Votes : 0

Ukraine’s Russian Invader

Giovanni Sale, SJ-La Civiltà Cattolica - Wed, Mar 23rd 2022

1

 

Putin and Ukraine

Vladimir Putin does not want to be remembered as the president who lost Ukraine, the most important state of the old Soviet Union, considered by Russian nationalists to be the original home of the Russian nation, the so-called “Kyivan Rus.” In 2014, without firing a shot, Russia invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula and its important Black Sea naval base, which had been transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in February 1954. This alleged “reunification” was not recognized by the international community.[1] Putin will do everything in his power to ensure that Ukraine does not switch to the side of the Westerners, i.e. does not join  NATO, as the government and many Ukrainian citizens are believed to want, as has already happened with some other former Soviet states.

Putin’s claim, which led him in December 2021 to deploy an army on Ukraine’s borders to threaten peace in the West, is based on an important historical precedent. The Russians claim that with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 there was an unwritten agreement between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and then U.S. President George Bush: in exchange for the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of Moscow’s armed forces from that country, NATO would never expand to include the Warsaw Pact countries, let alone the former Soviet Republics. The existence of this agreement has never been officially recognized by the United States.

According to Maxim Samorukov, a journalist for The Moscow Times, Russia did not intend “to take on the thankless task of occupying Ukraine, but rather to convince the West that it is ready to go to war in order to change a state of affairs that it considers unacceptable.” This concern is certainly not new, but now, in the changed international context, there is no desire to allow its neighbor “to turn into a U.S. beachhead on the Russian border.”[2]

In fact, Putin, with the muscular display of military force – i.e. by deploying about 180,000 soldiers on the borders of Ukraine and in Belarus and dispatching  more than 30 ships of the Russian navy to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean – wanted to convince the U.S. and NATO of the seriousness of his demands, which had already been made for some time, namely, to renegotiate the structure of a new political-military order in Europe, which would ensure Russia its own “vital space,” its own zone of influence.

Russian demands

The Russian leader’s demands  were summarized in 8 points (from the 9 sent to NATO) in a dossier, a suggested draft, from the Russian Foreign Ministry, sent to the U.S. administration immediately after the video call between Putin and Biden on December 7, 2021.[3] In it, Moscow called for “strong, reliable and long-lasting security guarantees.” It also spoke of “red lines” that the West and Ukraine should not cross. Article 4 of the dossier reads clearly: “The United States undertakes to exclude any further eastward expansion of NATO and to refuse the  admission to the Alliance of states that were part of the Soviet Union.”[4] In addition, Moscow wanted a formal, written commitment that NATO would refrain from “any further enlargement of the Alliance, including the accession of Ukraine and other states.”[5]

Russia also demanded that NATO commit itself not to place nuclear weapons or deploy troops in countries that were not part of it before May 1997. In short, as Federico Rampini writes, Putin’s main objective in this clash was to “change the balance of power in Eastern Europe in a direction less unfavorable to Russian interests,”[6] so that countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova would remain outside NATO. By achieving these results, the Russian leader “could present himself triumphantly for re-election in 2024.”[7]

The White House declared the package of proposals on security in Europe delivered by Moscow as unacceptable. Not everything, however, was simply rejected. A spokesman for the U.S. administration stated that “there are things we are willing to discuss.”[8] For example, the request to eliminate nuclear weapons located in NATO countries bordering Russia was taken seriously.

On January 26, Biden replied to Putin with his observations. According to U.S. media reports, the president offered a broader dialogue on disarmament in Europe, without, however, questioning the right of Ukraine to choose, in the international arena, the alliances it deems most appropriate, and therefore, hypothetically, to one day join NATO.[9] Although the issue was not on the agenda – and this has been recalled several times in different forums by commentators in the West – nor had Ukraine officially requested it, because being a country whose territory is partly occupied (Crimea and Donbass), it could not do so.

Biden did not give Russia any guarantee on changes that would challenge everything that a democratic and liberal order involves: state sovereignty, inviolable borders, free choice of alliances.

And this was the position taken even at the cost of jeopardizing the security and peace of the region, since “Putin likes to imagine the world as it used to be: superpowers deciding among themselves which country should belong to which sphere of influence, without the governments concerned being involved.”[10]

The United States and the Ukrainian crisis

For its part, the United States, already at the beginning of the ongoing military and diplomatic “hybrid conflict,” pledged to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial independence. On February 13, Biden assured his Ukrainian counterpart Zelensky by telephone of his determination to “act swiftly and decisively”[11] in the event of Russian aggression. Of course, this involves hitting the adversary with major economic and financial sanctions, the likes of which “have never been seen before.” They are intended both to block the export of gas and oil, the main sources of Russian wealth, and to paralyze the Russian banking system and access to the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications) payment system to prevent any kind of economic transaction in dollars. Sanctions were also agreed with Western allies: packages of punitive measures that are similar – it has been specified – but not identical. Evidently, the issue of the supply of Russian gas to various countries of the European Union has made its weight felt. The U.S. president has refused, in fact, to send American soldiers to fight in Ukraine, although  he has sent armaments and materiel valued at 450 million dollars, and further shipments are anticipated.[12]

