Russian Satellite News Agency reported that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany Andrei Melinik said in an interview with the media recently that the Ukrainian side not only hopes that Germany will provide it with warships and modern air defense systems, but also that the issue of arms supply is still on the agenda of relations with Germany. The Ambassador of Ukraine said: First of all, German warships, which we urgently need to defend the coast of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov; secondly, there is the most modern air defense system, which the Ukrainian side also urgently needs.
However, at present, due to the lack of political will on the Part of Berlin, Ukraine's request has been rejected in the face of a serious danger of war in Europe, so I think Germany should follow the example of Britain, which decided to supply Ukraine with anti-tank weapons. In layman's terms, according to the meaning of the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Germany should now give what Ukraine needs.
Otherwise, if Germany does not supply Ukraine with the weapons and equipment it wants, it will mean that the German side not only lacks correct political prejudgment, but even the Ukrainian side will have a negative view of the relationship between the two countries. The reason why Ukrainian officials say this is that German Chancellor Scholz has made it clear that because Berlin advocates a political negotiation solution to the Ukrainian problem, not only will Germany not supply weapons of destruction to Ukraine, but this policy guideline will remain unchanged.
In other words, the German side has already rejected Ukraine's request to purchase its warships and modern anti-aircraft weapons, and Ukrainian officials are now complaining or fighting for it, hoping that Germany can change its previous decision and reconsider supplying Ukraine with some of the weapons and equipment it needs.
Objectively speaking, although the Ukrainian side accuses Germany of lacking political will, in fact, the political will or political prejudgment that Germany currently holds is not only quite firm, but also very correct. For example, the "danger of war in Europe" emphasized by the Ukrainian ambassador, if it really happens in the future, then it is likely to be triggered by the outbreak of military conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. In this case, if a group of European countries, including Germany, continue to supply weapons of mass destruction to Ukraine, the more likely the conflict will break out.
That is to say, even if Germany agrees to supply the Ukrainian side with warships and modern anti-aircraft weapons, this behavior will not only prevent the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but may even increase the risk of military conflict in the region, which is precisely the "risk of War in Europe" that the Ukrainian ambassador emphasized.
Conversely, if Germany refuses to supply Ukraine with warships and modern air defense systems, in the case of a very large gap in military strength, Germany's move will actually minimize the risk of Ukraine unilaterally launching military provocations and triggering a Russian-Ukrainian military conflict that will pull Europe into war. In other words, whether Russia will use force against Ukraine or not depends on whether the other side has several German warships or air defense systems; the Ukrainian side is different, and if it does not have the military support of the West, then in theory, the possibility of military provocation against Russia will be very low.
That is to say, Europe cannot control Russia's actions, but it can reduce the "danger of war in Europe" by controlling Ukraine's behavior. From this, it can be seen that Germany's political and even military prejudgment is actually very correct, and there is no doubt about this.
If this is the case, why can Britain, a European country, supply Ukraine with weapons of mass destruction, including anti-tank missiles, and is its political prejudgment wrong? In fact, the reason why the current British approach to solving the Ukrainian problem is not the same as that of Germany is mainly because of the difference in geopolitical relations between the two sides.
For example, the first is that the United Kingdom has left the European Union; the second, although the United Kingdom is in Europe, it is not only far from Russia and Ukraine compared to Germany, but also separated by an English Channel. At the same time, it is important to note that the current Uk is bent on breaking away from Europe and restarting the Atlantic Partnership, that is, hoping to move its geopolitical relations westward. To this end, Britain must appropriately relax some of its concerns about European interests and adjust its strategic focus to the United States!
In summary, if Britain is more geopolitically inclined to cooperate with the United States, then it is bound to adopt and continue the strategic policy that the United States has previously pursued towards Europe, that is, to use or even intensify the contradictions between Europe and Russia, and to achieve a goal of containing both sides at the same time through confrontation between the two.
In fact, from the perspective of prioritizing interests, the United States not only has a competitive relationship with major powers such as Russia, but also looks at odds with Europe, and both sides are actually formulating corresponding foreign and military policies for their own interests.
This shows that Germany's current refusal to supply Ukraine with warships and modern air defense systems is mainly to safeguard the security and interests of the European region, while the United States and Britain, unlike the United Kingdom, hope to intensify the contradictions between Europe and Russia by supporting Ukraine, thus triggering a conflict and gaining strategic benefits.
Objectively speaking, therefore, the "political will" that Germany currently retains for its own interests is actually correct. Instead, Ukraine, what it calls "political will" actually makes itself look more like a pawn! For example, from a partial point of view, Ukraine hopes to obtain diplomatic and military support from Europe, mainly to borrow the strength of the other side to oppose or even attack Russia, that is, to use the Contradiction between Russia and Europe to fight for its own interests, which looks like a gamer.
However, from a macroscopic point of view, Britain and the United States are using the contradictions between Europe and Russia to divide the two sides, so as to gain more ability to dominate and even control the political and military trend of the European region, and Ukraine at this time is precisely a pawn they use to intensify the contradictions between Russia and Europe. To use two old sayings to describe, that is, "the clams compete with each other to catch the fishing and win, and the praying mantis catches the cicadas and yellow finches in the back"!
On the surface, in the game around the situation in Ukraine, a number of European countries seem to be in a state of being used, but in fact, the European (OSCE) organization actually has its own small calculations, on the one hand, it wants to contain Russia through the hands of the United States; on the other hand, it is using Russia to balance the United States, using the contradictions between the two sides to enhance its right to speak and obtain more strategic benefits.
This is also the main reason why former US President Trump once claimed in a telephone interview with Fox TV that "Europe established the European Union to take advantage of the United States and take advantage of the United States". In general, at present, Germany's refusal to supply warships and modern air defense systems to Ukraine is to safeguard the security and interests of Europe; and at present, when Britain no longer cares about European interests, Ukraine still hopes that Germany will follow Britain's example.