Germany finds itself in the midst of a diplomatic and security crisis following the leakage of an intercepted phone call involving air force officials discussing the potential supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine. The leaked audio, posted by Russia's RT channel, has raised significant concerns among Germany's allies, including France and the UK, about the country's security protocols.

 

The leaked conversation reportedly includes discussions about the possibility of supplying Ukraine with Taurus missiles, with German military officers assessing the logistical challenges and potential implications of such a decision. The officers also mention alleged British operations in Ukraine and imply that Britain has been providing assistance with missile systems.

 

Chancellor Olaf Scholz has reiterated Germany's stance against sending Taurus missiles to Ukraine, but the leaked audio has brought this decision under further scrutiny. Concerns have been raised about the security of the Webex conference platform used for the discussion, as it is considered less secure than military-specific platforms.

 

Germany's Military Counterintelligence Service is investigating the security breach, although it remains unclear whether the findings will be made public. Despite calls for a parliamentary inquiry, Scholz's allies have resisted such efforts, highlighting divisions over the decision regarding the Taurus missiles.

 

The leak has also sparked accusations from German officials that Russia is attempting to sow division and undermine Western unity. However, the Kremlin has seized on the leaked conversation as evidence of Western involvement in the conflict in Ukraine, further escalating tensions between Russia and Western powers.

 

Overall, the leaked phone call has placed Germany under intense pressure to address security concerns and navigate diplomatic challenges amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The repercussions of the leak are likely to reverberate both domestically and internationally, shaping the discourse on Germany's role in the crisis and its relations with key allies and adversaries alike.

 

05.03.24

Source

 

 

I'd be extremely surprised if ukraine isn't up to its eyeballs in western "special forces". That is what they are for, after all.

 

However, no matter how many there are , and no matter how many missiles they send over, there is no getting around that Russia stalemated the much vaunted and unsuccessful "offensive" that failed, and that Ukrainian troops are exhausted, demoralized and in short supply.

 

Not being brainwashed by the MSM, I fail to see how it can continue another year.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd be extremely surprised if ukraine isn't up to its eyeballs in western "special forces". That is what they are for, after all.

 

However, no matter how many there are , and no matter how many missiles they send over, there is no getting around that Russia stalemated the much vaunted and unsuccessful "offensive" that failed, and that Ukrainian troops are exhausted, demoralized and in short supply.

 

Not being brainwashed by the MSM, I fail to see how it can continue another year.

 

This is plain and simple espionage. Nothing less.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd be extremely surprised if ukraine isn't up to its eyeballs in western "special forces". That is what they are for, after all.

 

However, no matter how many there are , and no matter how many missiles they send over, there is no getting around that Russia stalemated the much vaunted and unsuccessful "offensive" that failed, and that Ukrainian troops are exhausted, demoralized and in short supply.

 

Not being brainwashed by the MSM, I fail to see how it can continue another year.

 

For someone who claims that their sole concern is an end to the bloodshed, you spend an extortionate amount of time gloating about Russian triumphs and Ukrainian setbacks.

 

Maybe you've been brainwashed by RT?

 Scholz may not be the ideal person to handle this issue, but it is qualitatively different to that of France and the UK. Aside from the historical legacy of the 20th century, not only the German public but German industry are wary of upsetting the bear. It would take a Bismarck to resolve this. Schroder and Merkel may have gone too far in their cosy relations with Russia, but at least there was a dialogue which the UK at least appears not to entertain at all. And sooner or later there will have to be a negotiated solution or continue the needless slaughter in both sides and the prospect of a Trump win. The tragedy of Ukraine was to put their trust in the west and believe their "promises" of as long as it takes, which Biden has now changed for as long as we can. 

 

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

 Scholz may not be the ideal person to handle this issue, but it is qualitatively different to that of France and the UK. Aside from the historical legacy of the 20th century, not only the German public but German industry are wary of upsetting the bear. It would take a Bismarck to resolve this. Schroder and Merkel may have gone too far in their cosy relations with Russia, but at least there was a dialogue which the UK at least appears not to entertain at all. And sooner or later there will have to be a negotiated solution or continue the needless slaughter in both sides and the prospect of a Trump win. The tragedy of Ukraine was to put their trust in the west and believe their "promises" of as long as it takes, which Biden has now changed for as long as we can. 

 

 

Irrespective of whether its' trust was misplaced, what alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West?

 

It is clear where putting its' trust in Russia would have led i.e. being subsumed into a 'Greater' Russia.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Irrespective of whether its' trust was misplaced, what alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West?

 

It is clear where putting its' trust in Russia would have led i.e. being subsumed into a 'Greater' Russia.

Probably adeptly balancing east and west and not letting extreme nationalist forces push the Maidan  'coup' egged on by the US and the EU. Realpolitik when you live next door to the Bear and the US is a poor friend when they are done with you. Which is where we are now, a ruined Ukraine and a ruined Ukrainian economy with a demographic time bomb - the millions who have left will probably never return and a West edging their way to the exit smiling with a good luck and a wave. As Milley said in an interview with the FT last week America is done with forever wars. 

