Conventional wisdom dictates that Vladimir Putin has ‘miscalculated’ in his invasion of Ukraine. His blitzkrieg has been poorly executed. He has reinvigorated the Nato alliance and the EU and triggered heavy sanctions. And he has lost the ‘information war’ to Volodymyr Zelensky, the TV comedian turned global hero.
But what if the West has ‘miscalculated’ in reading Putin’s intentions? What if the West’s sanctions, along with intensified military aid to Ukraine and a courageous local resistance, encourage Putin to double down? What if he decides to use a weapon of last resort, a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon, even at the risk of World War 3?
At Emmanuel Macron’s latest bout of telephone diplomacy, Putin was intransigent, insisting that all Russian demands are met. Putin also warned that Ukraine’s resistance was putting its statehood at risk, a macabre echo of Adolf Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria in 1938. Macron is said to have concluded: ‘The worst is yet to come.’
It is tempting to assume Putin is bluffing. His actions to date suggest the opposite. Amassing 150,000-plus troops on the borders of Ukraine was not a pressure tactic aimed at securing recognition of Crimea as Russian, a land bridge to the ‘breakaway republics’ of Donetsk and Luhansk, or a formal declaration of Ukraine neutrality to be endorsed by the US and Europe. It was the prelude to invasion.
With the assault on Kiev stalled and bloody urban warfare looming, the US and Europe need to think hard about their objectives. How to increase pressure on Putin’s regime through covert action and arms supplies without resorting to measures such as no-fly zones which could lead to direct conflict with Russia. And how to choose their words carefully.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in