Our response to Russia is better late than never, but will it be enough?
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia may appal us, but it should not shock anyone. Putin has clung to power for well over twenty years and has continually display the same pattern of behaviour. Undoubtedly the Russian regime is culpable for the outrageous invasion of an independent nation on the European continent, but undoubtedly they have been emboldened by a lack of action over not just months, but years and decades.
We are rightly dismayed by the sight of such industrial warfare less than 1,500 miles from our shores, but we should have been equally outraged by the previous invasion and annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and similar action to occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia back in 2008. At each stage NATO members and the wider western alliance has voiced concern, imposed some limited sanctions and returned to business as usual. Aside from this offensive military action we have seen a clear loss of life on our own soil. The poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in picturesque Wiltshire as well as Alexander Litvinenko twelve years previously demonstrated not only the capability of the Russian state, but it’s willingness to project that power overseas and within a civilian population.
Of course meeting this cold war dinosaur with force is far from simple. Russia has a long history of approaching conflicts with shear numbers, and the numbers they have at their disposal and willingness to sacrifice them are not to be ignored. The understandable reluctance of the public in western countries to accept casualties has increased during two decades of unpopular conflicts in the middle east. Challenging though those conflicts have been we should be under no illusion that should NATO forces come into contact with Russian troops, the scale and nature of the conflict would be entirely different from the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan.
It is very easy for those of use without military experience to talk of “boots on the ground”, without the recognition that such a commitment is made at the cost of the lives of our own young men and women. That is not to say we should not be prepared for such measures. Indeed a failure to stand up to Russian aggression has lead to this escalation, but it should never be underestimated.
So in many ways we have been here before. Frankly the West has failed to contain Putin in any form, so is this time any different?
Perhaps the scale of the invasion that we are seeing is the factor that will tip the balance. The salami tactics of assassinations and small annexations have given way to what looks like it could be an attempt at the full scale occupation of a country of more than 44 million people. There is certainly an argument that a proactive deployment of NATO forces within Ukraine in recent weeks and months could have deterred the attack by Russia. Undoubtedly a high stakes strategy, but we are dealing with the future of entire nations. Instead the diplomatic route involved floating the idea of “Finlandisation” of the Ukraine. Rather than defending a sovereign ally, at times it looked more like the West was looking to surrender territory to appease Russia. There are certainly unedifying historical comparisons that could be made.
The sanctions being imposed are indeed tougher than before and should be welcomed. The unity in Parliament today was refreshingly encouraging, but sadly that unity was not on display across the continent. The possibility of blocking Russia from the SWIFT banking system has been discussed for many weeks, and yet on the day of the invasion there is equivocation. Even when it comes to soft power the West has waivered and Putin must be quite pleased with the inertia of his enemies as he has today launched the largest military action in Europe since the end of the Second World War.
Even the sanctions announced today will in some cases required legislation and therefore will not come into force for some weeks. The most powerful sanctions, such as the removal from SWIFT, are being held in reserve - seemingly blocked by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz - in reserve for what? This approach has been typical of what has happened for decades. On the back foot, waiting for the next move by Russia. Putin advances, and halting him at each stage is seen as a victory, he is never required to retreats, and so onward with the advance.
The rhetoric has been strong, but our actions need to match. Of course we all hope sanctions will have the desired impact, but the fact they are still being negotiated between allies this evening, hours after the invasion shows how once again the West are simply reacting. We need to accept that out strategic approach to containing Putin’s Russia has failed systematically for two decades. If we are now serious about halting his advance then we need to take a fresh approach. There needs to be a genuinely coordinated plan of sanctions, that are imposed proactively now. There also needs to be a clear military strategy to address the threat. An opportunity may have been missed to deter the invasion, but we will never prove the negative. Avoiding direct conflict is clearly desirable, but it is not inconceivable that in the not too distant future the threat could be more directly aimed at a NATO member. If previous threats have failed to deter, the Kremlin may even begin to question how strong an Article 5 defence would be in reality. Deploying troops to Ukraine now does not seem to be a credible option, however much it may appeal to some of those who wouldn’t have to fight the battles, but that cannot be the same as completely removing all military options.
The message that the UK stands with Ukraine is an admirable one, and indeed we should. Doing so will be at least uncomfortable, if not painful for us, as sanctions can work both ways. Nevertheless it remains the right thing to do. To be effective the penalties imposed on Russia must be strong and they must be swift, and we must break the cycle whereby Russia is always one step ahead.
