In an interview with the Swiss daily “Weltwoche” 4-star General (ret.), former Chief of Staff of the German Armed Forces and chairman of the NATO Military Commission, General Harald Kujat assessed the present situation in the Ukraine war. According to him the Russian Armed Forces have been steadily progressing; the main focus to watch on the battlefield would be Pokrovsk, a major logistical hub for the Ukraine Armed Forces, which the Russia Armed Force at present are turning into a cauldron, with Pokrovsk potentially collapsing, the entire frontline in the East could collapse, Kujat said. “Pokrovsk is important for the logistical supply of the entire Ukraine front. Russia tries to get momentum, its not primarily territory, but its aim is to bind the military forces of Ukraine and paralyze them, following the classical thinking of the German military theoretician von Clausewitz. Kujat warned about efforts being made to escalate the Ukraine war, by stating that Ukraine tries to gear the war toward an escalatory level for the USA and NATO (as was exemplified by the June Ukraine “SpiderWeb attack” against Russia’s strategic Bomber Fleet.) “Even with all the material and financial support, Ukraine is not able to win this war and the line given by so many in Europe and Germany that “Ukraine can’t lose”, is by now “obsolete.”
According to Kujat, from a Russian point of view, the war in Ukraine is a proxy war. It is existential and could become nuclear. Concerning his assessment about Trump’s ultimatum 50 days, then turned into a ten to twelve days ultimatum to Russia, Kujat spoke about two different options: one is the “ceasefire” which Trump announced in February this year. The second is peace negotiations. While the US wants “unconditional ceasefire”, Russia is emphasizing that “peace negotiations” are primary, in particular in respect to the question what “caused the war and what kind of security conditions should exist “in the context of peace. He criticized, that unfortunately during the first round of talks in February this year (in S.A.) the US negotiators made a “tactical mistake” namely n o t to talk first to the Russians side about their main concerns. Instead, they immediately went out publicly announcing an “unconditional ceasefire.” There were then three rounds of negotiations in Istanbul, yet with no fundamental progress concerning the modalities of the ceasefire and peace negotiations. If we follow the propaganda lines, the blame is put on Russia that supposedly is not ready for peace discussion and ceasefire. Yet if we carefully look at the memoranda from the Russian side, this is not true. (Russia insists on a neutral Ukraine whose Armed Forces are significantly reduced and on the takeover of 3 oblasts.) In respect to Trump’s recent 50 days ultimatum, which was changed by Trump into 10–12-day ultimatum, with secondary sanctions imposed on China and India, Kujat underlined that “this is not a leverage that will push Russia to accept such sanction demands.”
In respect to Ukraine’s military manpower, he emphasized Ukraine’s significant manpower problem. Alone in Germany there are 100.000 Ukrainian young men living, aside a huge number of deserters in Ukraine and many personnel losses on the battlefield. The present effort by the Ukraine government to recruit men up to the age of 60(!) and the widespread pictures about coercing young men into military service are “quite disturbing”. “Militarily Russia is getting close to the realization of its war aims.” Kujat stressed that even if new weapons were deployed, they are not decisive for the war. Russia has the military supremacy, while the Ukraine has shifted many of its attacks into terror attacks by drones. All this however will not change anything in terms of the “underlying dynamic” on the battlefield. The often-repeated line that Russia will attack Europe by 2027, according to Kujat, is contradicted by the March 2025 report of the US Secret Services according to which Russia would not attack Europe; they would need 10 years to reconstitute their forces.
Concerning the role of Ukraine President Zelenskyy who recently had to face mass demonstrations that were protesting against his hectic maneuvers to bring the independent Anti- Corruption institutions under his government control, Kujat emphasized that Zelenskyy should be replaced, given that he is “an impediment for the peace negotiations. He wants to stick to power.” He clarified again that “Putin pushes for peace negotiations that include a neutral Ukraine which will give up some of its territory.” Despite Trumps very erratic character, he said, it remains a fact that Trump builds pressure in order to end the war. According to Kujat the month of September may be an occasion to see some light at the end of the tunnel. On September 8 th Chinese President Xi Jinping has invited Trump and Putin to attend the 80-year celebrations marking the end of the second world war against Japan. “We should hope that Trump joins this format and that this may serve as platform for some constructive solution to the war.”
