Connect with us

Europe

Former Merkel advisor Erich Vad likens Ukraine conflict to Verdun, warns of European war risk

Published

on

Retired Brigadier General Erich Vad, a prominent military and strategic analyst in the Federal Republic of Germany and former military policy advisor to former Chancellor Angela Merkel, has delivered a stark assessment of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

In an extensive interview with the Berliner Zeitung newspaper, marked by the publication of his book Peace – How Does It Work? (Frieden – Wie geht das?), co-authored with Klaus von Dohnanyi, Vad highlighted the futility of current military strategies and criticized the international community for completely shutting down diplomatic channels.

Vad, who is also a historian and served as a department head within the Federal Chancellery, secretary of the Federal Security Council, and military advisor between 2006 and 2013, stated that contemporary geopolitical tensions cannot be resolved through military means alone.

“The current attrition strategy is a blood mill like Verdun”

Likening the current situation on the ground in Ukraine to one of the bloodiest engagements in military history, Vad said:

“A military solution in Ukraine in favor of Ukraine does not appear possible in the near future. The method currently applied is an attrition strategy, where the parties target each other’s rear lines and wait for the opposing side to give up or sit at the negotiating table. This attrition strategy is a virtual blood mill, akin to the 1916 Battle of Verdun. Hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians have lost their lives, and an entire country has been reduced to ruins.”

Noting that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s maximalist demands, which envision a total Russian withdrawal from the Donbas and Crimea, are unrealistic, Vad remarked: “To assume that the Russians will withdraw from these regions and make peace is an illusion. This situation is completely contrary to Russia’s vital strategic interests in the region. Because the parties cannot step back from these positions, the weapons continue to speak. However, the risk of this war evolving into an all-out European war is extremely high, and if things continue in this manner, I have the impression that the trajectory is in that direction.”

Addressing the limits of military solutions, Vad noted that a similar picture applies not only to Ukraine but also to other crisis regions, such as Iran.

He stated that aerial campaigns against Iran cannot bring about regime change, while a ground intervention to control a coastline exceeding 1,500 kilometers and the Strait of Hormuz would require a military cost that even the US military would not undertake today.

“Ukraine’s NATO goal was a red line for Russia”

Evaluating NATO’s eastward expansion process, Vad stated that this move was perceived by Russia as an attempt to shift the boundaries of Western spheres of influence eastward.

Recalling that the demands of Poland and the Baltic states to exit Russian hegemony were initially understandable, and that this process was balanced through diplomatic mechanisms such as the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the NATO-Russia Council, the former military advisor emphasized that the West later abandoned this balanced path.

In his interview, Vad shared the following analysis:

“The West subsequently deviated from this balanced line, and the process completely turned into the eastward expansion of the American sphere of influence. Yet, the Americans would never tolerate a similar situation in their own sphere of influence. If Mexico were to attempt joint military exercises with Russia and China on the Rio Grande border tomorrow, the Americans would calmly invade the country. Russia is a global power and the world’s largest nuclear power. One must neither underestimate nor overestimate the resilience of the Russians. The same applies to China. If the Americans had attempted to establish an airbase in Taiwan, World War III would have broken out the next day. The biggest problem in Germany is that the effort to understand the Russian perspective has completely vanished. Trying to understand them does not mean approving of what they do; it is simply a requirement of situational analysis.”

Relating the debates surrounding the membership perspective offered to Ukraine at the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit, where he was personally present in Chancellor Merkel’s delegation, Vad noted:

“The general assessment at the time was that Ukrainian public opinion was deeply divided on NATO membership, and the majority actually opposed it. William Burns, then the US Ambassador to Moscow, had clearly reported that this step was a dark red line for Russia and would lead to war. Everyone who knew the subject was aware of the situation. Therefore, the decision not to grant Ukraine a Membership Action Plan at that time was correct. However, the major error was keeping this membership goal suspended rather than canceling it entirely. Pre-Trump US administrations tried every avenue to draw Ukraine in this direction, including extensive weapons deliveries, military advisors, intelligence activities, and massive financial support for pro-Western non-governmental organizations. This process culminated in the Maidan protests. The entry of NATO membership into the Ukrainian constitution in 2019 was the final straw for Russia.”

Arguing that the US strategy of global competition played a role in the development of this process, Vad stated: “Ukraine is legitimately defending its sovereignty, and the Russian attack is undoubtedly a violation of international law. However, when we look at how global powers generally utilize international law, this situation unfortunately does not constitute an exceptional case. The US prepared the ground for this war within the framework of its competition with Russia; this is why I have called it a proxy war from the very beginning.”

