Nations in Focus MT 2/2022 · 37 consequences for Putin if he does this,” our leaders have cried in recent days and weeks. Guess what? He didn’t believe you! And he still doesn’t. Risks need to be measured, assessed and directly, boldly addressed. Defence is an insurance policy and we continue to pay the premiums, only to be told when the time comes that this specific event is not covered by the policy. Our military commanders have undoubtedly read Sun Tzu, von Clausewitz, Liddell Hart and Mao Tse Tung. Our elected leaders evidently have not. Shame on them. Throw the celery away, ladies and gentlemen. Time to reach for the big stick. But perhaps you care not for the fact that nations, populations and polities will elect not to trust your word in future. Indolence, indecision and ineptitude have brought us to the very brink of war once more – and over the edge, for the people of Ukraine. What price common sense? And what price honour? Aces and Eights (Tim Mahon, 23 February) In a piece filed from Brussels last night and posted on MON this morning, our NATO and EU Affairs Correspondent, Caterina Tani, accurately reported the position adopted by both Jens Stoltenberg and Josep Borrell towards Putin’s de facto invasion of Ukrainian territory. Both are doing their utmost to keep the door open for dialogue with Moscow – and that is a laudable, humane approach to the problem. Success in this regard is entirely to be hoped for. Consider, however, the view from the Kremlin’s windows. Despite Donald Trump’s characterisation of Putin’s invasion as “genius” and “pretty savvy” on a US radio show on Tuesday, we suggest nothing could be further from the truth. Which, to be frank, is fairly consistent with the great majority of the former president’s random meanderings through the English language in his stunningly brief associations with reality. Putin is neither a genius nor is he especially savvy – but he is ambitious, he is an opportunist and he is a gambler. His ambition lies in the ‘restoration’ of Ukraine as a Russian possession – not so much for the economic benefits and access to assets and maritime reach that would accrue, as for the intangible but very real political kudos he would gain, at home and abroad, for daring – and winning. His opportunism lies in the fact that he thinks – maybe even believes – that the seemingly inexhaustible capacity for prevarication being displayed by his antagonists is permanent and unchanging. Therefore he has the time to act. In this, he may even be right, though we sincerely hope that transformation is coming with the same degree of ponderous inexorability as climate change – though, perhaps, a tad faster. His character as gambler is altogether more dangerous. Believing he can play his opponents off against each other and marshal the moral support of notionally unaligned states behind him, he undoubtedly thinks Russia can withstand sanctions long enough for his hybrid approach to this campaign to present the world with the fait accompli of Ukraine once more a Russian satellite. Undermining the Ukrainian economy, terrorising large swathes of the population, imitating Trump in blaming much of the uncertainty on ‘fake news,’ indulging wholesale in the age-old Russian tradition of dezinformatsiya (read propaganda) and using cyber warfare to ruthlessly exploit and fracture the undoubted instabilities in Ukrainian political life, Putin is following his own instincts and, believing Fortune favours the bold, is reaching for the glittering prize. The distinct distaste for action by the West is fueling Putin’s ambition, encouraging his opportunism and – potentially – rewarding his gambling. No stone should be left unturned in seeking a peaceful resolution to the question of Ukraine – and avoiding bloodshed. Sceptics, however, might characterise the continued vacillation in national capitals as having rather more isolationist, selfish origins. “Why bother?” is, perhaps, a question hovering almost unseen over many cabinet offices, chancelleries and government offices. difficult decisions. Ukraine deserves better of its so-called supporters. We deserve better of our elected politicians. We deserve better results from the countless billions of taxpayer funds poured into so-called defence and security policies. And we deserve common sense and real, joined-up, grown-up thinking in the way those policies are devised, resourced and implemented. For it is not just to frustrate Putin’s delusional design that his current chevauchée needs to be put down and his ambitions curbed. As former leader of the Conservative Party and Cabinet Minister in the UK, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, told the House this afternoon, “China will be watching” proceedings in eastern Ukraine with keen interest, debating internally whether a similar approach to its own ‘problems’ in Taiwan (or Tibet, or the South China Sea) might attract similarly apparently ineffective response from its antagonists. What we do today will have a direct effect on our childrens’ tomorrows. And if we continue to offer bluster rather than boldness, to substitute appeasement for action and to reward imperial ambitions with indifference – those tomorrows look gloomy indeed. This is not a time for sanctions. The time to impose those is past – it was lost in ineffective debate and self-absorbed vacillation. Oh, they are a first step – of course they are. The point is that first step should have been taken earlier. But we are where we are – too little, too late, according to a slim majority in this magazine’s exceedingly limited straw poll today. The consensus is that sanctions need to be supported by parallel (not subsequent) action at the military level. Movement of troops – preferably closer to where they may potentially be needed, rather than in uninvolved nations hundreds of kilometres away – aggressive aerial reconnaissance and naval manoeuvres close to but not violating Russian territorial waters – these are all viable options that carry unequivocal messages for Putin. Yes, they carry concomitant risk. But risk – despite what some politicians are alleged to believe – is part of effective diplomacy. Regrettably, perhaps not in an age in which we are willing to alter history, even erase inconvenient parts of it, in order to have to avoid learning from it. The tragedy for Ukraine is that, after all the fine words, the economic aid, the training and the provision of equipment, the one thing its allies are signally failing to provide is the thing it stands in greatest need of. Physical help against the local bully. That is not just sad – it verges on the despicable. We said that Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty were inviolable. Yet here it stands – violated. “There will be serious And the result? Russian ‘boots on the ground.’ (Photo: Atlantic Council)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=