Will Putin use chemical weapons and will the West risk him starting World War III? How much does this barbaric Putin war place global food supply at risk? And while less than perfect, the response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis must be safe, doable and affordable.
CRIMES AND AVOIDING CONFLICT
Putin, his commanders and his cronies know they are committing crimes against humanity, war crimes, not least with the blatant targeting of civilians and hospitals with brutal bombings. Is it not likely that they will resort to chemical weapons to subdue the primary Ukrainian cities? As happened with Aleppo in Syria. To some degree it is possible to shelter from shelling, but if the air fills with chlorine, mustard gas, sarin or other abhorrent poisons, there will be little escape for defenceless civilians, and it is hard to imagine their leaders allowing such suffering to continue for long. Putin may first attempt a murderous carpet bombing, reducing a city to rubble. But if urban resistance results in a drawn-out process, serious Russian casualties and the possibility of failure for Putin, as some Western commentators consider could happen, will he not do what it takes, that is use chemical weapons, to avoid humiliation and defeat? Being branded a war criminal will not perhaps deter him, as where would be the enforcement? And he may believe that over time Western resolve will weaken and compromise, and so terminate his pariah status.
It is apparent that Western democracies have no real deterrent for the Putin regime, President Biden, and other leaders, having made clear that direct military conflict between NATO and Russia might mean World War III. It does not necessarily mean that, but the risk of escalation into such a war is not one they are prepared to take. In fairness that is understandable, even though it is hard for Ukrainian leaders to endure the Western restraint, as it is Ukrainians who bear the real suffering. This is an almost insoluble problem where nations who, though imperfect, aspire to moral values and care for human life, are confronted with barbarism which completely disregards any morality if it interferes with the perpetrator’s demands. However, President Biden and leaders of NATO countries have been adamant that, if any NATO member is attacked, then NATO will defend that member to the hilt, thus risking World War III. The front line Eastern European members have to put their faith in that but, if Ukraine falls, Poland and others will be nervous.
Putin could call the Western bluff and enact his commitment to re-establish Russian control or influence over the old Warsaw pact countries, relying on Western fear of the next world war and nuclear Armageddon. If that comes to pass, with hindsight, the West’s refusal to enforce a no-fly zone in Ukraine or supply fighter jets could prove mistaken. But surely, they are right at this time not to take the risk, while it remains possible Putin will be in effect defeated. His usage of chemical weapons will further test that resolve, and, while the West makes threats of immense retaliation in that event, it is unclear what substance those threats have.
A WORLD FOOD CATASTROPHE LOOMS?
An Economist article entitled “Grainstorm” in the 12 March edition paints a grim outlook for world food supply and global agriculture if the war is prolonged or sanctions harden for a long period. Already the price of many foods has risen exorbitantly.
Ukraine is the world’s fifth largest supplier of wheat. That supply is drying up, not least because Russia has closed off Ukrainian ports such as Odesa, as well as the conduct of war bringing catastrophic disruption across Ukraine. Russia is the world’s biggest supplier of wheat: if Russia seriously reduces supply or if sanctions are imposed on Russian food exports the effect will be even more chilling. Wheat is becoming unaffordable for poorer countries. According to the Economist, 800 million people in the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia depend on Black Sea wheat.
Ukraine and Russia are significant suppliers of fertiliser ingredients: if supply of those dries up, worldwide agriculture will suffer. In addition, Russia and Ukraine are in the top five exporters of oilseeds, and cereals such as barley and corn. Russia’s senseless invasion is causing the cost of food to multiply. The global knock-on effects, when added to those attributable to energy and other commodity prices and shortages, are impossible to predict but serious recessions may emerge, and the poorest as ever will be worst hit. This potential catastrophe, it might be hoped, would turn even autocratic countries against the Putin regime, but that is not openly the case. What is certain is that starvation threatens millions in Ukraine itself.
