Scholz: A Man Of Containment.

If there is one way to describe Scholz that is entirely accurate, it is that there cannot be a more rational or sensible leader at the heart of Europe. Scholz is committed to the defence of democracy, but he also believes in proportionality - no country other than the United States has already provided more military aid to Ukraine than Germany - but Scholz has his limits.

Scholz is an advocate of a containment strategy: he is for the defence of international borders, but his plan, as far as a head of government can control events, is not to do anything that would extend the war further into Russia. Ukraine has already attacked border towns and carried out stunts over the Kremlin. For Scholz, these are dangerous gambles that could lead to a Russian escalation beyond Ukraine if, for example, Moscow or St. Petersburg were actually hit by devastating weapons already on the ground and in the hands of Ukrainian forces.

In other words, Scholz is in a sense trying to re-cork a bottle whose contents have already been largely used up. Alongside the United States, Germany is the Kremlin's main target. Russian troops are nowhere to be seen in Berlin or anywhere else in Germany, but Scholz and Biden have already joined Zelenskyy in the Russian pantheon of enemy leaders. 

Scholz's argument collapses when put into context: Having failed to win a clear victory in Ukraine, Putin is now much more irrational and unpredictable. He feels the pressure and is a man on the defensive. That is why he is worried about number eight. The longer this war goes on without a decisive victory being won, the more vulnerable Putin becomes at home. Putin, who is already feeling this, has eliminated his biggest domestic threat: Navalny. It is not unreasonable to argue that Navalny's death at Putin's hands will ultimately be remembered as a catalyst for the opposition in Russia, which could further weaken Putin at home, especially if Putin continues to crack down on the opposition. Wisely, he had his security forces act with restraint at Navalny's funeral. But I digress.

But back to Scholz. Containment is a strategy that assumes the enemy is completely rational and in control. Putin is not, at least not these days. Unlike several other NATO countries, Scholz will neither send military advisers to Khiv nor provide Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles for fear that the Ukrainians will use them against the Kremlin and other installations in Moscow. Conversely, the United Kingdom and France have already sent cruise missiles to Ukraine.

It is therefore a question of containment on the one hand and the theory of escalation on the other. Neither can be fully right, given the respective assessment of Putin and his way of thinking. For my part, I think Putin is a do-or-die guy, a man who is already "all in" and who will ultimately do anything to avoid losing decisively in Ukraine or being overthrown in Moscow. That's why I'm very much in favour of us meeting force with force. It's not as if we have any other realistic choice in dealing with Putin. Putin can only be stopped by force. The diplomatic option no longer exists. Ultimately, a policy of deliberate escalation will not come from the NATO members, but from Putin himself. He wants to restore the Soviet Union by any means necessary. What else can the West and NATO do but respond to force with force? No one will allow Europe to be overrun by Putin or anyone else. 

Scholz is an extremely rational person who also looks for these qualities in his counterpart. One can assume that Scholz, much to his surprise, will find none of this when he engages with Putin and his ultimate goals. In short, containment is not even remotely possible under these circumstances.