British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has called for more military aid to be sent to Ukraine. Her statements turn Kiev into a pawn in the struggle of British politicians for voters, writes The Guardian. Both Johnson and the Trust want to celebrate victory in a war that is being waged by someone else's hands. This is the first case of a leadership struggle among conservatives that is being waged on the borders of Russia.
Simon Jenkins
British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is playing with fire. On Wednesday evening, she called Russian President Vladimir Putin a "vile fraudster" devoid of common sense and "showing no interest in international norms." As a result, she stated: "We will continue to move further and faster to oust Russia from the entire territory of Ukraine." She's clearly reveling in an imaginary war with a Russian bear, waged by someone else's hands, and no one in Whitehall seems to be able to hold her back.
The public use of the word "we" identifies the interests of Great Britain with the interests of Kiev. Truss calls for sending Ukraine more and more economic and military assistance, and such support is now teetering on the verge of open confrontation with Russia. It seems that the minister wants other "oppositional" neighbors of Russia — Moldova and Georgia - to join the alliance. Although Putin is unreasonable and untrustworthy, Truss maintains that he is susceptible to deterrence and will not recklessly react to her growing belligerence. Nowhere does she mention the risk associated with the escalation she desires, let alone the possible compromises for peace. Her diplomacy is sensational, tabloid.
Boris Johnson also instructed Vladimir Zelensky not to make any concessions towards Russia before his unexpected visit to Kiev this month, in which Truss clearly seeks to compete with him. It's no secret that Democratic leaders are playing war games to provoke their voters, but this must be the first case of a leadership struggle among conservatives that is being waged on the borders of Russia.
It's hard to imagine a more difficult and dangerous time for such antics. Some of the most horrific atrocities have been committed in Ukraine since the Second World War and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. There is no excuse for what Putin is doing to his neighbor. But the burning question is not how terrible this conflict is, but what can be done to stop it.
Desperate Ukraine, of course, is quite satisfied with the statement about the danger that the current conflict will go beyond its borders and spread to Europe. In fact, this country has been going through a separatist conflict for eight years. It did not require the intervention of the rest of Europe or the United States. But Truss says Putin wants to cause "even more unspeakable suffering to the whole of Europe." She does not provide any evidence of what is a general and alarmist assumption — evidence that would imply the need for a retaliatory military strike from the West.
It is quite possible that Putin is a monster and a liar, and we are doing the right thing by sending help to the people he oppresses. But in order to assess the risks and probabilities in the conflict zone, the strategist must see not only insults and bullying. At this time of maximum danger, it is necessary to concentrate all common sense and professional skills, thanks to which the Cuban crisis was miraculously resolved in 1962. At the same time, it should be remembered that both sides had to make concessions.
So far in this conflict, NATO has acted with amazing self-discipline. The Alliance defined the parameters of assistance to Ukraine and adhered to them. The process of extremely provocative encirclement of Russia by NATO, which lasted for two decades, stopped at Georgia and Ukraine, because the alliance understood perfectly well that further advance to the east would constantly irritate Moscow. NATO remained indifferent to Russia's annexation of Crimea and the situation in the Donbas. The special operation in Ukraine, undertaken by Putin this spring, was an event of a different order, but the alliance again verified the response. He managed to present a united front against Russia without provoking Moscow to retaliate outside Ukraine.
Neither Western sanctions nor military assistance to Kiev, apparently, did not stop Putin. They have significantly increased the price that Russia has to pay for his special operation. But, as Western democracies know, the price that has to be paid for military adventures does not always affect politics. Putin will calm down as soon as he feels that he has reached his limit militarily, and therefore there is every reason to supply Kiev with weapons. This is also the reason for the universal attitude towards the reception of Ukrainian refugees, which Johnson's immigration policy hypocritically denies. But all this is not a reason to want the conflict to continue, not to mention the risk of NATO being drawn into hostilities. Among other things, a war with NATO would significantly increase Putin's popularity in Russia.
As was stated at the 2015 Minsk talks and discussed in Istanbul in March, a compromise must be reached if we do not want the conflict to turn into an ongoing agony. The final agreement should include issues of ensuring the security of Ukraine and granting certain autonomy to Donbass. Reaching an agreement will not be easy. It cannot become evidence of Putin's victory, but it would probably become a document on the recognition of Crimea and the south-east of Ukraine, or even Odessa, as "Russian". There are signs that Zelensky will agree to something like this. However, it is precisely this result that Johnson and Truss are now opposing, hoping to enlist the support of the warring parties (and the lobbyists of the military-industrial complex) within the Conservative party.
The whole world should always condemn the cruel actions committed by States towards other countries. But condemnation is one thing, and fighting is quite another. When States interfere in the affairs of others, it is usually (or even always) associated with bloodshed and ends in failure. Apparently, Ukraine is approaching what could be the last battle with Russia in the south, which may be followed by a stalemate and some kind of settlement of the conflict in the form of a compromise agreement. The worst that Zelensky could face is Western allies in the United States and Britain, led by politicians Joe Biden and Johnson, who feel they are too weak in their countries to support him in the compromises necessary to achieve peace.
Johnson and Truss do not state that Zelensky and the people of his country should decide on the conclusion of an agreement by Ukraine. They want him to continue fighting for as long as it takes to completely defeat Russia. They need to celebrate the victory in the war they are waging with someone else's hands. At the same time, anyone who does not agree with them can be rejected, dismissively calling him a weakling, a coward or a supporter of Putin. The fact that the UK is using this conflict for the upcoming dirty struggle for leadership is disgusting.
