Will Putin succeed in restoring to Russian “ownership” much of the old Empire it lost, starting with Ukraine? He has already succeeded in stealing back Crimea by force. Although his barbaric grab for the whole of Ukraine has stalled, that remains a declared target. Forced by failure of the original blitzkrieg strategy started in February, his recent heavy focus on the Donbas region and daily destruction of property and people’s lives from the safe distance of artillery range is meeting with some success it seems. The approach of maximum random destruction of the area by sheer overwhelming bombardment means he now controls, at least for the time being, some 20% of Ukraine.
The fierce Ukrainian resistance has meant Putin’s progress is much slower than anticipated, but, as the withdrawal recently by Ukrainian forces from Severodonetsk and the Luhansk region as a whole illustrates, there must be a big question mark over how long Ukrainian forces and people can endure the wanton pounding and the stressful pressure it imposes on a daily basis. In sheer power terms Ukraine is outgunned many times over. President Zelensky wants the war over by the Autumn, and for him that means the repulsion of Putin’s criminal army from Ukraine, his declared stance being that he will not agree a peace which involves the ceding of any Ukrainian territory. This defiant rhetoric is admirable and just in its intention, but unless evidenced by victories cannot alone sustain resistance.
That resistance itself depends on the rich major Western nations standing united in supporting the Ukrainian military fight as well as financially backing the Ukraine’s ongoing daily life. Given reports that Ukraine has exhausted its Russian-made armoury, that dependence extends to the continual supply of Western weaponry and training and ammunition in sufficient volume and in quick time. That is not an infinite source.
THE CHURCH’S APPROACH?
And so, is the Bishop of Leeds right, having been reported as writing to the Church of England Synod that the only way to get peace is if Ukraine cedes to Russia the Donbas region? That will entail Putin winning, having time to regroup and rearm as he chooses, and launch a new invasion on the rest of Ukraine, and perhaps in due course other bits of lost empire. Is any peace agreed by Putin worth anything at all as he has proved his approach to lie and disregard all commitments when it suits? Is appeasement of the modern-day Adolf Hitler a real option? If he has success, will that not inevitably lead him to conclude that the Western democracies have no real stomach for sustained conflict and the economic cost? Will he not at a time of his choosing indulge his insatiable appetite to destroy and steal by inhuman force whatever he fancies? A dangerous option has been enunciated by the Bishop of Leeds, but the same option could well be in the minds of certain Western leaders, whatever they may say today about standing firm with Zelensky.
The recent G7 and NATO conferences affirmed that the U.S., the critical supporter of Ukraine, the UK, France and Germany will continue heavy arms supply and support. But it is evident from previous utterings by Messrs. Macron of France and Scholz of Germany that there may be a willingness on their part to force a peace which involves a sacrifice of territory by Ukraine. Those countries and maybe others in Europe may be unwilling to suffer the cost of defending world Democracy, even though long term the cost could be considerably greater if Putin is indulged as a victor through so-called peace treaties, perhaps not worth the paper they are written on. Defence experts compare today with 1937 when the lessons of appeasement were learnt with the price of millions of lives, and economic meltdown.
The EU is certainly divided with Eastern European member nations most concerned that they could be on Putin’s hit list and so needing his total defeat, even though they suffer from loss of Russian energy in the form of oil and gas. Those further removed and also dependent on that energy may see peace, at any cost to the Ukrainian people, worth it to salvage their affluent lifestyle. Whatever the position of these countries, as their military strength is relatively small, if the USA slackens its commitment to Ukraine, then that will ensure Ukraine’s demise or a peace on terms Ukraine hates.
ATTRITION, FOOD, FATIGUE AND FEAR
At the NATO conference on 29th June NATO stated that it will support Ukraine with whatever it takes for as long as it takes. Words of course that need to be said as no sign of weakness should be exposed to Putin. But how realistic is that commitment? Western politicians and commentators talk of a war of attrition continuing perhaps into next year and even 2024 – as of today Putin’s war crimes have only been happening for a third of a year. Could the current impasse continue with daily slaughter and laying waste for longer than this year?
Russian gas
Ukraine calls for deeper sanctions. While Europe has committed to cease buying Russian oil, it continues to buy their gas. Russia can sell its oil around the world, it is transportable, but new gas markets are less practical without pipelines already in place. While Russia too may limit gas supplies to Europe, turning the screw of dependency, Europe continues to buy that gas at high prices and thus fund Putin’s evil war. But if Germany was bold enough to ban Russian gas, causing rationing of it in Germany perhaps, a major economic downturn could result with social and political stress. As Europe’s powerhouse, if Germany suffers, so will the whole of the EU. Dependence on this gas is not just a Western achilles heel, it could also unwind the unified approach. Resolving the conundrum and making the hardest choice is tough.