“We are silent against a terrorist attack on our own infrastructure”

Criticizing Germany’s current security and foreign policy decisions, Vad stated that Berlin has lost its strategic autonomy and remains inadequate in protecting its national interests.

The retired general remarked that the federal government has returned to its reflex of entirely devolving responsibility for security policies to Washington, recalling that past German chancellors always sought to balance defense investments with arms control and détente diplomacy.

Touching upon the attack on Germany’s critical energy infrastructure, Vad made the following assessment:

“Germany is currently the largest supporter of Ukraine. However, at the same time, according to existing data, it has also received the largest state-sponsored terrorist attack on its own national infrastructure from Ukraine. The deep silence exhibited by German politics and the media in the face of the sabotage blowing up the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline is highly thought-provoking and disturbing. A potential European war occurring on our own territory cannot be a rational option for Germany. Therefore, I expect German politicians to pursue a policy more focused on national interests. Current politics have become completely focused on Ukraine, and this is a major error.”

Vad asserted that the domestic political weaknesses of governments in European countries fuel aggressive postures in foreign policy. He cited the political weakening of French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s low public support, and the domestic political pressures on the coalition government in Germany as causes of this situation.

According to Vad, keeping the perception of external threats alive provides a convenient ground to cover up domestic political failures and justify large-budget defense spending.

“Social hatred is manufactured to sustain the war”

Referencing the “trinity” concept used by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz when defining war, Erich Vad explained that wars are sustained not only by military decisions but also through the management of collective social psychology.

Emphasizing the importance of the relationship between politics, the military-industrial complex, and society, Vad criticized the role assumed by the media and political elites during wartime:

“Wars must always be fed emotionally; war requires hatred. Today, we are witnessing an intense information war conducted in both the West and Russia. In this mutually executed process, the enemy is demonized, criminalized, and morally devalued. Without this hatred taking root in the minds of people, it is not possible for societies to support a prolonged war, tolerate losses, and risk killing other human beings. Politics thinking solely in military categories and completely excluding diplomacy is dragging our country toward a major catastrophe. This concept of total military support, which could lead to the destruction of our own country, is a manifestation of the detached, black-and-white German approach that has led us to disaster in the past.”

Warning of future risks, the retired Brigadier General stated that long-range unmanned aerial vehicles and missile systems provided to the Ukrainian army, which can strike military targets deep inside Russia, could lead to an uncontrolled escalation.

Recalling that European and German companies are involved in the production processes of the long-range combat drones supplied by the United Kingdom to Ukraine, Vad stated that this “deep strike” strategy could transform the regional conflict into a global war at any moment.

Finally, stating that peace can only be built by talking to the enemy, Vad cited the negotiations that former Israeli officials Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin conducted in the past with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Arguing that there are no political leaders in Europe today capable of showing this level of courage, Vad concluded: “If we continue in this way, we will one day find ourselves in a direct war with Russia behind Ukraine. Germany urgently needs to undergo a radical foreign policy shift and combine military aid with constructive diplomatic mediation initiatives.”

Europe

EU divisions deepen over who should negotiate with Vladimir Putin

Published

on

As the US continues to mediate talks between Ukraine and Russia, the debate within the EU over who will sit at the table is intensifying.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine scheduled for next week in Abu Dhabi, mediated by the US, will take place without European participation.

There are currently no expectations of a breakthrough, but this has not prevented infighting within the EU over representation.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni added fresh friction to the debate yesterday, 5 November, stating that the EU gives “the impression of a Europe moving in different directions.”

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, she argued that the 27 EU leaders must unite behind a single representative before the end of the year.

According to Rapporteur, an “alphabet soup” of diplomatic formats, such as the E2, E3, E5, or the CoW (Coalition of the Willing), is competing to take centre stage in discussions concerning the future of Ukraine.

Facing elections next year, Meloni has long pushed back against the assertive stance adopted by the E3 format, which brings together the UK, France, and Germany, in their efforts to represent European interests in ending the war and shaping the continent’s future security architecture.

Last month, the Italian leader said:

“If France, Germany, and Great Britain believe that within that renowned E3 format they can achieve more alone than we can all achieve together, then they should at least do so in the name of everyone, with an official mandate from all parties.”

An EU diplomat remarked: “When we speak of the E3, we are talking about geopolitical influence, military strength, and financial power. This does not mean Italy is excluded, but Rome clearly believes it must have a seat at the table.”

Meloni has the backing of Poland, another major military power and the only other large EU country sharing a border with Ukraine.

