Rupert Wieloch

I am extremely honoured to wear the Bronze Star that was presented to me by the US President in 2008 and delighted that I can say that my father became an American Citizen before he died. However, as a long term supporter of the USA, it is becoming extremely difficult see what is happening in Washington at the moment.

I listened to an excellent interview of an independent American journalist, who suggested that no-one was safe if they got in the way of what Mr Trump wants. We have seen plenty of evidence of this assertion this week with the attacks on several NATO Allies, including Canada, Britain and Denmark. This is the same Denmark that was one of the most supportive countries to the USA after 9/11, putting bodies on the line for two decades in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The lack of respect for neighbours and allies reminds me of when Colonel Gadhafi took over in Libya in 1969. His ignorance about what the international community had done for his country and the lack of understanding how diplomacy works in a modern world led to him becoming an international pariah and isolated his country from the Global community.

There is a simple way to respond to this sort of bullying and that is to change the World’s reserve currency from the US Dollar. There are several replacement candidates and if enough countries clubbed together through the United Nations, it could not only work effectively, but also change Mr Trump’s behaviour.

Denmark and Ukraine provided support to the USA in Iraq

It is so tempting for politicians in true democracies to deal in the short term to secure a quick profit. However, as we are seeing in the World Today that sort of fickle thinking can be finessed quite easily by long-term-strategists in authoritarian regimes.

The BBC has produced a very good summary “why [President] Trump is struggling to secure [a] fast ceasefire in Ukraine”. It suggests there are five contributing factors, but the author steers clear of the fundamental issues of cultural, ideological and personality divides, which are not being bridged.

The American Envoy’s view that President Putin is in the right and the European Reassurance Force is “a posture and a pose” is further evidence that the USA is effectively abandoning Ukraine. What no-one is saying to the Public though is that the Europeans are already involved in the war and there are already about 500 British troops deployed in Western Ukraine as military advisors, operators and trainers.

Washington doesn’t seem to realise that although European Governments ran away from Baghdad and Kabul when the US troops pulled out. The EU is unlikely to withdraw from Kyiv because Ukraine is now a Candidate Country (along with Georgia, Moldova and six others).

So what will happen in the medium term? Well the immoveable Putin will not alter his viewpoint and will continue with his air and land campaigns. Trump will blame everyone but his own advisors and negotiators for the failure to achieve a ceasefire. European defence spending will increase, but there will still not be an effective war-fighting capability by the end of the year. And the poor Ukrainian people will continue to suffer appalling loss and deprivation. We must not forget their sacrifice on behalf of all of us who live freely in true democracies.

British Reassurance In Action

I have the greatest respect for our National Security Advisors, but their cautious political advice can too often sound like defeatism and encourage authoritarian regimes such as Putin’s Russia. The latest pronouncement from Lord Ricketts on BBC 5 Live Breakfast on 15 March was straight out of the appeasement manual: “At worst case, that could land up with European forces fighting the Russians. Certainly nobody wants that.”

I can think of several worse case scenarios. For example, Putin takes over Ukraine and uses that as a launch-pad to invade another European country with America standing-by in isolation. I can imagine other worse cases that stem from the West not committing troops to ensure Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state.

It may well be that there is no such thing as a military solution, but at this moment in time the only language that Putin understands is military capability. That capability is partly made up of tangible forces and partly of mental willpower. There has to be a political acceptance that to preserve our freedoms and deter Russian aggression, we HAVE to deploy our troops with well-considered rules of engagement and back that up with a plan for total commitment.

Government communicators should then support that decision, rather than undermine it.

Talk from Whitehall is now less about a legally defined (and constrained) “Peacekeeping Force” and more about a standing deployment of a Coalition of Armies to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Asking for “strateic patience” in this situation sounds very much like we are going back in time to the origins of NATO in 1949.

At that time, the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) changed from being an occupying force to focus more on the increasing threat of invasion of West Germany by the Soviet Union. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Allied Armies, BAOR kept the peace in Europe for forty years until the end of the Cold War in 1989.