“Eurasia” and the present discussion in Germany
Since the inauguration of the new German CDU/ CSU and SPD government coalition there has been a significant increase in “war rhetoric” along the line that “Germany will have to prepare for a potential war against Russia” and become “ready for war” (kriegstüchtig) as German Defense minister Pistorius (SPD) often expressed aside German Army Generalmajor Christian Freuding who was talking about the need to strike deep inside Russia. One can hardly believe that this country Germany, which paved the way for peace and played a key role at Helsinki 1975- 50 years ago-, is today in the forefront of calling for a confrontation with Russia. Why are parts of the German political elite suddenly so eager to prepare for war with Russia and what is the background to the growing Russophobia in Germany?
In order to explain this phenomenon, we should look at Great Britain, the country that in Europe is the most vociferous anti-Russian bulwark and instrumental in the history of the so-called “Geat Game” against Russia in the 19th and 20th century, which provoked two world wars. Not only is Great Britain one of the key supporters of President Zelensky. It is also the most outspoken defender in terms of continuing the war against Russia. A key to this discussion in Germany is the recent publication of Herfried Münkler’s book (2025) “Germany’s role in Europe and the challenges of the 21rst century”.
The German historian Herfried Münkler, SPD member, and one of the most respected experts in modern German history, in April of this year published his latest book, which reads like an “commissioned work” for some people in “political decision-making positions”. Unlike previous interesting studies like his book about the first world war and about the catastrophes of the 21rst century, this book is like an apology for the “Zeitenwende” (epochal change)- the turn of Germany to a war like economy and its preparation for a potential war with Russia. Münkler (unlike the American Prof. Mearsheimer et al.) is “ideological” (he calls himself a “melancholic member of the SPD”). The central topic of his book is to argue in favor of a “strategic leadership role of Germany in Europe.” It should be oriented along the line that Germany in light of the Russian threat either submits to the US-NATO doctrine or choses the alliance and dialogue with Russia, i.e. adopts a “Eurasian strategy” with Russia being a centerpiece. We can read at one point (page 152): “Since the start of the war in Ukraine and the Russophile policy of the German populist parties (AFD and BSW), the ‘German question is again back on the agenda’ that has dominated the European continent from 1871- 1945. The question will be whether Germany plays a role in the West, with or without the US and with it the role of a European central power or whether it plays a role as a “Eurasian central power. (…) Are they in favor of a rapprochement with Russia with the consequence of a break up of NATO and the EU which would be a consequence of a close relation between Moscow and Berlin!” The main target of Münkler is Russian Eurasianism. Alexander Dugin, a close friend of Putin, is according to Münkler very much in favor of a future Eurasian project- even if this is fairly diffuse.
The main target for Münkler is hence Russian Eurasianism. He therefore states: “The war in Ukraine and the threats against Georgia and Armenia, but also concerns among the Baltic states Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania- all being NATO members- is that they could become targets of Russian attacks and the geostrategic background to this is the Eurasia project of the Russian political elite”, Münkler writes. He further states that “the restauration of imperial Russia corresponding to the territorial expansion of tsarist Russia or the S.U. after the second world war, could be the next step of a Russia dominated Eurasia. Midterm geostrategic aim is to dissolve the link between Europe and North America and get political military control of the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. Long term it’s the dominance over Europe!” Münkler states.
Among the main challenges that Germany will face, if it wants to be a “Servant leader” in Europe is 1. Political, military threat by Russia which irrespective how the Ukraine war ends, puts Europe under the pressure of nuclear threats and plays Europeans against each other; 2. The disengagement of the US from Europe under Trump; 3. Trump’s erratic tariff policy could lead to a deindustrialization of Europe and Germany should not be junior partner of the US in the war against China. 4. Europe must reflect how to limit illegal migration from Southern Europe; the moral overstretch of the populists must be contained. There is need to strengthen Germany’s economic, technological growth and infrastructure build up. This preconditions major EU reforms.
Halford Mackinder and the “Eurasian Heartland” concept
As we recall the “Eurasian” heartland concept which Münkler warns about was a theory developed by British Geopolitician, Halford Mackinder. In the year 1904, this British geographer and historian presented his theory about the Eurasian heartland in front of the Royal Geographical society (1904). We should recall that the concept of the “Eurasian heartland” was what marked the geopolitical conflicts that led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II – and have served recently as the basis for the geopolitical Russia -Ukraine conflict.