Bear in mind that Biden did not personally seek in any way the ongoing confrontation with the Russians. In fact, this was in the remit of Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Biden’s political agenda was different and did not include issues concerning Europe. He knew that the Ukrainian crisis was full of risks and could have heavy repercussions on domestic policy issues. The president, in these months – facing a decline in popularity in recent polls: with a 40 percent approval rate – was concerned above all with the social and economic issues facing American society. He wanted to gain consensus in view of the mid-term elections in November, where the Democrats risk losing the House and the Senate. Moreover, the foreign policy dossier of greater concern to Biden at that time was – and still is – China, Taiwan and the control of the South China Sea. However, he was well aware that the “Ukrainian crisis” was a risky matter, which could explode at any moment. In short, the White House did not intend to be found unprepared. It was better to cry “war” at the cost of appearing alarmist or of being accused – and Putin would accuse him – of “hysteria” or “provocation,” rather than to be overwhelmed by adverse events, as had in fact happened with Afghanistan.

For the U.S. president, who on February 2 approved a very limited troop deployment in Eastern Europe, the possibility of a Russian invasion, even of just a part of Ukraine, was already on the cards. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said at a White House press conference on February 11 that “an invasion could begin at any time,” and that “could include the time period before February 20th, before the Beijing Olympics have been completed.”[13] Sullivan then took up the appeal made by Biden in the interview with NBC on February 10: “American citizens in Ukraine would do well to leave the country immediately.” The U.S. embassy evacuated most of its diplomatic staff in Kyiv, to avoid, in case of an invasion, repeating the humiliating experience of Kabul, which strongly undermined U.S. prestige.[14]

Ultimately, the United States seemed resigned to armed invasion, while the European allies were trying all diplomatic avenues. The leaders of the major European countries – particularly France and Germany – shuttled between Europe’s capitals, Washington, Kyiv and Moscow.[15] While the United States thought Putin would start a war in Ukraine, Europeans believed he was simply bluffing. In fact, for the people of Europe, the prospect of war was unimaginable. The decades of peace, along with the continent’s dependence on Russian hydrocarbons (gas in particular), suggested that the aggressive posture assumed by Moscow was simply a strategy to gain more favorable security concessions from Washington.[16] In fact, even Ukrainian officials, after initial alarm, seemed to share these same views. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tried to minimize the Russian threat, calling on his fellow citizens not to empty their supermarkets and, above all, not to withdraw their savings from the banks.[17] A surprising sense of  calm was in place  in  a country that had about 180,000 Russian soldiers deployed on its doorstep!

According to the political scientist Ivan Krastev, Europeans and Ukrainians did not believe in the likelihood of an attack, not because they trusted Putin, but simply because they did not consider him more diabolical than he appears. Europe, according to the Russian premier, “should recognize the Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space and deny the universality of democratic and liberal, that is  European, values.”[18] More than the restoration of a new Soviet Union, the objective of the “Tsar” of the Kremlin would be the restoration of the so-called “historical Russia,” in which Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are united as brothers, as they were born from the same historical roots.

Putin’s Russia is not a regional power

More than anything else, Putin intended to ensure for Russia – which is the largest country on the planet, although not very densely populated – safe borders, guaranteeing it a sufficient area of influence or, as is often said, a certain “strategic depth,” worthy of a great power. In recent months, it has done so on its eastern border, intervening to quell the insurrection in Kazakhstan, a country that has always been pro-Russian and economically dependent on Moscow’s exports. As for his western frontier, that is the more important and delicate one, bordering the European NATO countries, Putin intervened first in Belarus, to secure the loyalty and friendship of the allied government; then in Ukraine, at various times since 2014. Today, he has invaded the “brother” country so that it does not go over to the West. This has started a war that could become dangerous for everyone.

It should be remembered that already in the first phase of the negotiations, in the face-off with the U.S., Putin had obtained a sort of psychological victory, that is, that of sitting face to face with the president of the United States, thus obtaining an implicit admission of parity between Russia and the U.S. that he had been impatiently waiting for some time. Certainly, it was only a question of form or status, but this aspect in politics between the great powers, and particularly for the Russians, counts for a lot. Recall in this regard that in 2014 President Barack Obama called Russia a “regional power.” But on this occasion, Putin, negotiating on an equal footing with the U.S. – and not only with the heads of government of other NATO countries – wanted to show his fellow citizens and the whole world that Russia, despite its economic fragility, is still a great international power.

