Colonel Jacques Baud: Europe behaves irrationally

Colonel Jacques Baud is simply a erstwhile Swiss military intelligence officer. He participated in a number of UN peacekeeping missions and then led the agency liable for purchasing arms for the Swiss Armed Forces.

For respective years he has been examining the Ukrainian conflict, about which he has published respective books. He answered any questions in the context of the diplomatic efforts presently being made to end the war in Ukraine.

Necessary defence expenditure

Europe's behaviour in global relations is becoming increasingly irrational, as you say. Do you think that Europe would be able, given its possible for an industrial-military complex, to replace the United States as the main sponsor of the conflict in Ukraine?

As a substance of fact, in the early 1990s, right after leaving Swiss intelligence, I was an worker of the Swiss military procurement agency. And I follow it very closely. I bought Leopard 2 tanks for Switzerland. My unit had quite a few supply jobs. Anyway, I know this area beautiful well. The point is that since the end of the Cold War, the European military-industrial complex has actually disappeared. any people regret it. And we may regret it to any extent. In my opinion, the military-industrial complex should be as long as necessary. We should have a military-industrial complex that reflects strategical needs, defence policy needs and national safety needs. You don't gotta have a immense military-industrial complex if you don't request it. And after the Cold War, the best way to guarantee safety was to work together. The military-industrial complex has besides been reduced. Of course, we can condemn this in the sense that it is simply a failure of the whole, a failure of chance and so on. I get it. But on the another hand, why should we finance something that is overgrown in relation to current needs. The United States maintained a very extended military-industrial complex due to the fact that their safety policy was based on endless wars around the world. That's their point of view. But in Europe, I think we didn't request it. So the thought of rebuilding would mean a diametric change.

This isn't our war.

Has the global environment changed?

Honestly, I don't see how things have changed. Of course, we have a conflict in Ukraine. But if you think about it, it's a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, period. This is not a conflict with another countries. The Russians never expressed their intention, task or plan to invade the remainder of Europe. On the contrary, the conflict we have in Ukraine is due to the full inability of European diplomacy to enforce the treaties that have been signed. If we had diplomacy that would work, we wouldn't have a conflict in Ukraine today. So we actually have a regional or local conflict going on between Russia and Ukraine. The problem is that Europeans, alternatively of trying to solve the conflict, tried to side with Ukraine. Today, they must convince their societies that they have rightly sided with Ukraine. And this is very symptomatic that only a fewer weeks ago, the French Chief of General Staff said that within 5 years Russia would attack Europe and France would become its main target.

Russia has no reason to attack

In Poland we hear all day that we will be the next mark of the attack, as in the Baltic States. But France seems very abstract in this context.

If you look at the Baltic countries, they multiply provocations. Everything they say is simply provocative, including the full incidental in the Baltic Sea, erstwhile the Estonian Navy attempted to hijack Russian ships in global waters, so they multiply provocations. So this is simply a very unhealthy situation. And that, in my opinion, is simply a serious problem. That is why I believe that we are acting irrationally, due to the fact that erstwhile we return to the French Chief of General Staff, it gives authority to specified claims. And we can assume, or assume, that erstwhile he says so, he has a reason to make specified a statement. How could he get specified information? due to the fact that if you take it seriously, what would Russia's interest in attacking France? What kind of business would that be? To what end? Even if Russia attacks, say, France, it means that it must occupy Poland, it must occupy Germany, it must occupy France itself. We know the business of the country is simply a problem. We know that from planet War II. It's not quantum physics. Why should the Russians present prioritise the usage of almost all resources for the business of Western Europe? It doesn't make any sense. And that's where irrationality comes in.

End of the social model

Let's effort to find any logic in all of this. any say that Europe's only way out of the economical crisis is to make a military-industrial complex and finance all of these expenditures.

– It's most likely a hidden target. And I can agree with that due to the fact that there's no logical explanation. But it is irrational due to the fact that the economy cannot last only with a military-industrial complex. We see that in the West there are now so many challenges in terms of the improvement of the economy, all production, and not even production, education, which is breaking down. And to any degree besides the problem of immigration, for example. I am not a supporter of unlimited immigration in the West due to the fact that I believe it destabilizes society.

There is simply a clear contradiction in European policy. On the 1 hand, arms spending and fresh military contracts are increasing. On the another hand, as you have pointed out, we have immigration and we request billions of euros for social policy programmes. Will Europe cease to be in the future as a circumstantial social model, as a circumstantial model of the welfare state due to these military spending?

– Well, that's kind of logical, erstwhile I was young, the difference between the poorest and the richest was smaller. And we request this balanced evolution of society. I have no problem with them being rich. Of course, we'd alternatively there were no poor. But at the same time, differentiation most likely lies in human nature. But there should be balance. It cannot be that any have the full country and most have nothing.

War von der Leyen

Returning to the conflict in Ukraine, I would like to ask about the thought of a joint weapon production in this country. I mean joint production, joint factories and joint ventures between the West and Ukraine. We have late heard about any projects, specified as ballistic missiles, involving Germany or the UK. No 1 is certain who's involved. possibly Germans, possibly British. However, do you believe that under the current conditions it is possible to invest European money in Ukrainian manufacture and build military factories there?

