By Jorge Liboreiro
This week marked an anniversary that should have never been marked: 1,000 days since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered his troops to break through Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders and launch a full-scale invasion to bring the entire country under his control.
What followed that day is a devastation that, for us, in the comfort of our homes, is simply incomprehensible. It would be useless to devote this newsletter to depicting the ceaseless horror under which the Ukrainian people have lived for almost 33 months. Words could never match it.
Introspection might be a more valuable way to mark this grim anniversary.
When the invasion began, democratic allies closed ranks and vowed to stand with Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Since then, they have supplied billions in military, financial and humanitarian assistance that the country desperately needs. These continued injections of aid are designed to help Ukraine resist and win the war.
But a quick look at the battlefield challenges this core premise. Large swaths of eastern Ukraine remain under tight Russian control, with no changes since early 2022. Russia captured more territory in October than in any other month in the past two years. An estimated 11,000 North Korean soldiers have joined the battle in the Kursk region, which Kyiv partially occupies and hopes to use as leverage in future negotiations. Iran supplies drones and missiles that Russia then deploys to destroy Ukraine’s power grid and residential buildings. China sells advanced technology that Moscow couldn’t otherwise obtain.
The dire situation raises an uncomfortable question for the West: is our strategy helping Ukraine defend or win? These two goals are interlinked but, ultimately, distinct.
If we help Ukraine defend, it means we empower Ukraine retain what they have now, without further losing ground to Russia. As of now, Russia occupies almost 20% of Ukraine’s territory. If we help Ukraine win, it means we empower Ukraine to recover this 20% share and push all invading forces back to where they were before 24 February 2022. The difference between the two is evident.
Gabrielius Landsbergis, Lithuania’s foreign minister, used blunter terms to expose the gap in the Western logic.
“We have come to a point where it is fair to say that the strategy of the way that we help Ukraine during the three-year period, almost 1,000 days, has failed. Peace through de-escalation is a failing and failed strategy. We need a new one. We need a strategy that will come from strength,” Landsbergis said before heading into a ministerial meeting in Brussels.
“When I’m talking strength, I’m talking weapons, I’m talking about real removal of all restrictions and actually a winning strategy. From the winning strategy, we could come to a point when all the phone calls, everything would actually make sense,” he added, taking an unveiled swipe at Chancellor Olaf Scholz for his controversial phone call with Vladimir Putin.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his deputies have long walked a thin line: on the one hand, expressing gratefulness for Western support while, on the other, making clear the supplies of weapons (and the limitations placed upon them) aren’t enough for Kyiv to push back Russia.
In a virtual speech before the European Parliament to mark the 1,000th day of the war, Zelenskyy doubled down on his argument, urging leaders to strip Putin of his “money and power” by tightening sanctions and allowing Ukraine’s army to strike deep military depots, air bases and missile factories on Russian soil.
“While some European leaders think about, you know, some elections or something like this at Ukraine’s expense, Putin is focused on winning this war. He will not stop on his own,” Zelenskyy told lawmakers, in a new dig at Scholz. “The more time he has, the worse the conditions become. Every day is the best moment to push Russia harder.”
Only when Russia is truly weakened will Putin be willing to engage in “meaningful negotiations” for a just, lasting peace, Zelenskyy said. “Even with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un by his side, Putin remains smaller than the united strength of Europe,” he told MEPs.
Allies are increasingly aware that something needs to change but still can’t meet on the same page. President Joe Biden’s decision to lift restrictions on ATACMS missiles, reportedly influenced by North Korea’s participation, was warmly welcomed as a major development that could help Ukraine flip the script. Hours later, Berlin said the announcement did not affect Chancellor Scholz’s thinking and the government would continue opposing the supply of Taurus cruise missiles.
Scholz believes sending Taurus missiles, which have a 500-kilometers range, would risk drawing Germany directly into the war. Critics argue these fears are overblown because Russia has escalated the war as much as its high-intensity war economy has allowed. Will Putin wait for Scholz’s move before sending the next barrage of lethal drones? Moscow already considers Germany, and the entire EU, as unfriendly nations for their support for Ukraine, so blocking the supply of Taurus missiles is unlikely to mend ties and revive diplomacy.
Scholz’s foreign ministry, Annalena Baerbock, offered her dissenting take: “The right to self-defence means that you don’t have to wait until a rocket hits a children’s hospital or a school or a completely normal apartment block.”
A HEAVY TOLL Kamuran Samar tells the story of 1,000 days of war in charts.
|
|
| |
|
portal
Φόρουμ
Γεγονότα
Εικονοθήκη
Latest images
Αναζήτηση
Εγγραφή
Σύνδεση
ΔιαχειριστήςAdmin
An elusive peace