 

That Boris was sent to scupper a messy peace deal brokered in Istanbul and persuade Zelenskiy to crack on is a criminal act in my book it's not as if the west didn't know what Putin and Russia were capable of. Just look at Grozny, Allepo and the like, and he did them whilst he was our 'friend'.

 

The real obstacle to any deal is not so much domestic support as finding a trustworthy negotiating partner. “For negotiations to work, you need a tango,” the senior government official said. “War is actually quite successful for Putin. What is his reason to stop?” A Ukrainian military-intelligence source suggested that current rates of equipment and ammunition use might force both sides to a temporary ceasefire some time next year. But it would be only a pause, he says: there is little confidence in a lasting deal as long as Mr Putin is alive. “We know he hates Ukraine and our freedom. We are a bad example for his society.”

For Ms Manukhina, the suggestion of waiting for a change in the Russian leadership brings her to tears. She says the little people, like her, are being forgotten. “If we are going to wait until Putin dies, all of our guys will perish. If nothing else is working, we must negotiate.”

 

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/02/22/after-two-years-of-war-ukrainians-are-becoming-pessimistic

16 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Probably adeptly balancing east and west and not letting extreme nationalist forces push the Maidan  'coup' egged on by the US and the EU. Realpolitik when you live next door to the Bear and the US is a poor friend when they are done with you. Which is where we are now, a ruined Ukraine and a ruined Ukrainian economy with a demographic time bomb - the millions who have left will probably never return and a West edging their way to the exit smiling with a good luck and a wave. As Milley said in an interview with the FT last week America is done with forever wars. 

 

That Boris was sent to scupper a messy peace deal brokered in Istanbul and persuade Zelenskiy to crack on is a criminal act in my book it's not as if the west didn't know what Putin and Russia were capable of. Just look at Grozny, Allepo and the like, and he did them whilst he was our 'friend'.

 

The real obstacle to any deal is not so much domestic support as finding a trustworthy negotiating partner. “For negotiations to work, you need a tango,” the senior government official said. “War is actually quite successful for Putin. What is his reason to stop?” A Ukrainian military-intelligence source suggested that current rates of equipment and ammunition use might force both sides to a temporary ceasefire some time next year. But it would be only a pause, he says: there is little confidence in a lasting deal as long as Mr Putin is alive. “We know he hates Ukraine and our freedom. We are a bad example for his society.”

For Ms Manukhina, the suggestion of waiting for a change in the Russian leadership brings her to tears. She says the little people, like her, are being forgotten. “If we are going to wait until Putin dies, all of our guys will perish. If nothing else is working, we must negotiate.”

 

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/02/22/after-two-years-of-war-ukrainians-are-becoming-pessimistic

 

I think that your link supports my contention: What alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? As the article suggests, Putin is untrustworthy. Add in the fact that Putin does not recognise Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation, then it had no option but to look to the West.

 

You suggest that Ukraine could have managed the situation by "... adeptly balancing (the pull of) east and west". I would argue that was (and is) an all but impossible task. Even if possible, it would have required the 'touch of an angel'. Was there anyone in the Ukrainian administration blessed with that gift?

39 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I think that your link supports my contention: What alternative did Ukraine have but to put its' trust in the West? As the article suggests, Putin is untrustworthy. Add in the fact that Putin does not recognise Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation, then it had no option but to look to the West.

 

You suggest that Ukraine could have managed the situation by "... adeptly balancing (the pull of) east and west". I would argue that was (and is) an all but impossible task. Even if possible, it would have required the 'touch of an angel'. Was there anyone in the Ukrainian administration blessed with that gift?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksii_Arestovych  self promotes as one that could broker peace, but he is in exile now reviled by many nationalists as a Russian stooge (he isn't). He jokes that Zelenskiy should sue the US and the other partners for breach of contract

 

https://unherd.com/2024/01/oleksiy-arestovych-zelenskyys-challenger/

 

 

OA: Ukrainian nationalism is the idea of less than 20% of Ukrainians. This is the problem.

FS: What about the remaining 80%?

OA: I think for most of them, their idea is of a multinational and poly-cultural country. And when Zelenskyy came into power in 2019, they voted for this idea. He did not articulate it specifically but it was what he meant when he said, “I don’t see a difference in the Ukrainian-Russian language conflict, we are all Ukrainians even if we speak different languages.” And you know, my great criticism of what has happened in Ukraine over the last year, during the emotional trauma of the war, is this idea of Ukrainian nationalism which has divided Ukraine into different people: the Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers as a second class of people. It’s the main dangerous idea and a worse danger than Russian military aggression, because nobody from this 80% of people wants to die for a system in which they are people of a second class.