REFUGEE CARNAGE
Some 3 million Ukrainian refugees already have crossed the borders into neighbouring countries, mainly women and children, as men up to age 65 are required to stay and protect Ukraine. The immediate problem is to ensure their safety, and the next to provide for their future. Each one has to be registered. As they arrive with only what they can carry, basic needs have to be tended to straight away, and the welcoming nations which border Ukraine are showing great resilience and embracing this influx of humanity. Some will have friends or family elsewhere in Europe and they may be their ultimate destination. Others will not. Solving the immediate problem requires humanitarian aid from across Europe. Each country will focus on different contributions according to strengths. The UK’s most immediate contribution, being far away, is inevitably in cash and kit.
All countries of Europe will have to share the load of providing medium to longer term homes for millions on their way. And nobody can say for how long the refugees will have to stay away from Ukraine: possibly months, perhaps years. Homes are being opened in Poland to strangers as well as in other countries but there is potential for massive tensions as a result. Certain cultures will find integration easier than others. The UK has been muddled in its approach to accepting refugees, criticised for being slow, mean, unwelcoming and hard-hearted. The UK Home Office seems to struggle woefully with immigration. While the UK has been making a leading contribution in aid, procuring support for Ukraine and in providing hardware, it is embarrassing to have been so unprepared in policy terms regarding providing refuge.
All sophisticated countries will require a registration and a visa process, even if some will be more fast track than others. The UK is right to insist on a proper programme and it is hoped the newly introduced schemes will do the job of providing real succour to those wishing to come to the UK. However, at a time when unity of purpose among all NATO countries and the West is critical, the politicking around the refugee crisis is shameful. That President Macron uses the opportunity to levy aggressive criticism at the UK for its approach to refugees indicates his general opportunism to seek out a leadership role in the Ukraine situation for his domestic electoral purposes. Charity shown for refugees, or indeed anybody else, should surely not be a matter for competition whether at a national or individual level and politicians and commentators need to avoid it. Likewise, BBC and Sky news presenters or interrogators who ask Ministers whether they will be opening their homes to refugees display a sorry lack of understanding of the personal context of charity and disrespect the plight of refugees, in their rush to compete on virtue.
It is easy to sound righteous and demand that unlimited numbers be allowed to come free of bureaucracy as they have suffered enough. But knee-jerk unthought-through soundbites will not help the refugee or the native host.Security requires checks. Safeguarding the vulnerable women and children from scammers and traffickers and slavers is critical – they will be met by many criminals here and in Europe with offerings “too good to be true” and they will not be true. Nor can the UK provide an open chequebook: humanity demands kindness and generosity, but Government funds are at their limits following the pandemic and consequential demands for funding from multiple sources.
It is thought that tens of thousands of Ukrainians will be admitted to the UK under recently announced schemes. They will not be perfect schemes and they will attract the usual critics. But assuming they offer some benefits to refugees, the challenge as ever will be in the effective implementation at the Civil Service and local levels. The UK currently has the unresolved issue of 37,000 asylum seekers and Afghan refugees residing in hotels in the UK at the taxpayers’ expense, thought to be over £4million per day. The righteous will demand that the Ukrainian refugees receive the fullest of support not just benefits and the chance to work, but also in mental health to deal with trauma, through the NHS, education, translators and so on. In a perfect world that would happen, but resources are limited and the backlog of sufferers following the pandemic are also in the queue. The UK should perhaps focus on delivering the deliverable and doable, and those with a political agenda should not dishonestly advocate with moral grandstanding a perfect service which is patently unattainable in the real world. There will have to be an element of make do.
THE BIG RETHINK
This war is disrupting the old-world order and unmasking its fragility, a house built of straw, and rightly there will be questioning of how to reorder and handle world relationships. Some say inevitably the real world is that a compromise will have to be agreed with Putin: perhaps better if Western leaders denounce for ever his criminality and woo the Russian people while rejecting their rulers. The goal long term must remain that Russia becomes a welcome participant in global affairs, but surely there should be no compromising over Putin’s guilt.
All countries of the world have their imperfections. Human rights are offended regularly in many nations, but still it will be necessary to deal with those nations on a daily basis. A rethink is needed however on how far the fundamental values and principles of right and wrong can be compromised in international and individual relations.
See also:
PUTIN BRINGS DESTRUCTION TO 44 MILLION PEOPLE
l