In reality, in recent years, the Russian president has tried to do everything possible to prove the validity of this claim. By bypassing NATO countries, with a pincer operation,[19] he has intervened as a protagonist in various civil conflicts in different  parts of the world, from the Middle East to Africa: in Syria, changing the course of the ongoing civil war in favor of Assad; in Libya,[20] helping General Haftar and those in Cyrenaica in their fight against the government in Tripoli; using “contractors” or mercenaries from the Wagner group, already active in 2014 in Donbass, and subsequently also employed in crisis theaters in sub-Saharan Africa, such as in Mali and Burkina Faso.

Through these interventions, almost always victorious, Moscow was able to reposition itself on the international political-strategic scene, while the U.S. administration was embracing the doctrine of “non-intervention” (or indirect aid) and its military forces were withdrawing – on some occasions, with little glory and many disputes – after many years of war, from conflicts not yet resolved and from regions not yet pacified, often causing very serious damage. All this, as has been declared several times by the U.S. presidents themselves, was to orient the new political strategy of the U.S. toward the containment of China and the control of the South China Sea, that is to say toward dominion in the Pacific.[21]

But what is China’s role in this situation? During the negotiation phase, Beijing observed and studied with interest what was happening in Europe in the dispute between Russia and the U.S., and tried to draw useful lessons for itself. Meanwhile, at the opening of the 2022 Winter Olympics, the meeting between Putin, guest of honor, and Xi Jinping solidified their relationship. On the sidelines of the ceremony, trade treaties worth billions of dollars were signed. The United States was unable to prevent this alliance, although, according to the U.S. State Department, Russia and China’s economic and strategic interests are too divergent to be able to form a truly lasting anti-Western coalition. In any case, immediately after the February 24 attack, China refrained from any comment, which Moscow interpreted as support. The Biden administration is convinced that China is seeing the current crisis as a test to understand how the U.S. would behave should Beijing attack Taiwan and the certainty the island’s allies would  stand by them.[22]

On February 15, before the arrival of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Moscow, according to a spokesman, withdrew some of its soldiers from the Ukrainian border, “after the conclusion of military exercises.” Scholz called the announcement of the partial withdrawal a good sign and hoped it would continue. In Washington Biden pointed out that it was still too early to say.[23] For his part, Putin confirmed his openness to dialogue on security in Europe, but warned that negotiations cannot go on too long: “Russia,” he said, “will not allow the situation to worsen,” again claiming that “a genocide is underway” in the Donbass.[24]

In this regard, Chancellor Scholz had brought Moscow news – previously agreed upon in Kyiv – about the Minsk agreements, namely, the presentation of a law on municipal elections in the Donbass and another on the autonomy of individual regions, just in time. The day before, Putin had the Duma approve a resolution recognizing the self-proclaimed separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. This was a resolution that, however, would have become effective only with the approval of Putin, who had postponed it for the moment, using it as attempted blackmail against the West.

Russian recognition of Donbass

In mid-February, the Russian-Ukrainian crisis entered a new phase and began to take a different direction from the previous month: the time for negotiations was running out, leaving the field to acts of force, decisive gestures and extreme decisions. On February 21, Putin ended  all delays and, following the indications of the “hawks” of his party, signed live on TV the recognition of the separatist republics of Donbass, which had been expected for days,[25] and which had been previously voted for  by a majority of the Duma. The president promised “military aid” to the separatists and, reviewing the history of modern Ukraine, said that this country had  always been an integral part of the Russian empire, like other neighboring regions, now independent states. According to him, it was Lenin and Stalin, and in general the Bolsheviks, who created Ukraine. It was they – he said – who transformed the Empire into a kind of confederated state with artificially created republics, which were unduly given “sovereign powers.” This speech, predictably, “was followed with religious attention in all the capitals of the former USSR from Tashkent to Tbilisi.”[26] It was listened to with particular apprehension in the three former Baltic Soviet states, which, for some time now, have been part of the Atlantic Alliance. These were challenging and serious statements, which weighed heavily on the current situation and seemed to push toward conflict.

With this decision the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk became for Moscow two political entities separate from Kyiv.[27] In the same speech Putin ordered the entry of Russian armed forces into the occupied territory for a “peacekeeping operation,” thus passing it off as a benevolent mission.[28] The UN, meeting in extraordinary session, immediately defined the operation and the sending of soldiers as “an invasion” of Ukraine.

The Russian president’s decision unexpectedly brought to an end  years of negotiations with a stroke of the pen, burying definitively the Minsk 2 treaty and making it difficult to avert a Russian invasion and war in Ukraine.

