The crazy chessboard Biden has set up forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back

Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) in International Law, Harvard University

A long read, but worth it.

Christoph Schlitz of Die Welt provides an excellent overview of Ukraine’s need for Germany’s Taurus missiles, how they would have a big impact in Ukraine’s prosecution of the war, and particularly how they could affect the course of the war in the Crimea and in the South.¹

He also mentions in passing how the capabilities of weapon systems furnished to Ukraine have been deliberately limited to absolutely prevent Ukraine from using them to attack targets in Russia. This includes even bases from which missile strikes are being launched against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure . Ukraine has every right to attack these bases and supply lines in lawful exercise of the right of self-defense under international law and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

The article led me to think, once again, about the extraordinary degree President Joe Biden (and also German Chancellor Olaf Scholz) have dithered and delayed in reaching decisions to supply Ukraine with weapons it desperately needs. Eventually, the transfers may be authorized, but the weapons always seem to arrive late and with limitations on their capabilities that greatly reduce Ukraine’s ability to use them to decisively defeat Russian forces on the battlefield.

It is quite extraordinary, actually, how the U.S. and NATO countries have invested huge sums of money in supplying weapons to Ukraine, but have done so in a matter which almost seems deliberately designed not only to help Ukraine avoid defeat but also to prevent dramatic and decisive advances on the battlefield.benevolence of its arms suppliers, particularly the United States, is in no position to publicly and loudly criticize military supporters for the their constant indecisiveness and delays, and especially for the limitations they impose on the capabilities of the weapons they supply.

These delays and excuses are at times nearly unbelievable. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Schlitz reports, is now raising as an excuse for inaction what he calls Constitutional questions–-to wit, whether the Bundestag (parliament) must authorize the transfer of the Taurus missiles because, Scholz seems to argue, German soldiers would be used to input precise targeting coordinates, and that participation could be interpreted as Germany participating in a war against Russia.²

The argument is absurd on several grounds.

First, Schlitz cites independent military experts as saying Ukrainian soldiers are quite capable of inputting the targeting coordinates themselves. What is apparently involved is Scholz’s desire to control the inputting of targeting data in order to ensure that the Ukrainians don’t attack targets in Russia. For Scholz, the fact that the Ukrainians have always honored the promises exacted from them not to attack targets in Russia is insufficient. Germany must actually control the inputting of targeting information.

This is not dissimilar to the action taken by President Biden when he finally authorized the transfer of HIMARS artillery units to Ukraine. He agreed to do so only after the HIMARS units had been modified so that they could not fire the ATACMS artillery rockets with a range of 180 miles or 300 km. The HIMARS were modified so that they could only launch shells with a range of 50 miles or 80 km.

Second, Scholz is creating a political obstacle for himself by raising the issue of a possible need for Bundestag authorization for the transfer.

Germany has ratified the U.N. Charter and is under Article 51 authorized to take military action in collective self-defense in the event if an “armed attack” against a state requesting assistance.

By Scholz’s apparent reasoning, even action taken in collective self-defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter would also require authorization by the Bundestag.

Such an interpretation of the German Constitution would render Germany’ potential response to an attack on a NATO country nearly meaningless.

Third, since the advent of the United Nations Charter in 1945, the legal concepts of war and being a party to a war no longer exist, except for a narrow exception in international humanitarian law for being a party to an “international armed conflict”. That exception has no bearing on Scholz’s decision whether or not to send the Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Scholz needs to update his files with inputs from international legal experts both inside and outside his administration.

Since 1945, the relevant U.N. Charter and international law concepts are individual and collective self-defense in response to an “armed attack” in violation of the prohibition of the use of force contained in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the U.N. Charter.

Engaging in military actions of collective self-defense of Ukraine does not and would not make Germany a party to a war against Russia under international law. Uninformed and ignorant popular beliefs may embody concepts which have not existed, legally, since 1945.

Scholz should be explaining the post-1945 concepts of armed attack and collective self-defense to his countrymen and the world, not spreading popular misconceptions and raising questions about Germany’s ability to fulfill its obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

I understand that such detailed legal arguments may be tedious and difficult to follow for the non-specialist, but they are critical to an understanding of the flimsy and fallacious arguments the Chancellor seems to be offering to justify his inaction on the transfer of the Taurus missiles.

Schlitz’s article reminds me of the way Joe Biden has set up the chessboard and the rules regarding which pieces may be moved and in which direction.

In fact, Biden has turned Queens into Castles, and Castles into Pawns.

Biden has established the following Rules, which in effect amount to rules to ensure the enforcement of Putin’s “red lines”:

These rules are:

1. No weapons furnished by the U.S. (or other NATO countries) may be used by Ukraine to attack targets within Russia proper, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.

2. As a condition for the receipt of weapons that could theoretically be used to attack targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge, Ukraine must solemnly promise not to use them to do so.

3. The U.S. and other NATO countries will make physical modifications on weapons in order to ensure that they cannot be used to attack targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.

4. U.S. intelligence and other assets will not be used to enable Ukraine to strike targets in Russia, or the Kerch Strait Bridge.

Why has Biden been enforcing Putin’s red lines in this manner?

Why has Biden refused to allow U.S. and NATO country weapons to be used by Ukraine against targets in Russia from which missiles are launched at Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, as Ukraine is authorized to do by international law and the U.N. Charter?

Why, in a word, has Joe Biden been forcing Ukraine to fight the invading forces of Russia, a nuclear superpower, with one hand tied behind its back?

The answer appears to be Biden’s inordinate fear of Putin’s nuclear threats.

That is a subject for another article.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the logic of the war and what is at stake, including the United Nations Charter and its prohibition of the illegal use of force, suggests that the U.S. and NATO will have to face down Russia’s nuclear threats sooner or later–-whether in a couple of years, four years, or 10 years.

Unless, of course, Donald Trump wins the November 2024 presidential election, is certified as the winner by the states and by Congress (overcoming the apparent prohibition contained in Article 14 paragraph 3 of the Constitution), and takes office in January 2025.

Of course, if this happens, not only Ukraine but all of us will be living in an entirely different world.

See also

1)”India's descent into Hindu nationalism and fascism,” The Trenchant Observer, September 30, 2023.

2)”Ukraine War, September 27, 2023: Experts agree--The international order is crumbling,” The Trenchant Observer, September 27, 2023.

3)”Azerbaijan's aggression and alleged genocide in the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh (Updated September 30, 2023), The Trenchant Observer, September 22, 2023 (updated September 30, 2023.

2023.

***

Support the Author

Your author needs your support.

You may sign up for a free subscription. To receive all of the content as soon as it is published and to support the newsletter, please upgrade to a Paid or Founding Member subscription. To do so, click on the “Subscribe now” button below.

Alternatively, you may make a contribution to the author’s Go Fund Me appeal by clicking on the last button below. Go Fund Me does not take 10% as Substack does.

1. See,

1) Christoph B. Schiltz, “Darum sind die deutschen Taurus für Kiew jetzt wichtiger denn je,” Die Welt, den 29. September 2023:

2) Christoph B. Schiltz, “That’s why the German Taurus are now more important than ever for Kiev,” Die Welt, September 28, 2023;

2. Bojan Pancevski, “Germany Stalls Delivery of Long-Range Cruise Missiles to Ukraine; Berlin blocks delivery of Taurus to avoid placing German technicians on the ground,” Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2023 (6:51 am ET).