Limited weaponry
A war of attrition depends on Western continuity of supply of heavy and sophisticated weapons to give Ukraine the advantage it needs, as well as a constant flow of vehicles and other armaments. National stockpiles of weapons are low, and their quality not always maintained, except perhaps in the U.S. Western nations could leave themselves perilously short of materials. Ben Wallace is reported to say that the UK could fight an all-out war for a matter of days before exhausting its weapons store. Other European nations are in worse shape. Even the U.S. will suffer serious depletion. Replacement of used kit can not keep up with demand. So, the finite nature of expensive weapons may seriously limit the real time a war can be raged by Ukraine.
Food and starvation
Putin’s evil has not just exacerbated the energy crisis and seriously threatened living standards worldwide, but food shortages are especially, in the developing countries, a growing reality. Putin deliberately blockades the port of Odessa and so no shipping of vital wheat or other food can occur. He allegedly too steals Ukrainian produce to sell it as Russian to needy nations. That millions of people may starve as the UN has warned, and die as a result of Putin’s megalomania is not just a war crime, it is reminiscent of Stalin’s Holodomor of Ukraine when he starved millions of Ukrainians See Sherbhert article Ukraine’s Inspiring Courage Brings Reality Check. Does not the West have to do what it takes to break the blockade? Is the only way to do that to cause total defeat of Putin and his withdrawal as soon as possible?
Fatigue and Fear
Messaging around the G7 conference included the risk of Western societies tiring of the war and its effects, and focus on their desire to recover economically, but the economic suffering is relatively minor compared to the devastation being wreaked on the Ukrainian people. This war is far less the main news story every day than it was three months ago. That Russia daily fires thousands of rounds of shells randomly becomes a distant drumbeat and truly few in the West understand the trauma being endured daily which will torment Ukrainians forever See Sherbhert article Ukraine – Dilution of Memory…. If the fatigue message takes a major hold, Western Governments may feel empowered to dilute the commitment to Ukraine and pressurise Zelensky to sue for peace and make the Bishop of Leeds wish come true. It is Ukrainians who will pay the price for the flabbiness and comfort of weaker Western people who feel entitled to an uninterrupted easy life. Is not now the time the West must restore true resilience and the moral fibre to do what is right and suffer the necessary consequences? Will the appeasement of Hitler be repeated with the modern Russian butcher, merely delaying, not preventing, further invasions?
The principal reason for Western reluctance to provide all out unconditional war-winning weapons and assets to ensure Putin’s defeat is fear of Putin’s threats to resort to nuclear weapons. But if that fear wins, will not all the rogue nations with nuclear capability feel empowered to flex their muscle and threaten more widely to achieve their nefarious aims, such as North Korea? Will China feel even more potent than it is? If Putin’s threat means he wins, when will he stop and why should he? Showing fear empowers him and autocrats like him.
IS THERE NOT ONLY ONE REAL COURSE TO TAKE?
People say Putin is banking on Western weakness and lack of appetite to suffer. If he is right, then for him the longer the conflict goes on, the more likely is he to win? Will not the West force Zelensky into a peace on terms he does not want? And then the gas can flow to Europe at a price it can pay, and all would be back to normal, or would it really?
By hyping nuclear risk, Putin can increase the pressure points. By blaming food shortages on Western sanctions of Russia, perhaps he will turn autocratic developing nations against democracy and accelerate worldwide diminishing of liberty?
Attrition may be a prediction but perhaps it is a flawed outcome for the West, who have in fact no real long-term strategy, not surprisingly, to end the war. Western countries have to some extent drip fed weapons into Ukraine often reluctantly, perhaps with the UK and U.S. the exceptions. Some fear aggravating the Russian bear. But aggravation theatricality by Putin is but a tool: he will murder and destroy whatever happens if that is the route to achieve ending Ukraine’s independent existence. Is not the only option for the West to supply as much weaponry, as powerful as possible, and as rapidly as possible, with all the training to boot, and financial help, with extreme sanctions, to ensure the withdrawal of Putin from the Donbas and end the blockade, or suffer ignominious defeat? That perhaps must be combined with the complete cessation by the West of the purchase of anything Russian, especially gas, the elimination any concern about “humiliating” Putin which Macron has expressed, with 100% determination that he is beaten away as soon as possible. Plus, an aid offensive to help all nations suffering from food shortages and the effects of the cost of energy.
Half-heartedness, dithering and compromise play to Putin’s game plan. He does not care that his own people suffer: he will blame the West. Their suffering too will be reduced if the war is over by the Autumn, which must be the goal. Some wishfully think Putin will be deposed, or maybe die of natural causes. But reliance on these chances is not a strategy. The war crimes of Putin are incapable of forgiveness, and it is evident that, unless Western leaders have finally lost all values, care for liberty and the ability to address reality, they cannot ever negotiate or deal with Putin again unless on terms that Ukraine emerges intact. They must act accordingly.