In his speech in front of the Royal Geographical Society, Mackinder predicted the end of the “Columbian age”, in which the ruling of the seas was key to world power. Given the infrastructural development of the railway, he predicted that “the land mass of Eurasia will rise to become the geopolitical center of world power. Mackinder presented four geopolitical zones which were decisive for getting world power: The heartland – the center of the Eurasian land mass (mostly Russia); the rim-land which is the landmass at the side of these areas, which had access to the continent and to the oceans (including the German and Austro- Hungarian Empire); an inner crescent including Turkey, India and China. And an outer crescent GB, South-Africa, Australia, the United States, Canada and Japan. Mackinder’s main thesis was that Great Britain was threatened by the potential formation of a “coalition between heartland and rim land” and that Great Britain had to do everything to “preempt an alliance between Germany and Russia.”
What really bothered Mackinder, was the “Eurasian Heartland” and particularly Russia’s railway development. At one point in his speech 1904 he underlined that transcontinental railways can nowhere have such an effect “as in the closed heartland of Euro-Asia, in vast areas of which neither timber nor accessible stone was available for road making”. He made reference to the enormous importance of the trans-Siberian Railway and predicted that “the century will not be old before Asia is covered with railways.” He concluded by stating that the oversetting of the balance of power in favor of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit the use of vast continental resources for fleet- building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. “This might happen, if Germany were to ally herself with Russia”. (!!)
The geopolitical thinking which Mackinder outlined more than 100 years ago provoked two world wars: the First Word War (1914-1918) and the Second World War (1939-1945). Beginning with the murder of the archduke of Austria in Sarajevo July 28th 1914, a full war mobilization began with Russia, 31rst July 1914, followed by Germany August 1rst, and then by England, France, Belgium at al. Italy and Rumania joining the war in 1915. Thousands of young people in Germany but also France enthusiastically joined the war with patriotic fervor: In the first part of the war most of the young generations were killed on the battlefield. An entire academic generation, as the writers Stefan Zweig, Thomas Mann and the philosopher Max Scheler had described, got lost in the trenches. A generation which had thought that the war would be a “cathartic” moment for the nations. This war resulted in 17 million victims, of which 7 were civilians. It became a war of attrition 1915 the so-called war of the trenches, then followed by chemical weapon wars and an unlimited submarine war. 1917 the USA joined the allied powers in the war and in 1918 November 11th in Compiegne (France), the first world war came to an end. The war ended with a collapse of the Austro- Hungarian, the Russian Tsarist Empire, the British Empire, the German Reich under Kaiser Wilhelm and the Ottoman Empire.
Then in 1939 -almost 30 years later- the second World War began with Hitler’s invasion September 1 939 into Poland, a war which lasted till May 1945, leaving behind a Europe that had been totally bleeding out- especially its young generations. With Nazi- Germany having been defeated, the war ended with 60 million people dead, – alone in Russia 27 Mio! In the post war period, the debate passionately focused on slogans such as “never war again.” The fathers of the German Constitution and the efforts made by Chancellor Adenauer, de Gaulle, de Gasperi and Schumann to create a Europe based on cooperation and dialogue, went in line with courageous SPD politicians like Willy Brandt, who gave room for a powerful reflex in the search of peace and dialogue. In the beginning 1970ies efforts were made both from the German and Soviet side to open channels of peaceful dialogue and cooperation. This powerful impulse for peace paved the way for the famous Helsinki 1975 accords as well as years later the fall of the Berlin wall 1989 that marked the end of the partition in Europe and also the dissolution of the S.U.
Münkler in his latest book is much farther away from reality than for example the US scientist Prof. John Mearsheimer, known for his Realism. In a recent discussion which Prof Mearsheimer had with Eurasia expert Prof. Glenn Diesen, Mearsheimer, being asked what would be his advice for Europe to end the war in Ukraine answered: “If I were Europe, I would make great efforts to stop the war and try to build good relations with Russia and China. And I would be interested in seeing the European economy grow. I would accept that the US will partially withdraw from Europe. The leading Europeans think in ways that are based on ‘illusions.’ They also suffer from a demographic problem. In 10 years, the liberal elite will be replaced by others (…) The unipolar age is finished, we live in a multipolar world. Definitely the idea of the US as a “benign hegemon” that could establish democracies everywhere in the world along the US model, is gone. What we now have is a more realist point of view.” He further added that “from a realist point of view 1. Ukraine should be neutral and not join NATO. 2. Ukraine has to disarm and can’t have significant offensive weapons. 3. It should recognize the loss of Crimea and of the three Oblasts. Trump would accept this but unfortunately Ukraine and Europe are against this. And the reason why they exaggerate the Russia threat is because they fear the most a US withdrawl from Europe.”
