects. This strengthening will serve as a security guarantor for both Ukraine and Europe.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s assertion that partners agree Ukraine and Europe can be significantly strengthened within three years is a bold claim, prompting a complex evaluation of various factors. The timeframe itself is ambitious, contingent on several crucial elements falling into place. Prioritizing defense investments and halting internal conflicts are paramount to accelerating progress. This collaborative effort necessitates a concerted, unified approach, discarding any petty squabbles that hinder the overall objective.
The potential success of this three-year plan hinges on effectively leveraging resources and expertise. Neglecting defenses for years now demands a concentrated surge in investment and development, a task that necessitates immediate attention. Russia’s prolonged war economy also poses a significant challenge; its continuation could potentially offset the gains made by Ukraine and Europe, provided that they also continue to prioritize their respective defenses. The success depends on whether Europe and Ukraine can build up stronger military power faster than Russia can.
However, a crucial question remains: who will emerge the most strengthened in three years? Will the combined enhanced capabilities of Europe and Ukraine suffice as a credible deterrent against any future aggression from Russia? This is the critical evaluation needed to assess the true impact of such an initiative. Concerns about Ukraine’s resilience over the next three years also highlight the urgency of the situation. The possibility of insufficient manpower to sustain the conflict long-term underscores the need for swift and substantial improvements. Moreover, discussions on lowering the conscription age in Ukraine raise additional worries about sustainable combat readiness.
The geopolitical landscape is further complicated by varying levels of commitment from allies. The necessity of Ukraine reluctantly aligning with certain figures, like Trump, to secure crucial intelligence highlights potential vulnerabilities. The EU’s comparatively slow response to the ongoing conflict raises concerns regarding its readiness and overall effectiveness. The perception of the EU’s military shortcomings underscores the urgent need for a fully operational, robust, and independently capable European defense force.
Conversely, there’s a significant undercurrent of existing capacity often overlooked. Europe possesses considerable military strength already, especially when considering the combined power of Britain and France – possessing the fourth-largest nuclear arsenal globally. Significant contributions from other countries like Poland and Greece further bolster this point. While past negligence in military preparedness, particularly by Germany, is undeniable, this narrative needs nuance. Germany’s historic near-victory against the Allies serves as a potent reminder of its military potential – a potential that thankfully was never fully realized, preventing a far worse outcome for all.
It’s vital to acknowledge that the perception of helplessness is largely a misconception. While past reliance on US support has created an element of uncertainty, the possibility of US unreliability shouldn’t be equated with European powerlessness. Current military capabilities combined across Europe and the UK are already considerably greater than Russia’s. Furthermore, the increase in defense spending across multiple European nations will significantly bolster this advantage. The combined military force is already superior to Russia’s, and the current defense spending increases will only widen the gap further.
The narrative of inaction from Western nations needs context. The West has indeed provided substantial support to Ukraine through financial aid, weapons donations, and training, along with intelligence sharing and cross-compatibility upgrades between military hardware. However, the scale and scope of these contributions remain a source of ongoing debate. While the extent of Western support is undeniable, there’s also a compelling argument to be made that more could, and should, be done, and the question of sufficient material support remains. The impact of funding the Russian war machine through continued gas purchases underscores the complexities of this situation and the necessity for a more comprehensive approach.
The three-year timeframe must be seen within the context of the Russian economy. Russia’s struggle to effectively sustain the war effort, coupled with its own internal problems, could eventually lead to a critical internal collapse. Three years of war economy, even with successful propaganda, would almost certainly lead to uprisings as the population is unable to be fed or clothed. This fragility, combined with the increasing strength of a unified Europe, presents a potential turning point. The hope rests on the combined military and economic power of Europe and Ukraine ultimately surpassing Russia within this three-year period, ensuring lasting security and peace.