Putin’s decision came after days of tireless negotiations, when it seemed that a window had opened for a possible meeting, proposed by Macron, between Presidents Biden and Putin. Secretary of State Blinken and Foreign Minister Lavrov were working hard on this. But the climate changed, when, according to the Russians, there were encroachments and sabotage actions against Moscow,  accusations Kyiv considered  fake news, while the bombing continued along the line of contact, causing deaths even among civilians. For its part, Ukraine could not count on military aid from NATO countries.

The position  of the U.S. after the annexation has become hard and firm. “This is the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” said Biden, “an open violation of international law.”[29] When it came to sanctions, however, a gradual, so-called light approach was initially chosen in order to retain the option of hitting Moscow harder in the event of an invasion. Two major Russian banks were banned, preventing  Moscow from financing its debt on Western markets, and measures were taken against some oligarchs. At the same time, troops already stationed in Europe were deployed in the Baltic countries. The sanctions set by Brussels headed in the same direction. Germany announced the blocking of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

Meanwhile, on the Russian side, the war machine was already in motion, having been mobilized under the pretext of military exercises.

The invasion of Ukraine

At 5.45 a.m. on February 24, President Putin announced to the Russians and the whole world via State TV that the war against Ukraine was about to begin.[30] “I have decided to launch,” he said decisively and firmly, “a special military operation. The purpose is to protect the population that has been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime for eight years. We will demilitarize and denazify Ukraine and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against civilians.” Addressing next the allies of Ukraine, i.e. the West, he immediately made it clear that he would not tolerate any attack on Russia: “Any potential aggressor will face defeat and unimaginable consequences if it were to strike directly at our country.”[31] At that moment, the Russian army was breaking through the borders of Ukrainian territory from different directions in a classic pincer operation. It was the beginning of what could be the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II.

The attack started with heavy “preparatory bombing” on a large part of the national territory, from the capital Kyiv to Kharkiv, a town near the Donbass, as far as Odessa, an important port city in the south of Ukraine. Everything was conducted with lightning speed, including air raids, ballistic and cruise missiles, which hit, according to the first estimates made by Moscow, 71 targets, including 11 airports and a large number of military vehicles.[32] Immediately afterward, a “tsunami” of armored vehicles invaded part of the national territory. An army of about 180,000 well equipped soldiers “swept across the country spreading out along eight main lines, which aimed at three strategic targets: in the north Kyiv, in the west the Donbass and in the south the mouth of the Dnieper.”[33] It was a powerful series of strikes, combined “with electronic disruptions and cyber-incursions” in order to weaken the defenses. In some parts the Ukrainian army, overwhelmed by the adversary, retreated – as on the Belarusian border; in other parts it resisted, as in the cities of Mariupol and Chernihiv.

The disparity of forces in the field appeared evident: Moscow dominated the skies, and on the ground the 180,000 soldiers were  active. Ukraine has an equally large army, mostly equipped by the West, and a large reserve, but the military forces deployed on the field are unequal: “852 tanks, against the 1,200 deployed by Russia.”[34] The latter, moreover, has an enormous potential of armaments – not deployed for the moment – in addition to the feared atomic warheads. The number of dead, in the first day of the attack, seems to have been several hundred, even if the warring parties have provided quite different figures. Meanwhile a significant number of refugees sought shelter in other neighboring countries that have opened their borders.

A few hours after the attack, Biden commented sternly on what had happened: “Putin is the aggressor, he chose war. It is a flagrant violation of international laws. He and his country will suffer the consequences.”[35] He added that Putin will become a pariah on the international stage, and anyone who comes close to him will be stained indelibly. This time the U.S. president did not let himself be taken by surprise: he had been repeating for months that Moscow was preparing an attack.[36] Immediately afterward, Biden announced the second tranche of U.S. sanctions against Moscow, aimed at crippling institutions – naming them individually – that control 80 percent of Russia’s banking capital, blocking technological exports and punishing oligarchs, including Putin, who was also denied entry into the United States.[37] The Head of the White House has declared that the impact  of sanctions will not be immediate, but certainly over time will be effective, and has reiterated that he does not intend to send soldiers to fight for Kyiv. He knows, in fact, that a large part of the U.S. population would be against such a course.

On February 26, in an interview, Biden defended the decisions taken days before, considered by some too light, declaring that there were only two possibilities: “either sanctions or the third world war.” The less dangerous  approach  was chosen. “I wanted to avoid war,” said Biden, “that’s why I did not send American soldiers to Ukraine.”[38] He specified that, in agreement with the European allies, the application of the measures regarding the SWIFT system were to be carried out “selectively,” so as to limit damage to the European countries.

The EU has also developed its package of “massive and targeted” measures, which have been added to those already implemented, to hit strategic sectors of the Russian economy and finance. The oligarchs and hierarchs of Moscow have also been targeted, and Putin’s assets in Europe have been frozen, although he has not been denied the possibility of travel, to facilitate a possible resumption of negotiations.

