That headline of his Aug. 21 Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung article, given General Kujat’s position in Germany (former Bundeswehr Chief of Staff, 2000-2002 and chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, 2002-2005) even though retired, speaks for intense debate out of public view which puts into question whether Berlin is promoting German security interests and defending the economic well-being of the citizens and industry: “To what extent is the Federal government prepared to accept long-term and possibly irreversible damage to the German economy caused by sanctions? Or does the Federal government’s primary duty of averting damage to Germany limit solidarity with Ukraine?” This challenge was proceeded with the assertion that “the government accepts that the material for the already extremely limited capabilities of the Bundeswehr to fulfill the constitutional mandate of national and alliance defense will continue to be ‘plundered.’”
General Kujat acknowledges Ukraine’s effort to defend its sovereignty, but adds the key strategic reality playing out: “But to complete the picture, the Ukrainian people are fighting for the geostrategic interests of the United States in rivalry with the other two major powers, Russia and China.” “In addition, according to U.S. President Biden, Russia’s President Putin is to be deposed and the Russian armed forces are to be permanently weakened in a war of attrition, according to U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin.”
In a section titled, “The Unclear Course of Berlin,” he asks, “A recent call for a ceasefire by numerous prominent figures rightly asked ‘what exactly are the goals of countries that are providing military support to Ukraine and whether (and for how long) arms deliveries are still the right path.’ In the sense of Clausewitz, this is the question of whether politics in this war gives way to the logic of violence and war replaces politics—or whether politics also continues in the war and this is ended with the means of diplomacy.”