 

Zelenskiy was ready to fold as I said it would have tacitly meant letting the Russian dominated oblasts go to Russia (which has happened, and I can't see the clock going back) - but extreme nationalists won't let that happen. His curse was to be an actor and wowed the world with his performance -some moustachioed nonentity would have folded easily once Russian might had shown their teeth and claws. These are the Rumfeldian known knowns about Putin and Russia and ones that western intelligence should surely have known. They gave them just enough to keep going, but not enough to win.

 

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/10/the-tragedy-of-volodymyr-zelensky/

 

This has been evident not only in his failure to stand up to extremist forces at home, but also in his dealings with Ukraine’s allies, as exemplified by his infamous phone call with Donald Trump in July 2019 when he was asked to investigate the Bidens. Zelensky’s efforts to ingratiate himself with Trump were bad enough, but perhaps can be explained by virtue of America’s importance to Ukraine and Trump’s transactional approach to politics. More troubling was Zelensky’s eagerness to denigrate others for little discernible reason. A transcript of the call records him carping about how the German chancellor Angela Merkel and the French president Emmanuel Macron were not doing enough for Ukraine, telling Trump that he was “absolutely right. Not only one hundred percent, but actually one thousand percent” when he said of European leaders that “all they do is talk.” He likewise echoed Trump’s view that the recently recalled American diplomat Marie Yovanovitch was “a bad ambassador.” As the French journalist Sylvie Kauffmann put it in the New York Times:

    This popular maverick comedian turned real-life politician after playing one in a TV series, this promising reformer that President Emmanuel Macron of France had hosted at the Élysée even before he was elected, was in fact another spineless, unprepared leader jumping into President Trump’s every trap.

The lack of moral courage Zelensky displayed during the exchange was not only personally embarrassing; it also boded poorly, as Kauffmann noted, for his ability to deal with the domestic problems he had been elected to confront.

 

What's left has a chance of joining NATO if they get that peace deal and concede the reality of the ground and a 'free' Ukraine will have been won at huge financial and cost in lives. If Europe (and the US) offers good will but not serious cash, I can see it becoming something of a failed state on the periphery of Europe, with power going back to oligarchs and warlords who have the military might. There is lots of chatter about extreme corruption in the country and if rumours are to be believed Zelenskiy isn't immune.

 

What do I see happening  ? An Armistice (Zelenskiy will have to go though) -  huge defences on both sides of the border and a frozen conflict. After that is anybodies guess - the US will have moved onto China, and its focus and efforts will be elsewhere. The extreme nationalists will be going nowhere, and they will be very angry and armed and trained to the teeth and if central power falters they will be the kingmakers in a new era, and it won't be pretty for anyone that they consider not 100% behind Slava Ukarainia.

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

 

Armistice Agreements

In armistice agreements, like those that ended the Korean War in 1953 and the Transnistria conflict in Moldova in 1992, the two sides commit to stop fighting and often create mechanisms, such as demilitarized zones, to prevent the resumption of violence.[34] Although armistice agreements can be quite detailed (the Korea agreement was nearly 40 pages long), they generally do not address the political drivers of the conflict, which means tensions can endure and diplomatic and economic relations between the parties often remain at a minimal level. Armistice agreements that have mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring compliance to reduce the risk of conflict resuming are more durable than those that do not.[35]

An armistice in Ukraine would freeze the front lines and bring a long-term end to active combat. Russia would stop attempts to occupy additional Ukrainian territory and cease missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Ukrainian forces would stop their counteroffensives—strikes on Russian-held areas of Ukraine and on Russia itself. There would still be ongoing, unresolved territorial disputes (that is, divergent positions on the location of Ukraine's borders) between Kyiv and Moscow; these would be contested politically and economically, not militarily. The key political issues beyond territorial control, ranging from Russian payment of reparations to Ukraine's geopolitical status, would remain unaddressed. The sides would likely conduct only minimal trade; the borders would be largely closed. The line of control would likely become highly militarized, like the inner German border during the Cold War.

19 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

They gave them just enough to keep going, but not enough to win.

Interesting post.

 

I see shades of the Russia Afghanistan conflict where the CIA was supplying enough arms to keep the resistance alive, but not win the war. I understand the idea was to bleed the USSR using proxy Afghan militias. That ended of course once Gorbachev became leader and withdrew the Soviet forces..

 

Perhaps that was the plan this time as well. Makes sense to me. They certainly keep going on about how they are bleeding Russia on the cheap. Of course it's not cheap to Ukrainian widows and fatherless children.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it's not cheap to Ukrainian widows and fatherless children.

 

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that your ongoing - and oft repeated - lament for "... Ukrainian widows and fatherless children" is anything other than heartfelt. Perish the thought that you are trying to paint those who support Ukraine in a negative light by using a form of emotional blackmail.

 

However, I can't help wondering why you don't express a similar level of sympathy for the Russian widows and orphans? I'm sure that your undoubtedly sincere condolences would be of great comfort to them if they managed to read them.