34 · MT 2/2022 Nations in Focus the bigger issue is to excoriate Britain’s Defence Minister for opining there is a “whiff of Munich” in the air. This will offend Europeans, they say. Which Europeans, one wonders? How can it be offensive, in a time of crisis, to remind people of the similarities between the current situation and that of over eighty years ago? How on earth can it be offensive to suggest that we should learn from history? The point is not about Messrs Hitler or Putin – neither is it about demonising nations or peoples. The point is very simple: thing carefully and act decisively – or risk enduring similarly catastrophic consequences to the abysmal, obscene waste of blood and treasure the 1939-1945 conflict entailed: an estimated 70-85 million deaths worldwide – at least 26 million of them Russian, according to that nation’s own government statistics. The supporters of appeasement hold that Putin is not serious about invading Ukraine and is just flexing his muscles to please a domestic audience. If that were so, he would not need to have mobilised strategic transport, hefty logistical supply chains, millions of hectolitres of water and petroleum products, or trainloads of food. But he has. And the West’s reaction? It hovers toward the weaker end of the spectrum of robust, realistic diplomacy. What we should be saying is “If you invade Ukraine, we will bomb your armoured columns, blockade your ports, interdict your shipping, disrupt your finances, your economy and your industry in every way possible. You may believe ourself invulnerable at a tactical level – and you may be right. But if you insist on thumbing your nose at the rest of the world, the rest of the world will outlast you.” Whether we mean it or not is, perhaps, irrelevant – but uncertainty over that is key to success. And uncertainty diminishes when nothing is said. Instead, what we are actually saying is “If you invade Ukraine, we will stamp our little feet, call you bad names and take our toys home. And don’t under-estimate us – we are going to shout ever so loud – much louder than we ever have before.” Which is precisely what Putin wants to hear. That will validate his belief that the West is morally bankrupt, moribund and fragmented. Which will give him leave to act, having ‘sanction-proofed’ his nation – he believes. What we need is somebody to step up to the plate and meet Putin’s threats with his or her own. Somebody credible. Somebody with a couple of kilograms of moral courage. Somebody we might call a leader. Evidently, all such individuals are far too busy to do so. Perhaps they’re in a meeting. NATO Circles Wagons as Tension Mounts (Caterina Tani, 17 February) NATO is solid and united and the Open Door policy is untouchable - as is the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine (and Georgia). These were the main messages the Transatlantic Alliance conveyed at the end of the February ministerial meeting, as tensions mount in Ukraine. Very clear and firm messages, after yesterday’s general confusion of declarations and intentions – the expected Russian invasion according to Western intelligence and the alleged Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian borders according to Moscow. “No one else” other than NATO allies and the aspirant country can decide on NATO membership, stressed the Alliance’s SecretaryGeneral Jens Stoltenberg, adding that the Alliance won’t tolerate major “powers [to] bully, intimidate or dictate to others.” Besides reaffirming support to Ukraine, he also called once again on Russia to try to find common ground within the NATO-Russia Council. Over the last month, Tim Mahon, Editor-in-Chief; Caterina Tani, NATO/EU Affairs Correspondent; and Sam Cranny-Evans of the Royal United Services institute and a regular contributor, have posted on the Mönch Online News Channel (MON) at www.monch.com/news, in an attempt to provide perspective on events in Ukraine before and after the invasion. The following is a collection of some of these, mostly unedited and in chronological order. A Tale of Two Pictures (Tim Mahon, 14 February) The world is closer today to a so-called ‘conventional war’ in Europe than it has been for seven decades. Which is largely down to the difference in viewpoints of two ideologies turned practical autocracies. Henry Kissinger summed up the Ukraine situation very succinctly. “The West is trying to establish the legality of any established border. For Russia, Ukraine is part of the Russian patrimony” – a situation no different today than it was twenty or more years ago. Russia’s view, as summed up (somewhat cynically, one might assume) by Vladimir Putin, is “Nobody and nothing will stop Russia on the road to strengthening democracy and ensuring human rights and freedoms.” Across Europe, it seems, the man in the street’s view is “is this really worth going to war over?” Without, of course, giving too much time to trying to understand what “this” is. In Moscow, the quasi-legitimate complaints regarding Crimea and the broader Ukraine have been woven into the fabric of a magic carpet that will bear Putin (and therefore Russia) back through time to a position of power and influence he believes it used to enjoy. What it boils down to is whether or not we believe in the rule of law and the principle of no state power intervening in (or threatening) another. Which we do. Or, at least, we say we do. But we seem to be even more indecisive and divided than usual. The politically correct community is now diverting attention from the actually quite serious situation by suggesting The Invasion of Ukraine Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of the Russian Federation. (Photo: Russian internet)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=