It is clear that there will be no UN Security Council Resolution to provide a mandate for a “British Army of the Dneiper”. Nor is it likely that traditional peacekeeping principles would apply. Putin has already said there will be no Russian consent to NATO troops in Ukraine; the Force is unlikely to be impartial; and the Rules of Engagement will not be restricted, so it will be “Minimum Force”, rather than “Self-Defence”.

Although France is willing to share the burden of this intervention force, it needs more of the NATO Members to commit effective troops to the Mission. Hopefully, we can rely on some of the former Warsaw Pact, Scandanavian and Mediterranian countries as well as a vitally important North American Ally – Canada.

British Peacekeeping In Bosnia

In Baghdad, I had the honour of attending Iraqi Ministerial meetings and US Senate Briefings so I was fortunate to be present at one of the pivotal decisions in 2008 that brought about the withdrawal of US troops from the Green Zone. This was the Iraqi decision to buy Naval Patrol Craft from Malaysia, rather than from Washington. After this multi-million pound deal was announced, a distinguished US Senator was heard to say: “Don’t They Know They Owe Us?”

The two types of delusion that were behind this (Iraqis believing they were free to choose and Americans believing that Iraqis should be grateful for the US occupation) were played out again in Washington between President Trump and President Zelensky this week. But there is a third delusion that has also raised its head and that is the belief that a nation can conjure combat military capability from nothing. It takes years of team practice to build an effective armoured battle-group, but the British Army, with misguided concepts such as Whole Fleet Management and Casualty Aversion Wokery is nowhere near the standards needed for an Operational Readiness Test, let alone a complex peacekeeping deployment.

We need to remember Kofi Anan’s hard-earned wisdom about the best peacekeepers being trained for full-scale war. There is only one answer to this conundrum, but it will be politically unpopular, economically taxing, diplomatically demanding and militarily challenging.

Tank Warfare Is A Lost Art

When President Trump negotiated a US withdrawal agreement from Afghanistan five years ago, it precipitated a Taliban takeover and chaotic scenes across the country 18 months later. After his cosy with President Putin and spat with President Zelensky this week, will history repeat itself in Europe?

The first thing to say is that France and the United Kingdom are looking as isolated at the United Nations as they did during the Suez crisis. The difference though is very stark with Suez marking the end of European Imperialism, whereas the current crisis leading potentially to the end of European Democracy.

There are plenty of 21st century precedents of US conflict withdrawal, including Bosnia in 2004 and Baghdad in 2010. The former led to an EU Mission, which was guaranteed by NATO Over The Horizon Forces. The latter left a void, which allowed Islamic State to develop as an international force and in turn, led to ten more years of war. The abandonment of Syria by President Obama in 2013 did not end well either.

Untying US commitments to Ukraine (and Eastern Europe) will not be easy. It is certainly possible for Trump to pull the plug on the troops, arms, missiles and connected surveillance systems that are based in the former Warsaw Pact countries, which are now part of NATO. But ultimately, would that solve his economic problems at home, or give him Allies to do what Washington wants to do in the Middle East and Persia?

Happier Days For NATO Allies

One of the illusions that political leaders attempt with their populations is to try and make people believe the God of War can be controlled. However, in my experience, once Mars has been unleashed, it is not possible to corral him until the innate energy of conflict has been spent. It is like striving to contain a hurricane in a box.

It’s also true that in this day and age, the war lords on the front line (and their henchmen) take perverse pride in controlling the freedom of movement in their zones and ignoring their own political masters. On the third anniversary of Putin’s so-called Special Military Operation (SMO), there is little sign of Russian withdrawal or Ukrainian defeatism, so despite all the political hype in the Capital Cities of Europe and America, we are no closer to peace in Ukraine than we were a week ago.

On Sky News, I was asked about a possible Peacekeeping operation in Ukraine, but people seem to forget that this type of operation needs an international mandate from the United Nations to be legal and I do not see the Security Council, as it is currently formed, agreeing any Resolution in the near future. That is not to say that we shouldn’t prepare our troops for such an undertaking because it would need a highly trained force (at least nine months) to be capable for such a mission.