Firstly, as we have already said, I do not think that the military-industrial complex is the key to improvement at all. I mean, there are also challenges to solve. As far as Ukraine is concerned, so is Ukraine. First of all, in my opinion, Europe should not be a organization to the conflict. Von der Leyen has made Europe, the European Union, a side of the conflict. And I think it's a mistake. Being European, you should not take sides. You should do your best to solve the problem and do it in a balanced way. And this is where I think before I answer the question that it was incorrect to entrust the position of European Union abroad Minister to people like Kaja Kallas. I think it's a immense mistake. First of all, she's intellectually incapable of it. Secondly, it comes from a country that clearly does not feel a desire for a harmonious approach to Russia. The thought that we support Ukraine, I think it was a mistake from the beginning. alternatively of taking the chance to resolve the conflict, Europeans have wasted all chance to solve the problem to proceed the war. Interestingly, Zelenski rapidly realized that he was incapable to fight in this war. Therefore, in late May 2022 and early June 2022 he said that from now on we trust on the West to proceed the war. That means he's already lost. So why should we proceed to support this conflict erstwhile since 2022 we know for certain that Ukraine is simply a loser? There's something crazy about it. Back to the question of improvement joint venture with Ukraine, erstwhile Rheinmetall, a German company, talked about creating joint venture with Ukraine to manufacture military equipment in Ukraine, I said, “Well, these people just want to attract Russian rockets.” What's the point? So this is highly complicated. From an industrial point of view, I do not realize whether specified a task is reasonable at all, due to the fact that if you make it, you simply draw on yourself the fire of Russians. Furthermore, the situation in Ukraine has changed. due to the fact that present in Ukraine, that is, in the Ukrainian part of the territory, that is, in a part that is not controlled by Russia, the opposition is developing. And not only Russian, or ethnically Russian resistance, but besides Ukrainian movements, especially those that fight forced mobilization, etc. And they're working together.

Diplomacy is more effective

So it doesn't make sense for Europe to be a sponsor anyway?

All these efforts financed by European taxes do not aid Ukraine, give illusions that they fight further, and retreat everywhere. So the full issue for Europeans, most likely not Ukrainians, but surely Europeans, does not solve the problem. They want to draw Russia into an ongoing war. They want to prolong this war due to the fact that they presume that the longer Russia is in this conflict, the more the system, the Russian society will fall. I think that's a incorrect assumption. Firstly, polls and studies carried out in Russia do not indicate the disintegration of Russian society. On the contrary. So we see that this European policy is trying to widen the conflict at the expense of the Ukrainians. I mean, Europeans are actually at war with Russia's blood of Ukrainians.

This is simply a summary of the problem. We saw this at a fresh gathering in Washington where Trump, Zelenski and respective European leaders were. They have not found a solution or proposed a solution to the conflict. They didn't introduce any. They are only there to prevent any agreement under Trump's auspices to solve the problem. So I think that we are in a very unhealthy situation due to the fact that Europeans do not want to realize that what they are doing is desperate. Even the media, which are highly pro-Ukrainian, especially as regards Western Europe, I mean France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, are highly pro-Ukrainian. But still, everyone knows that Ukraine is retreating. Everyone knows they're short soldiers. They know they're short of equipment. They know they don't have tanks anymore. They know they don't have planes anymore. We know they're missing anti-aircraft missiles. We know they don't have any money. We know their economy is falling apart. We know all that. But yet, alternatively of uncovering a solution, given everything we know, they inactive press Ukraine on the battlefield. This is absolutely insane. I have participated in many missions, including the UN in many countries, to keep peace and resolve conflicts, peace initiatives and so on. I realize that erstwhile you gotta fight, you gotta fight. I'm not against utilizing force. erstwhile necessary, usage force. But there is besides a minute erstwhile we request to realise that defence policy, or, in fact, safety policy, is not just the usage of force. A good safety policy is the balance between defence and abroad policy. Both must be utilized intelligently and in combination. Sometimes it takes a small more strength and sometimes a small more diplomacy. But these 2 things should combine into 1 approach to national security. And I think we have reached this point, most likely even before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine. The West has always neglected diplomacy. They wanted to face Russia. And that's where this unhealthy aspect comes in.

The Russians had a reason.

So abandoning the diplomatic option was conscious?

It was incorrect then, but it is even more incorrect present due to the fact that present we see that we are utilizing or utilizing Ukraine to accomplish the objectives of another people's abroad policy. And Zelenski's mistake was that he had no moral and political strength to say to the Europeans: no, that's not what I want. He should have insisted on this in 2022 due to the fact that he most likely instinctively understood that the war was lost. There were reasons why the Russians intervened. Personally, I think they had their reasons. Was that the best consequence on their part, that's a question we can ask. But there were reasons. The Russians attacked for a reason. There was a reason. Turning to the issue of arms, I believe that trying to produce weapons in the way it is produced in Ukraine, in a country which is constantly threatened by air strikes, is simply a method error. Secondly, I believe that alternatively of spending money on arms production, we should usage it to find a way to rebuild and keep this money to rebuild Ukraine and to aid Ukraine find the best solution to the problem. But we don't. The situation in Ukraine is terrible. And the fact that Europeans are producing weapons in Ukraine makes it worse. We see this on the maps of all the attacks carried out all day by the Russians, who systematically attack the sites where the factories are located. I so believe that the strategy that Europe has applied to Ukraine was wrong.

Matthew Piskorski spoke