However, her counterpart Donald Tusk has been less explicit about seeking a direct role in top-level talks.

“As you know, we have many different formats,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw on Thursday. “We have a clear position as the EU and as the Coalition of the Willing. I am fully engaged in these processes.”

Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, however, proved considerably more outspoken. “The last thing we want is Western Europe dealing with Russia while bypassing Eastern Europeans,” Sikorski said, drawing parallels to the 1930s and the 1945 Yalta Conference:

“You cannot exclude Eastern Europe and Scandinavia from these talks. We are roughly 120 million people. Finland borders Russia, Norway borders Russia, the Baltic states border Russia, and Poland borders both Russia and Ukraine.”

Berlin argues that the E3 remains the natural representative group, given that Germany, France, and the UK are the three strongest military powers capable of underwriting future security guarantees for Ukraine.

Like Italy, Poland favours the E5 configuration, which would allow Warsaw and Rome to take part.

Yet Sikorski also floated another leadership lineup to meet Putin: António Costa, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Sikorski argued that under EU treaties, the Costa-Kallas pairing holds the legal authority to represent the bloc.

Speaking to journalists in Lisbon on Thursday, the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said: “I agree with Prime Minister Meloni; we must not speak with different voices. We must remain united in stating that these matters sought by Russia require Europe’s decision as well.”

Meloni is not alone in pointing out cracks in the EU’s posture. Last week, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a close ally of Meloni on the European Council, questioned a phone call made to Putin by the leaders of Finland and Norway, asking what they truly hoped to achieve.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre defended the conversation as a useful step taken in full coordination with Kyiv.

According to an EU official, the pair would be “more than happy” to discuss appointing a special envoy for Ukraine.

The official stressed, however, that the call was not “a bid” to position Stubb and Støre for the role.

Regardless, the war is unlikely to end this winter, even as Europeans explore fresh mechanisms to finance Ukraine.

“We must be realistic about peace talks and extremely cautious regarding Russia’s true intentions,” Donald Tusk said. “During the winter months, Putin may have less motivation to reach an agreement.”

Continue Reading

Europe

EU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises

Published

on

European Union citizens should be prepared to meet their basic needs independently for the first 72 hours of an emergency until public services can organize relief, according to new guidelines.

Hadja Lahbib, the European Commissioner for Equality, Crisis Management and Preparedness, presented the non-binding advisory guidance at the European Civil Protection Forum.

In her remarks on the initiative, Lahbib said: “When a disaster strikes, the first hours can be vital. Every European must know what to do, how to protect their family and how to help others. Preparedness begins in our homes, our schools and our communities.”

The Brussels leadership explained that the new measures are prompted by Europe facing increasingly frequent and complex crises.

Under the recommendations, the European Commission advised citizens to stockpile essential supplies and keep pre-packed emergency grab bags ready.

These steps aim to ensure that individuals can address their primary necessities independently during the first three days of a crisis, before state aid is mobilized.

The guidelines also encompass three additional priority areas: preparing children for emergency situations, making safety measures accessible to individuals with disabilities, and ensuring the public is better informed about potential threats.

Citing the 2001 founding anniversary of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, the European Commission also proposed designating 23 October as “EU Preparedness Day” each year starting in 2027.

EU member states are preparing for an extensive hybrid attack scenario that could result in casualties, according to a Politico report citing European diplomats and officials.

The report noted that divisions have emerged within the EU over the bloc’s security role and whether its initiatives duplicate the functions of NATO.

According to the same report, ambassadors from the 27 EU member states held closed-door meetings focusing on deploying emergency response teams and allocating resources from EU funds to an affected country.

Following the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine in 2022, both the EU and NATO intensified their preparations for a potential military confrontation with Russia.

In its “White Paper on European Defence – Preparedness 2030”, presented in March 2025, the European Commission identified Russia as one of the primary threats to European security.

The document outlines plans to boost defence production and improve air and missile defence, unmanned systems, and military mobility.

Meanwhile, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have begun drafting contingency action plans for a potential Russian attack, including measures for the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The three Baltic states decided in May 2025 to cooperate in the field of civil defence.

Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, head of the German Army, also stated that Berlin must be prepared for a Russian attack by 2029 or earlier.

On the other hand, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed in a statement in September that Moscow is not preparing for war with Europe.

Putin stated that Moscow has no such plans and that there are no justifications or real reasons to escalate the situation with Europe.

Criticising the European stance, Putin described rhetoric from European nations regarding a Russian threat and the necessity of preparing for war as a “provocation” and a “deliberate incitement of the situation.”