Initially, there was no unanimity about the exclusion of Moscow from the SWIFT system. Germany, France and Italy in particular expressed reservations about this solution. As the largest importers of gas from Russia, these countries feared that their economies would be damaged. In the end, the exclusion of Russia from this global payment system – considered a kind of financial nuclear weapon – will not be total, but “targeted and done in a functional way,” so as to hit only “the right people.”[39] Britain has already banned all Russian banks from the City’s financial market.

Jens Stoltenberg, at the NATO summit on February 25, attended by all member countries via videoconference, stated that “the Kremlin’s objectives are not limited to Ukraine. We are facing a threat to European security.” The sense of  alarm is very high. The NATO Secretary General added: “We will do what it takes to defend allies, and  every inch of our territory.”[40] The alliance has thus activated, for the first time in its history, the “rapid reaction force” (consisting of about 44,000 soldiers and 100 jets), in order to deal with Russian aggression on the eastern borders. The summit was also attended by Sweden and Finland, which are not member countries but could apply for membership. The Pentagon, for its part, has been strengthening NATO’s defenses, which number  about 100,000 personnel, sending 14,000 troops, in order to  secure the eastern borders of the member countries of the Alliance, and is evaluating plans to help the Ukrainian “internal resistance.”

The siege of Kyiv

The bulk of the Russian army, after the first bombardments, aimed at knocking out the major strategic infrastructures of Ukraine, is now concentrated in the north-eastern part of the country, the most Russian-speaking, and of course on the capital, which is now under siege. The Ukrainian president, who is in Kyiv with members of his government, called for a  general mobilization of the population, also broadcasting videos on the manufacture of rudimentary bombs.[41] Putin would like to end the offensive quickly, to avoid the risk of significant losses, unsustainable for Russian public opinion.[42] It seems, however, that things are going differently. The Ukrainian resistance, in fact, is rapidly organizing itself into military units that could also act as guerrillas.[43] If the population were to take action, the Russian army would find itself imprisoned in hostile cities, somewhat like what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. “The mujaheddin’s fortresses were the mountains; the Ukrainians’ are the cities,”[44] although it should not be forgotten that the Russian army relies on the undisputed superiority of its air force, its missiles and rockets, and the speed of its tanks. Despite this, in many centers not far from the Donbass the Russians have not been able to break through completely and are fighting hard, even if the invaders have so far fielded only a part (the best part) of their military potential.

Taking Kyiv, however, will not be easy. This is a metropolis with three million inhabitants determined to resist and fight. The Russians know what a war “fought house to house” means: past experiences teach this. Putin’s troops have been trained to fight Chechen terrorists in inaccessible areas and ISIS in the alleys of Arab cities, and they know that the cost in human lives can be very high. In this case they have to fight against soldiers and volunteers whom until yesterday they considered brothers. The objective of this invasion is not so much to eliminate the army, as to forcibly take possession of the levers of the State, and to “decapitate the heads of power, killing and capturing government leaders and generals,”[45] in order to impose a regime change in Kyiv with the creation of a puppet government friendly to Moscow.[46] In any case, the Russians are determined to enter the city, using even the most sophisticated means, including the super-armored vehicles – called “Terminators” – that demolished the jihadist strongholds in Syria, but also  so-called saboteurs or infiltrators, who entered the city weeks ago and are now engaged on the war front.

The chronicle of the ongoing war

On the third day of fighting (February 26) the Russians launched an all-out offensive on the most important cities, in particular Kyiv, where it seems about 100,000 men were concentrated. In the night the capital was heavily bombed in several parts and strenuously defended by  volunteers, who managed to “repel a first assault by the Russians.”[47] Halting an assault on the capital could have decided the war.[48] The Russian offensive, according to U.S. sources, has found more opposition than they expected. Putin’s invitation to the Ukrainian army to join the Russian one and eliminate the “tyrants” has  not worked; on the contrary, guerrilla warfare, operated by the so-called “volunteers,” has increased throughout the country. In Europe, predictions of a “long conflict” are circulating, as Macron has said. The  failure of the “blitzkrieg” has definitely sunk in, and Moscow has increased its firepower. Most EU countries have decided to send weapons and war materiel to Ukraine. Although it is not easy to know how, where and to whom they will be delivered,[49] the resistance is clearly more effective with these arms. In particular, in Germany Scholz spoke of “national rearmament,” which would be absolutely unprecedented for his  country and would have a significant impact within the EU.

Putin, through the occupation, intends to “demilitarize” Ukraine, armed by the West, and “denazify” the pro-Western political class. Apparently, a Russian investigative committee has already prepared a list of 85 Ukrainian officials to be put on trial after the occupation, in a sort of new Nuremberg. The Moscow political newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets of February 25 was very clear on the Putin project of regime change in Kyiv: “The current Ukrainian government has only one way out: capitulation. And then the court.” After that, says the newspaper, Moscow will install a friendly government, so as to transform Ukraine into a country that will be an integral part of the new Russian empire.[50]

One wonders incredulously: Does Putin, because of his imperial ambitions, want to turn a European capital, inhabited by Slavs, who have always been considered brothers by the Russians, into a battlefield? According to Di Feo, he “seems ready to do so, even if so far he continues to bet on the surrender of Kyiv,”[51] which for the moment seems a disappointed hope. It is unlikely that the conflict will move to the western part of the country, the most nationalist and hostile to Moscow, where his troops would meet a very strong and determined resistance. According to some critics, the Russian General Staff “have underestimated the enemy, convinced of a rapid collapse […]. The troops do not have adequate logistic support, as some episodes would testify.”[52] But it is too early to make such definitive evaluations. It seems, in fact, that their firepower has greatly increased.

On the fourth day of war, there was good and bad news. The good news was that on the war front a window was opening for a possible meeting between the warring parties. Negotiations proposed by the Russians, through the mediation of Aleksandr Lukashenko, had begun on the morning of February 26, and a location in Belarus had been proposed as the place for the meeting. Zelensky, for his part, had proposed Warsaw, Istanbul (which had been involved in this matter) or Baku. In the end, on the afternoon of February 27, the Ukrainian president agreed that the meeting should be held in Gomel (a town near Chernobyl), Belarus, right on the border with Ukraine. The Ukrainian side was led by the Minister of Defense, Oleksii Reznikov, the Russian side by Putin’s advisor Vladimir Medinsky, former Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation.

The bad news is that Putin, at the same time, ordered Russia’s defense minister and chief of staff to “put the country’s nuclear forces on pre-alert,” thus keeping the threat very high. “This is an unprecedented political move, producing an escalation not seen in years in relations with the U.S. and Europe.”[53] NATO reacted immediately, speaking of an unacceptable threat, while the U.S. said that Putin was aggravating the conflict with “his factory of threats.” The Pentagon has affirmed, in  a firm tone: “We are capable of defending ourselves, our allies and our partners.”[54] Moreover, in recent days the Russian domestic front, involving civilians, has begun to show signs of instability; many oligarchs and wealthy businessmen, affected by sanctions, have begun to criticize Putin’s “risky” decisions, while in the squares many Russians have begun to protest.

On the war front, the Russian advance has somehow “slowed down.” Everywhere the Russian columns have conquered new positions, but have not succeeded in taking over the territory. The Ukrainian army is hitting them on the flanks and is defending the cities of the North and the capital.[55] There is an unexpected resistance that poses a problem for the occupier that is not easy to solve: How to move forward and avoid catastrophe?

Between war and negotiations

On the negotiation front, the two delegations met in the afternoon of February 28 for six long hours. The Ukrainian representatives put on the table two proposals, which Moscow does not intend to accept, namely, an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Moscow “demands two spoils of war that Kyiv does not even dream of conceding,”[56] i.e. the formal recognition of Russian Crimea, and the military neutrality of Ukraine, in essence the distancing  of NATO from these borders. President Zelensky’s move in  return to ask for “immediate” membership of the European Union weighs heavily on the negotiations. Regarding  the request, Brussels has held back. At the end of the meeting, the Russian mediator declared they had identified “points on which to find common ground.”[57] This was not an insignificant  result, even if, in reality, no concrete step has been taken.

Meanwhile, on the ground the volume of fire has been increasing day by day. Moscow wants to enter Kyiv – a 60 km column of armored vehicles was sent toward the capital – as well as take the major cities near the Donbass. But this could result in carnage and the loss of countless civilians. In fact, since March 1, a third wave of bombing has begun, according to several sources, with deadly thermobaric missiles and cluster bombs, which were used by the Russians in Syria. In the capital, the tower of the national TV was also targeted to counter the propaganda of the enemy. In Kharkiv, a city of one and a half million inhabitants, only 40 km from the Russian border, hospitals, homes and government buildings have been bombed. Freedom Square, the largest in the city, “is a carpet of rubble where firemen climb to pull bodies from the ruins.”[58] Yet, Putin promised that only soldiers and strategic infrastructure would be hit. The city of Kherson, on the Black Sea, not far from Crimea, was taken after several attempts.

The fact is that, a week on from the beginning of the conflict, the Russian army appeared bogged down on enemy territory and the results obtained on the field are considered disappointing by the generals. Putin has underestimated the Ukrainian resistance, both military and civilian.[59] Moscow for the first time announced the death toll of the Russian army: 498, and 1,597 wounded. In  all probability the figures are higher.[60] There are too many casualties for a war presented as “a peace operation in the Donbass.”[61] The besieged cities have not surrendered. The blitzkrieg, little by little, has become  a war of position, of siege and this seems to be destined to last. In the meantime, a UN resolution has arrived – actually with some delay – condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, including Putin’s order to put the nuclear arsenal on high alert, and calling for an immediate ceasefire, as well as the “unconditional” withdrawal and “cancellation of recognition” of Donbass. The resolution was approved by 141 states, 5 opposed (Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Syria), and 35 abstained, including China, India, Pakistan and Iran. Russia has been isolated from the international community as a rogue state, even though both China and India have made it known that they will not apply Western economic sanctions.[62]

A second round of negotiations took place on March 2 in Br?st, Belarus, on the border with Poland. The results, according to Kyiv, were less satisfactory than sought (a permanent ceasefire was hoped for). The two sides reached an agreement on the creation of temporary humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of the civilian population, as well as for the delivery of food and medicine in the areas of fighting. This is a practice already tried by the Russians in Syria. This solution, the Ukrainians rightly comment, could be a double-edged sword. These corridors, in fact, could allow Moscow to empty the cities and carry on its total war, without more civilians to slow down the war operations. Putin’s recent accusations weighed heavily, branding the Kyiv government as Nazis and accusing fighters and foreign mercenaries of using civilians as human shields. “I will never go back,” he said, “on my statement that Russia and Ukraine are one people.”[63] In Ukraine, he added, “we are fighting for the salvation of our country.”[64] Further rounds of negotiations were announced in the following days, but this will only happen when the Russian military achieves certain strategic targets on the war front, in order to then use them as leverage at the negotiating table.

In fact, in the meantime there has been no slowdown in the fighting, which on the contrary has become more ferocious everywhere, bringing the war to the heart of the cities. The brief truce promised for humanitarian corridors has failed and been repeatedly violated. Meanwhile, massacres are reported on the outskirts of Kyiv[65] and in Kharkiv, a martyred city; Mariupol continues its slow agony and Odessa risks being attacked from the sea. Even nuclear power plants (including Zaporizhzhia) are surrounded and dangerously occupied.[66]

Mariupol and Kyiv at the center of the conflict

On Monday, March 7, as expected, negotiations were resumed in order to define the so-called “humanitarian corridors,” which had not yet been clarified several days later. The results of the meeting were modest. The Russians are doing everything to “lengthen” the time of the negotiations, in order to gain positions. In any case, the negotiating table remained open. Moscow announced a cease-fire to allow the evacuation of civilians from large cities.[67] At first, the Russians had proposed to evacuate civilians toward Russia and Belarus: a proposal considered inadmissible (and offensive) by the Ukrainians, especially as the presence of humanitarian observers was not mandated. Some corridors were opened, but the Russian army and air force bombed the people using them: this happened near the capital and especially in Mariupol, where civilians remained trapped under the bombs, without food, gas and light. Defiantly, the mayor of the city denounced “the Russians for trying to enter through the humanitarian corridor opened to let 200,000 people pass.”[68] This city is at the center of Russian strategic interest, not least because they want to create a passage connecting Crimea to the Donbass, thus gaining control of the Sea of Azov and restoring water and electricity supplies to the peninsula occupied in 2014.

Negotiators then agreed on a ceasefire for March 9, from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m., to evacuate the civilian population, opening six crossings. President Zelensky, in a video, let it be known: “Evacuations from the Kyiv region continue. More than 18,000 people have been rescued in Dimer, Vorzel and Irpin. We will do everything to ensure humanitarian corridors.”[69] Unfortunately, in the city of Mariupol once again the ceasefire was not respected. The pediatric hospital of the city was hit by an air raid, causing the death of 17 people and numerous wounded.[70]

Rumors are being made about Moscow’s demands in order to stop the advance.[71] In reality they seem very onerous. President Zelensky said he was ready for dialogue, “not capitulation.” He has also declared: “I am willing to discuss with the Russians how to manage the future of Donbass and Crimea, but I will not surrender them.”[72] Instead, there is some news on the negotiating front. France and Germany have tried to engage China in mediating the crisis. In a video conversation (on March 8) between Macron, Scholz and Chinese President, Xi Jinping, the latter condemned the war in Europe, supporting “respect for the sovereignty and integrity of all countries, but also  legitimate Russian security concerns,” and encouraging all efforts for peace. He also called for “maximum restraint” in Ukraine and said he did not approve of Western sanctions on Moscow.[73] China, in short, at this time seeks to hold together its position in favor of Ukraine’s territorial integrity (with implicit reference to matters at home) with the need to protect its “rock-solid” friendship with Russia.

Vatican diplomacy also intervened to ease tension and encourage dialogue between the parties. Cardinal Parolin had a telephone conversation with Russian Minister Lavrov. “The parties expressed,” reads a statement, “the hope that the next round of talks between Moscow and Kyiv will take place soon and that an agreement will be reached on key issues, with the goal of ending hostilities.”[74] Recently, the cardinal declared, “It is never too late to retrace one’s steps and reach an agreement.”[75]

Also on the sanctions front, President Biden announced on March 8: “The United States is targeting a main artery of Russia’s economy. We are banning imports of Russian oil and gas. Thus, the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine.”[76] It was a unilateral decision that did not involve his NATO colleagues. Biden is convinced that the Europeans cannot take such drastic decisions for the moment, but he hopes they will follow soon. In the meantime, European countries are looking for sources of energy supply other than Moscow on the international market; they are also beginning to discuss new investment plans and sources of  renewable energy.[77] Moscow has already threatened to close the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which brings gas to Germany.[78]

Meanwhile, “shuttle diplomacy” continues. On March 10, President Erdo?an in Antalya, Turkey, hosted a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, which did not have the positive results hoped for. There was no agreement between the parties even on a possible ceasefire, but Minister Lavrov confirmed in Belarus that negotiations on this issue (and on the safety of humanitarian corridors) will continue. In fact, in 90 minutes of talks, the heads of the two delegations did not even consider the possibility of a ceasefire, which at this time is the most urgent issue, in order to alleviate the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people barricaded and starving in cities such as Kharkiv and Mariupol. According to Kuleba, his Russian counterpart had no mandate to deal with humanitarian issues, and it all depends on who is really in charge in Moscow.[79] In this game, the real winner was the Turkish president – who had declared he would not apply Western sanctions against Moscow – who entered the dispute as a “peacemaker” and will certainly make his weight felt when it comes to the co-management of the (too narrow) waters of the Black Sea.

Even if the results of the meeting were disappointing, diplomatic channels, together with the negotiations, are the path to a ceasefire and to find solutions to put an end to this damaging   “war of aggression,” before it is too late. Nations that matter at the international level and are in some way linked to Moscow, such as China, and also the EU, must take action in this direction, beyond the economic sanctions already implemented. Otherwise we are heading toward destruction, massacres, and crossing the “red lines” of dirty wars. All the more so because the unforeseen and destructive consequences of this “senseless conflict” could be difficult to manage for Russia itself, both during the war – which could also be very long and debilitating (the Ukrainians, despite the Russian military superiority, do not intend to surrender easily) – and afterward.[80]

Russia has long claimed that the United States operates some laboratories in Ukraine for the production of biological weapons. A spokeswoman of the Kremlin, Maria Zakharova, says she has “evidence” that they are developing components to make weapons banned by international law. The White House immediately clarified that the U.S. respects the Convention in force on biological and chemical weapons, and said that the Russian claim is an attempt to justify a possible attack with weapons of this type, as in the past Russia has done in other theaters of war, for example in Syria. Aside from the “propaganda war” going on between the two sides, if this were to happen it would bring the conflict to a very high level of casualties, especially among civilians.[81] There is an ongoing campaign of misinformation about the number of dead and wounded on both sides. At the moment, it is not possible to quantify the number of people killed in the conflict. According to the United Nations, civilians killed so far are 564, the wounded about 1,000,[82] but these figures are very low. In Mariupol there are also reports of recently discovered mass graves.[83] Ukrainians who left the country after the Russian invasion are said to number more than two and a half million, almost exclusively women and children.

In the meantime, the big cities live under the bombs, during the day and especially at night; the planes drop “their load of death” on houses and buildings, hitting schools, kindergartens and hospitals. These bombings rarely have only military objectives; they are the instrument with which Putin intends to bend the Ukrainian people to his will and force them to surrender.[84] Moscow has deployed on the field only a part of its artillery, and not even the most deadly components and the most technologically advanced. Within a few days the offensive could get bogged down, compelling the invaders to use more harmful armaments of the latest generation and to multiply the bombardment of the besieged cities. It would be a hellish scenario, such as perhaps to bring about negotiations  to stop the carnage, and arrest the “escalation of war,”[85] thus to activate international diplomacy at the highest levels.

Macron and Scholz again asked Putin in a “telephone summit” to agree to a ceasefire and “the beginning of a diplomatic solution to the crisis,” without achieving any positive results. On the contrary, the Russian leader accused Ukrainian troops of violating international law by using civilians as human shields, and has reiterated that he wants to continue the war.[86] On several occasions he has stated that he considers all arms convoys coming from European countries as military targets to be hit. Meanwhile, at the end of the week, the West – U.S. and EU – have decided on a fourth  restrictive package of sanctions against the Kremlin, in order to further isolate Putin and the oligarchs who support him,[87] a real “atomic bomb” that, with the passage of time, could cause the Russian economy to implode.

share :
tags icon tags :
comments icon Without comments

Comments

write comment
Please enter the letters as they are shown in the image above.