Further arming Ukraine will only destroy it. The west must act to end this war now
Angus Roxburgh
By providing arms but avoiding military intervention western leaders are prolonging this hideous conflict. Talks are the best way out
A theatre destroyed during conflict in Mariupol, Ukraine, 25 April 2022. Photograph: Alexander Ermochenko/Reuters
Thu 28 Apr 2022
424
Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to. Vladimir Putin launched a straightforward war of aggression and territorial conquest.
It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.
The longer this war rages on, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities, industry and economy. Yet the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes will continue.
No day goes past without some senior western politician proclaiming that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia is “failing”. This is certainly morale-boosting. But it is clearly nonsense.
The fact is, day by day, more towns and cities are destroyed and then fall to the Russians. In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just the breakaway parts of Donbas – has grown to perhaps five times the size. If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another two months the entire south of Ukraine will be in ruins, cities such as Odesa will resemble Mariupol, and thousands upon thousands more Ukrainians will have died.
Worse, as the war goes on, and more towns are destroyed, it becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to. How many citizens of Mariupol will ever return? If Russia’s aim was to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, then the west’s approach is helping to do just that.
Surely, if the lives of Ukrainian people are our concern then the west has to do something to stop the war – now. Encouraging the Ukrainians to continue, however just their cause, is merely making their country uninhabitable.
The trouble is, there are only two ways to stop the war quickly, and neither is palatable to most western leaders.
One would be for Nato to enter the war and make a quick, massive and decisive strike to cripple Russia’s invasion forces. Unlike with Russia’s actions, it would have every right under international law to do so. When Putin intervened in Syria, he very carefully framed this as a response to a request from Syria’s legitimate and internationally recognised government. The west could do the same in Ukraine. Putin himself has no such justification for his invasion.
The risk involved in this – of a third world war – is obvious, and it’s why the west refuses to intervene directly.
The other option is to persuade Putin to implement an immediate ceasefire, by inviting Russia to comprehensive peace talks. Western leaders are disinclined to parley with a butcher such as Putin. But they did it with Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, only months after the massacre at Srebrenica, and the result was the Dayton agreement that put an end to the war in Bosnia in 1995.
To get Putin to the negotiating table at all, everything would have to be up for discussion – including Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s age-old security concerns, perhaps even the very logic of basing today’s international frontiers in that part of Europe on what were internal borders in the USSR, drawn up by communist leaders precisely to prevent Soviet republics and regions from being viable independent states. The outcome of the talks does not need to be predetermined. The important thing is to talk rather than fight.
Western leaders cannot bring themselves to broach these matters, which would seem to reward Putin for attempting to redraw the map by force. They would rather fight – or more accurately, let Ukraine fight, in the hope of defeating Russia. But if one thing is certain it is that Putin will never accept defeat. He is already too deeply invested in this war to back off with nothing to show for it. If western leaders think that their arms-length encouragement of Ukraine will bring about a Ukrainian military victory, then they are fatally misreading Putin’s intentions and resolve. For Ukraine’s sake, we need to stop him now, one way or the other, before nothing is left of the country we want to protect.
Angus Roxburgh is a former BBC Moscow correspondent and former consultant to the Kremlin. He is the author of The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia and Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent
Thu 28 Apr 2022
424
Few people in the west doubt that Ukraine is fighting a just war. Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked. Whatever complaints it may have had about Nato expansion or Ukraine’s mistreatment of Russians in Donbas, nobody had attacked Russia, and nobody was planning to. Vladimir Putin launched a straightforward war of aggression and territorial conquest.
It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. But it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.
The longer this war rages on, the more Ukrainians will flee their homeland, and the more devastation will be wrought upon their homes, cities, industry and economy. Yet the west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war. Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes will continue.
No day goes past without some senior western politician proclaiming that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia is “failing”. This is certainly morale-boosting. But it is clearly nonsense.
The fact is, day by day, more towns and cities are destroyed and then fall to the Russians. In two months, the area under Russian control – originally just the breakaway parts of Donbas – has grown to perhaps five times the size. If Russia continues to suffer “defeats” at this pace, then in another two months the entire south of Ukraine will be in ruins, cities such as Odesa will resemble Mariupol, and thousands upon thousands more Ukrainians will have died.
Worse, as the war goes on, and more towns are destroyed, it becomes less likely that Ukrainians who have fled to other countries will ever return, because they will have no homes or workplaces to come back to. How many citizens of Mariupol will ever return? If Russia’s aim was to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, then the west’s approach is helping to do just that.
Surely, if the lives of Ukrainian people are our concern then the west has to do something to stop the war – now. Encouraging the Ukrainians to continue, however just their cause, is merely making their country uninhabitable.
The trouble is, there are only two ways to stop the war quickly, and neither is palatable to most western leaders.
One would be for Nato to enter the war and make a quick, massive and decisive strike to cripple Russia’s invasion forces. Unlike with Russia’s actions, it would have every right under international law to do so. When Putin intervened in Syria, he very carefully framed this as a response to a request from Syria’s legitimate and internationally recognised government. The west could do the same in Ukraine. Putin himself has no such justification for his invasion.
The risk involved in this – of a third world war – is obvious, and it’s why the west refuses to intervene directly.
The other option is to persuade Putin to implement an immediate ceasefire, by inviting Russia to comprehensive peace talks. Western leaders are disinclined to parley with a butcher such as Putin. But they did it with Serbia’s Slobodan Milošević, only months after the massacre at Srebrenica, and the result was the Dayton agreement that put an end to the war in Bosnia in 1995.
To get Putin to the negotiating table at all, everything would have to be up for discussion – including Ukraine’s borders, Russia’s age-old security concerns, perhaps even the very logic of basing today’s international frontiers in that part of Europe on what were internal borders in the USSR, drawn up by communist leaders precisely to prevent Soviet republics and regions from being viable independent states. The outcome of the talks does not need to be predetermined. The important thing is to talk rather than fight.
Western leaders cannot bring themselves to broach these matters, which would seem to reward Putin for attempting to redraw the map by force. They would rather fight – or more accurately, let Ukraine fight, in the hope of defeating Russia. But if one thing is certain it is that Putin will never accept defeat. He is already too deeply invested in this war to back off with nothing to show for it. If western leaders think that their arms-length encouragement of Ukraine will bring about a Ukrainian military victory, then they are fatally misreading Putin’s intentions and resolve. For Ukraine’s sake, we need to stop him now, one way or the other, before nothing is left of the country we want to protect.
Angus Roxburgh is a former BBC Moscow correspondent and former consultant to the Kremlin. He is the author of The Strongman: Vladimir Putin and the Struggle for Russia and Moscow Calling: Memoirs of a Foreign Correspondent
===
Vladimir Tikhonov
sdtrnp
h
7
118uam9cgmti0ul
·
It all may sound politically incorrect but, alas, true. "War to the end" in the current fashion will have, as its end, a genocidal condition - East (and maybe South) of Ukraine in a completely destroyed shape under brutal Russian military occupation. Barring a direct NATO intervention (and a possible WWIII), the only realistic way to stop this ongoing mass murder in Ukraine is negotiations. Most likely, of some multilateral kind, with Biden and Co participating, and solemn pledge of Ukrainian neutrality and return of Russia's frozen foreign exchange reserves offered as the price of peace. The REAL problem is that Moscow tyrant will, in addition, certainly demand also LAND - certainly Crimea, almost certainly the whole of Donbas, perhaps more. Will Ukrainians ever accept this armed robbery accompanied by mass murder, as a fait accompli? Should the world jettison the principle of maintaining state's territorial integrity in an attempt to save Ukrainian lives? It won't be an easy decision. But yes, it is one of the few realistic solutions right now....
===
Hak_a_dalan
8 hours ago
Guardian Pick
140
Several things can be true at the same time. It is clear that Russia is “failing” in many important ways. But it is also clear that Ukraine is very unlikely to be “successful”.
If the goal of the West is Ukraine must maintain its territorial integrity, then the strategy of “fighting Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood” is doomed to failure. So perhaps there needs to be a little more honesty from Western leaders about what it is they really wish to achieve. The real aim, which is to weaken Russia, was finally articulated in public a few days ago by the US Defense Secretary.
The author is correct to state that if the West engages directly in Ukraine – with “feet on the ground” – then there is open war between NATO and Russia. The fallout is both obvious and nuclear.
Last Sunday, Simon Tisdall wrote on these pages, “dreadful though it sounds, Putin could win.” Putin has 6000 nuclear warheads. It has been inevitable that he was going to win. At least something.
The problem with talks with Putin is that he cannot be trusted. This makes negotiation difficult. It will require that implementation of any agreement will need heavy military oversight.
The crisis is likely to end in only one way. Ukraine will cede territory – possibly losing all access to the sea. Russia will not attempt to invade any NATO country. There will be a rush by currently non-aligned nations to join NATO. Those that don’t do it quickly enough will be vulnerable. A new cold war will begin, with heightened nuclear tensions, especially in Europe. China and India will try and have it both ways – and their equivocation will be largely indulged by the West. A new equilibrium with Russia will be slowly established and Russia will gradually return to the international order as the new reality becomes the norm.
To add insult to injury, Zelenskyy will be feted by those who didn’t have the stomach to really help him. And we’ll all try to sleep soundly in our beds. Well, as soundly as possibly as the climate crisis begins to bite. But hurrah and huzzah! We avoided an all-out nuclear war.
Report
kevdflb
kevdflb
Hak_a_dalan
8 hours ago
87
If russia wishes to really own the west and not let themselves be weakened, they could just....
stop invading Ukraine.
Report
Finite187
Finite187
Hak_a_dalan
8 hours ago
195
The way this ends is with Russia bankrupting itself prosecuting this war, and Ukraine forcing them out of their country.
So sick of this appeasement.
Report
GeeDeeDee
GeeDeeDee
Hak_a_dalan
8 hours ago
139
Totally happy to weaken Russia. The weaker the better.
Totally happy to supply Ukraine with the weapons they themselves are asking for. The more weapons the better.
Report
Warhound1
Warhound1
Hak_a_dalan
8 hours ago
63
Can’t really disagree with that summation. Russia must by isolated from the civilised world however, until it returns all sovereign territory to Ukraine, and repays the hundreds of billions it now owes to rebuild.
Report
sammer
sammer
Warhound1
7 hours ago
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Vulcan12masks
Vulcan12masks
Warhound1
7 hours ago
3
Or they go of the way of Britain or Japan forced inwards by external threat and create hostile but self efficient society . Currant 20 to 32 had internet and disney . The new generation will not the old generation keep head down. We got 10 years left
Report
KameoWordUp
KameoWordUp
Vulcan12masks
7 hours ago
63
Has this been through a translation app? I mean wot?
Report
TerribleLyricist
TerribleLyricist
Hak_a_dalan
7 hours ago
82
Last Sunday, Simon Tisdall wrote on these pages, “dreadful though it sounds, Putin could win.” Putin has 6000 nuclear warheads. It has been inevitable that he was going to win. At least something.
The consequence of this assumption is that numerous countries will immediately start building their own nuclear weapons. This would be the only way to avoid Ukraine's fate (or the only way to (re)take territory without being attacked). In other words, if Putin is allowed to claim any kind of "win" the world will have entered a dangerous new era. Nuclear blackmail will have worked. And if it works once, it will work again.
The west must be much more muscular. Sanctions not only on Russia, but on other states that deal with Russia. Ukraine should be given submarines, cruise missiles and 5G fast jets. It must be made very clear that this adventure will not be allowed to succeed.
At the same time, it should be emphasized that if Russia joins the civilized world, all manner of benefits await.
If Putin wants to take this nuclear, he'll do so. We can't wet our pants every time he makes the threat.
Report
NeitherYankNorBrit
NeitherYankNorBrit
8 hours ago
49
To get Putin to the negotiating table at all
If Putin hosts these negotiations, then his table could seat thousands.
Report
Captain_Smartypants
Captain_Smartypants
NeitherYankNorBrit
8 hours ago
29
The tragic thing is Putin wouldn't be half as dangerous if he understood how laughable he is.
Report
RadioPartizan
RadioPartizan
Captain_Smartypants
8 hours ago
37
nothing laughable about someone waving the worlds largest nuclear arsenal - not matter how deluded and ridiculous they are.
Report
Captain_Smartypants
Captain_Smartypants
RadioPartizan
8 hours ago
43
Well not that bit. Nor his terrorising of Russians and foreign peoples, and overseeing ungraspable amount of theft from these peoples.
Still, I like to think someone so soft-skinned would take some note of how he'll look in the history books, one day perhaps even Russian ones - like a deluded despot talking gibberish about Nazis from the head of a table he's moved from the banquet hall. You couldn't make this shit up.
Report
Northumbrian66
Northumbrian66
Captain_Smartypants
7 hours ago
16
Charlie Chaplin did a great job of mocking Hitler and Mussolini in 'The Great Dictator.' It didn't persuade them to stop making war.
Report
Captain_Smartypants
Captain_Smartypants
Northumbrian66
7 hours ago
24
Correct, but I doubt Putin sees himself as Hitler and Mussolini. He's somehow deluded himself he's not a fascist.
Report
nonanon1
nonanon1
8 hours ago
404
"By providing arms but avoiding military intervention, the west is prolonging this hideous conflict. Talks are the best way out”
Perhaps this pragmatic approach, or shall we call it appeasement of the blood stained aggressor, is the only way to minimise damage and suffering inflicted on Ukraine. Perhaps Putin should be rewarded for his unprovoked aggression with chunks of Ukrainian territory.
But then what? Should the West believe that Putin would not see this “capitulation” as a confirmation of his belief that the West is weak and unable to resist Russia, that this would not encourage his further aggression? Should the West lift the sanctions and return to normal relations with Russia as if nothing happened? Real peace in Europe will be impossible with a dictator threatening other countries with nuclear weapons who commands loyalty of a zombified society prepared to support any crime against its neighbours near and far.
Russia has to be isolated, its economy strangled and its society deputinised. Otherwise there will be no peace in Europe.
Report
EileenC
EileenC
nonanon1
8 hours ago
29
So you are suggesting to make wasteland out of Russia? Don’t you think that such perspective would cost nothing to the Western coalition?
Report
NeitherYankNorBrit
NeitherYankNorBrit
EileenC
8 hours ago
263
So you are suggesting to make wasteland out of Russia?
He suggested it should be "deputinized".
Do you suggest that such actions will turn Russia into a wasteland?
Report
humhums
humhums
nonanon1
8 hours ago
43
Russia has to be isolated, its economy strangled and its society deputinised. Otherwise there will be no peace in Europe.
Sounds reasonable as a desired outcome. However, how much are you willing to pay to achieve this? How many more lives is it acceptable to be lost? How much more destruction in Ukraine? Not to mention the economic harm, inflicted to Europe, and the hardship which will eventually reach our shores as well.
My priority is for the war to stop, even under terms far from the ideal outcome. Anything agreed at this point can be changed at a later stage, the lives lost would never come back.
===
Peake1995
Peake1995
8 hours ago
Guardian Pick
428
How about we ask the Ukrainians what they want. What sort of message would it send to the civilians of Kherson, Mariupol, Odessa etc if the West and Zelensky say "oh sorry guys, you fought bravely, but now we'll leave you to live under the yoke of Kremlin oppression".
This is the "stability at all costs" argument that resulted in the Assad regime gassing its own citizens.
Report
elakim
elakim
Peake1995
8 hours ago
145
Exactly. The Ukrainian people have showed time and time again that they do not want to live under Russian control. Every time that has been a risk of that, they've taken to the streets in numbers.
Report
humhums
humhums
Peake1995
8 hours ago
10
How about we ask the Ukrainians what they want.
How do you propose to ask them? I mean how are you going to ask these ordinary Ukrainians, which are being shelled, bombed, left without food, electricity and water for weeks? Do they want to win, to do they want the hell to stop?
Report
NeitherYankNorBrit
NeitherYankNorBrit
humhums
8 hours ago
120
How do you propose to ask them?
You've already seemed to conclude that their opinions really don't matter in this affair, so I understand your reluctance to find out what they want.
Report
humhums
humhums
NeitherYankNorBrit
7 hours ago
8
I understand your reluctance to find out what they want
Actually I would very much like to know what the people who are worse affected by the war think - these, who were not able to escape from Ukraine or even from their neighbourhoods, which are now battle fields.
Report
NeitherYankNorBrit
NeitherYankNorBrit
humhums
7 hours ago
41
I would very much like to know what the people who are worse affected by the war think
Unless they disagree with you, then their views can be discounted and labeled as "warmongering".
Report
Northumbrian66
Northumbrian66
Peake1995
7 hours ago
36
Not to mention that Putin's air force dropped many of the gas cannisters and barrel bombs that beat the Syrian opposition to Assad into submission.
Report
sensibell
sensibell
Peake1995
7 hours ago
3
I would guess they want the fairness coefficient (relative comfort divided by cumulative suffering, during the last century or so) to be at least 10% of that of the UK
Report
humhums
humhums
NeitherYankNorBrit
7 hours ago
5
Unless they disagree with you, then their views can be discounted and labeled as "warmongering"
Let's not try to interpret the answers we haven't got yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment