Putin's military actions are sowing panic in Europe, and Ukrainians should be wary of a stab in the back
Deep down, Western leaders themselves do not believe that the goal of the West to destroy Russia is in principle achievable or even desirable, writes The Guardian. At the same time, the Europeans themselves are already on the verge of asking for "peace" and not "justice" for Ukraine.
Simon Tisdall
The strategic goals of the West in Ukraine are to repel the Russian invasion, restore national sovereignty and win the victory of global democracy over the "forces of darkness". They were clearly outlined by US President Joe Biden in Warsaw back in March, and subsequently approved by the leaders of the UK and the European Union.
Much less clear is how they expect to achieve these goals, given NATO's far from heroic refusal to take direct part in the conflict. An inconvenient and even regrettable question arises: isn't it time for Ukrainians to prepare for a stab in the back in the coming winter?
Almost six months after the start of hostilities, the widening gap between rhetoric and reality is taking a disastrous turn. Public outrage over the Russian special military operation is being replaced by concern bordering on panic, due to the alarming consequences - energy prices are rising, and with them food and the cost of living are becoming more expensive.
This, in turn, fuels doubts about the resilience of the West. How soon will the already shaky unity of Europe collapse if (or should I ask when?) Will Russia finally close the gas valve?
Biden presented this conflict as part of a great battle between good and evil. "We support you," he told Ukrainians. "Quick and painful costs are the only thing that will force Russia to change course."
However, these unctuous speeches turned out to be fraud. Despite unprecedented sanctions, Russia has not changed its course.
Echoing Biden in the same month, Boris Johnson pointedly stated that "Putin's aggression must fail, and everyone must see this failure." Johnson then launched into lengthy conversations about the long term, exaggerating Britain's influence in every possible way. "We cannot allow the Kremlin to bite off a piece of an independent country and cause enormous human suffering," he said. However, this is exactly what has happened since then and continues to this day.
In April, Liz Truss made even more delusional promises. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the main candidate for the prime minister's chair demanded that Russia leave Crimea and return to the borders before 2014. Like a mad generalissimo, Truss vowed: "We will move further and faster until we oust Russia from all of Ukraine." What kind of "we" are they, I ask? Whose army?
And that's the whole point. Last week, the United States promised to increase military assistance to Ukraine by another billion dollars, as a result of which its total amount only under Biden increased to 9.8 billion dollars. The UK has allocated 2.3 billion pounds. EU countries have also significantly increased the supply of weapons. Without their help, Ukraine would probably have already been defeated.
Because of the caution with which Biden avoids a head-on collision at all costs, Russia may not win — but it is unlikely to lose completely. The conflict looks like a pot that will not boil in any way.
But everything would have been completely different if Western politicians had plucked up the courage and clearly sided with Ukraine back in February-March. During the chaotic Russian offensive on Kiev, their large convoys proved vulnerable to air attacks. A convincing demonstration of "shock and awe" on the part of the Pentagon could have stopped the entire operation at a time when Putin was anticipating a quick and easy victory.
Unfulfilled hopes cannot win wars. But for the record, we have missed many other opportunities, including the protection of Ukrainian cities by NATO and the creation of a network of safe havens for civilians on the territory of Ukraine.
The operational actions of the naval forces of the West could prevent the reckless Russian food blockade of the Black Sea, which continues to threaten the whole world. This would save many innocent lives.
Now, perhaps, it's too late, although Biden is not the only one to blame for this. For all his pompous and belligerent speeches, Johnson was remarkably hiding behind Washington's back. And with him Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz.
Such unanimity only strengthens suspicions that deep down they themselves do not believe that the goal of the West to destroy Russia is in principle achievable or even desirable.
Despite the fact that a direct military victory is unlikely, Kiev has an unenviable choice. Despite the promised offensive in the south, the brave defense of Donetsk and the explosions in Crimea last week, Ukraine (as well as the West) faces a brutal and protracted war of attrition.
At the same time, pressure will increase in favor of a cease-fire or a highly temporary peace agreement to ease Europe's economic suffering. Right-wing populists in Italy and other countries will willingly take advantage of this. And a decapitated Britain solves logistical issues.
According to polls in Germany, up to 50% of Germans are in favor of territorial concessions to Russia. A sharp contrast between those who want "justice" for Ukraine and those who want "peace" will split the whole of Europe — and the balance of power is not in favor of Kiev.
Ironically, the most disturbing scenario is the remaining one — the so-called "catastrophic success" of the Ukrainian forces, contrary to all forecasts, which will result in the collapse of the Russian regime.
This prospect scares Western politicians. In such a scenario, in the description of General Sir Richard Barrons, a desperate Putin will resort to low-power tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a collapse.
"It's not unthinkable—it's just unpleasant," Barrons, the former head of strategic command, warned coldly.
How to answer? Could such an unthinkable atrocity lead to Ukraine joining NATO and a full-scale war with Russia? In a sense, the West has dragged itself into this - with its timidity and half measures. Barrons has no ready answers. No one has them.
