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

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.”