The Kremlin also noted that the EU is turning into a “military-political-economic bloc” by spending vast budgets to weaponize its economies.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that statements by EU nations regarding the risk of war with Russia are driving European rearmament, which could ultimately become a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In earlier remarks, Lavrov assessed that “if Europe attacks the Russian Federation, it will be a completely different war, and it will be over very quickly.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Paris meeting between Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage unscheduled

Published

on

Plans for a meeting in Paris between Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and French far-right National Rally (RN) figurehead Marine Le Pen remain uncertain.

Farage’s planned visit to France, which he announced for October as part of an effort to establish ties with figures on the European right before the end of the year, has yet to be officially scheduled by Le Pen’s camp.

Speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive inter-party relations, four National Rally officials familiar with Le Pen’s schedule said no visit to the party leader had been planned.

Multiple party figures said they saw no urgency in drawing media attention to relations with Reform UK or to the migration pact signed in September.

One official noted that the “costs and benefits” of holding a meeting with Farage needed to be weighed.

Political circumstances for both parties have shifted markedly since the prospect of a meeting with Le Pen, widely viewed as the candidate most likely to win the first round of the 2027 French presidential election, was first mooted.

Jordan Bardella, the National Rally’s second-in-command, attended Reform UK’s conference in Birmingham in early September as guest of honour.

Bardella and Farage announced an agreement proposing the return to France of all migrants reaching the UK through unauthorised Channel crossings in small boats.

The proposal triggered a backlash across different political factions in France, where critics questioned why the country should accept the return of asylum seekers.

Internal problems also emerged within Reform UK during the Birmingham conference.

Reform UK, which had maintained its polling lead over the Labour Party led by Andy Burnham, who took over as prime minister from Keir Starmer, was shaken by an undercover investigation published on the eve of the conference.

The development, which raised fresh questions over the party’s financial structure, led to the resignation of Farage’s two most senior aides.

Labour subsequently recovered in the polls, while a rise in the Conservative Party’s share of the vote began to challenge Reform UK’s second-place standing.

The initial announcement that Farage would travel to France to meet Le Pen before the end of October was also made at the Birmingham conference in early September.

Referring to a trip to Paris after Bardella delivered a speech in English, Farage said: “The only downside is I think they’re going to invite me to Paris, and I will have to speak French, but never mind, we’ll get round it.”

However, no official invitation has been confirmed.

As October drew to a close and it became clear that Farage would not pay a return visit to the National Rally’s conference in Orleans, a senior Reform UK official maintained that the meeting was on the calendar for this year.

The leadership in Paris does not confirm that schedule.

The four officials familiar with Le Pen’s plans said they were unaware of any scheduled visit for Farage before Christmas. One of Le Pen’s advisers suggested that a meeting could instead be offered with Bardella, whose standing inside the party has weakened in recent months.

Questioning the merits of the party leader appearing alongside Farage, another adviser to Le Pen said: “We need a bit more time to think through the costs and benefits.”

Thibaut Francois, an official with the National Rally’s European Parliament delegation, said that “regular contacts” with Reform UK continued and that the two parties would meet “very soon”, though he did not clarify whether that would take place this year.

A senior Reform UK official said: “Reform’s primary objective is to become battle-ready for British elections; parading on the international stage right now would add nothing to the UK message.”

Charles-Henri Gallois, an economic adviser to Bardella, argued that there was no need for further contact between the two parties, asserting that the migration agreement was “ready and waiting to be implemented” should both parties come to power.

“There is no need to discuss this further,” Gallois told Politico. “Critics of the agreement do not understand migration flows. This agreement is entirely in France’s interest.”

With French voters wary of a UK-style exit, Le Pen has long distanced herself from efforts to pull France out of the European Union.

Jean-Yves Camus, a far-right specialist at the Jean-Jaures Foundation think-tank, said: “Farage still supports Brexit, whereas Le Pen abandoned the idea [of Frexit] because it was too frightening for French voters. Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterms will also reinforce Le Pen’s distrust of Trumpism and its European counterparts.”

The level of internal support within the National Rally for the migration deal signed by Bardella and Farage was a subject of debate even as it was being concluded.

Since the party conference in September, Bardella’s position has continued to weaken following antisemitism allegations, which he has firmly denied.

Before reaching the agreement with Bardella, Farage had proposed launching “the largest military operation in the Channel since the Second World War” to push small boats back to the French coast.

A figure close to Le Pen told Politico at the time: “Why would we take [them] back to France if they are not French?”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey