It’s almost a month since Moscow launched its military offensive on a neighbouring country to ostensibly prevent Nato’s eastern expansion into the heartland of the former Soviet Union.
Russian President Vladimir Putin stands condemned, and rightly so, for his invasion and bombardment of Ukraine. With thousands of lives lost, his latest military campaign has spawned diplomatic, military and humanitarian crises on continental Europe. Entire neighbourhoods of Mariupol, Kharkiv and Kyiv have been levelled with heavily damaged and charred buildings bearing witness to heavy bombardment and horrors of war.
This war has displaced 10 million people. Of these, 3.5 million are listed by UNHCR as refugees in neighbouring countries, including the Russian Federation. Poland has received the most, nearly two million, followed by Romania (540,000), Moldova (370,000), Hungary (315,000), Slovakia (250,000) and Belarus (4,000). The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that, as of March 15, there had been 1,900 civilian casualties, with a death toll of 726, including 52 children.
Shortly before invading Ukraine, Putin reportedly warned French President Emmanuel Macron that attempts by Kyiv to join Nato would lead to a war where “there would be no winners” and that Europe would “not have time to blink their eyes when they execute Article 5” that relates to the collective defence of Nato allies.
Wields veto power
Paralysed in the UN Security Council, where Russia wields veto power, the West has resorted to a media campaign against Moscow. They have ratcheted up sanctions, imposed punishing trade restrictions and sent defensive weapons and hardware into Ukraine and the region. The EU has approved a defence strategy that includes a 5,000-strong rapid reaction force.
Putin was right: There would be no winners in Ukraine—just death and destruction. There is no question that Russia holds strategic advantage over Nato, and its bombardment of Ukraine is unlikely to receive a strong military reaction. Saturating the region with offensive and defensive Nato weapons is unlikely to deliver a quick victory as sought by Ukraine and its European allies. US President Joe Biden has repeatedly acknowledged Nato’s military limitation and the possibility of a slight mistake sparking off a thermonuclear apocalyptic war.
While the West seem to have exhausted their sanctions, they could decimate European economies and hurt innocent Russians as well. The reliance of many European countries on a steady supply of Russian gas gives Putin a trump card.
Admittedly, shutting down of the gas pipeline could deliver a devastating blow to Germany, France, Italy, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Finland, Latvia and Serbia. It’s only the US and the UK that may not feel the pain.
That Russia may be too big and too powerful to be isolated, effects of this war and accompanied sanctions are starting to reverberate around the world, including in Kenya.
Although Europe and the US continue to speak in one voice, their words no longer carry as much meaning and force as before. In all, the dominant Anglo-American world power has less than a billion people—fewer than those in Africa, India or China.
Nato’s own history of repeated invasions and military attacks against powerless countries around the world makes a mockery of their outrage over ongoing horrific crimes against Ukrainians. It is, perhaps, this contradiction—and hypocrisy—that has seen the US and Nato fail to marshal global condemnation of Putin.
Critics admit that Putin has been adept at cultivating commercial and political relations around the world. He has forged and upgraded ties with countries under Western sanctions, such as China, Cuba, Syria, Iran and Venezuela. These efforts seem to be paying off for Moscow and could blunt or ameliorate some of the pain that sanctions may cause.
Refused to condemn Putin
Russia’s partners in the Brics formation—Brazil, India, China and South Africa—have all refused to condemn Putin. China has spoken out against the use of unilateral sanctions and trade embargoes and warned of their negative impact on the global economy. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has blamed Nato—not Russia—for the war, noting that it could have been avoided had the West heeded warnings from its own leaders and officials. Such statements cast Putin in a totally different—and perhaps more appealing—light in the Global South.
There have been less-than-serious efforts to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis. This is partly due to the continued push by the West for neutral countries to condemn Putin and support their sanctions.
There is also growing disappointment in UN Secretary-General António Guterres. It is diplomacy, not bombs and threats, that could bring this war to an end and avert World War III—and here, Mr Guterres could lead the way. BY DAILY NATION