So what are we left with on the third anniversary of the SMO? A deep sense of sympathy for the people of Ukraine and especially those who have lost family and those currently serving, under fire, on the Front Line. A moment to pause and reflect.

The political statements by US, EU and UK leaders this week were a gift to Chess-Master Putin and an acknowledgement of what I wrote in my last posting. Sure enough, Trump delivered his “Bizarre-eccentricity”, which caught the World by surprise. Except that it shouldn’t have because he has been singing from the same songsheet for ten years. He believes European countries are not pulling their weight in matters of Defence (a fair criticism); he admires the way Putin turned Russia around from the failed state of the 1990s into a global powerhouse; and he cares as little about the territorial integrity of Ukraine as he does about the right of Palestinians to live in Gaza. So will his rapprochment with the Russian President lead to Peace In Our Time, or will it lead to a European Union force deploying boots on the ground in Ukraine?

Despite the predicament that Ukraine finds itself in after three hard years, I do not believe that her army will capitulate like Syria’s did in December last year. However, if the US withdraws its military assistance, it is only a matter of time before the Russian Army breaks through the front line. In the short term, I do not see the EU having the capabilities to replace the USA or even to deploy an effective Peace Support Operation because they always place ridiculous caveats on commanders when it comes to casualties.

I have written before about what Putin wants from this war, which above all is to end NATO’s encroachment of Russia. With Finland and Sweden joining NATO in 2023 and 2024, it looked as if he had failed in this objective, but if he persuades Trump to cut the lifeblood to the 75 year-old pensioner, he will have achieved more than any of his Soviet predecessors. The stakes are really high because so many European countries have run down their Armed Forces and relegated their military to Cattle Class. As Kipling wrote: For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ Chuck him out, the brute!” But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot…

Tommy Saving His Country

As we approach the anniversary of Putin’s “special operation”, there will be much wringing of hands in Western Capitals and no doubt a Trump “Bizentrecky”. However, we must always remember that the true start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was 2014, not 2022. That said the span and intensity of fighting increased significantly three years ago; with everything from traditional trench warfare to modern drone attacks and Special Forces operations leading to the tragic milestone of a million casualties.

Despite Donald Trump’s reassurance, we are as far away from peace in Eastern Europe as we have ever been. The Russian Army, supported by anti-American allies such as North Korea, has made steady progress during the winter months. Putin has solved the two challenges he faced of economic sanctions and ageing demographics, so it is likely that he will continue to take more Ukrainian land this year – unless the balance of power shifts with a serious NATO intervention.

However, the quandary for the West remains the same as it was three years ago. If the war continues, Russia will continue to slowly gain more land, but if a peace is agreed that allows Putin to keep the Crimea and so-called republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, this will reward the aggressor and punish the victim. The bottom line is that there is little appetite (and no votes) in the high-tech, social-media influencing Western world for putting “boots on the ground” and risking nuclear Armageddon. So all that will be done is to send more truck-loads of weapons, ammunition and humanitarian assistance, but this will only delay the inevitable…

Russian Artillery Used in Ukraine

Before Russia lost its war with Japan and expanded its interests in the Balkans, it was aggressively attempting to assimilate its neighbours into its Empire. Although it succeeded in the Baltic countries and Poland, it was unsuccessful in Finland, despite the efforts of the Governor General, Nikolay Bobrikov, to fully integrate Suomi through the February Manifesto of 1899.

The history of how Finland resisted Russian aggression over many years and eventually gained and held onto its independence is a salutary lesson, which we would do well to remember as we approach the third anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

Blackwood’s article in July 1899 (the year it published Heart of Darkness), epitomised the role of free British press in exposing the truth behind dictatorial regimes, which used secret police to quell public unrest. This pivotal role continues today through organisations such as The Frontline Club in London, which is showing Dancing with the Russian Bear later this month. This is a critical insight into the question why the West has misread Putin and definitely worth watching.

Moscow May Parade