A divided West is giving Putin a second chance to win

This is not just about the fate of Ukraine. It’s about the lesson it offers to rogue states across the world

Viewed from the Kremlin, the many Western declarations of support for the Ukrainians are starting to lose their credibility. The euphoria generated during the early stages of the conflict, when it seemed that plucky little Ukraine was giving the Russian bear a bloody nose, is long gone, with the conflict now settling into a gruelling war of attrition that neither side appears capable of winning.

And, as Ukraine’s chances of decisively beating the Russians recede, so, it appears, does the appetite of a significant number of Nato countries to provide Kyiv with the military hardware it needs to prevail on the battlefield.

That is certainly good news for Vladimir Putin, who will have calculated from the moment he launched his invasion of Ukraine that the West would quickly lose interest in the conflict, leaving him free to achieve his nefarious objectives.

With tomorrow marking the 100th day of the war, Putin has good reason to believe that his prediction has proved correct. Rather than presenting a united front in support of Ukraine, clear divisions are emerging among Nato leaders over how best to respond to the Russian threat.

The provision of arms to Ukraine, or lack thereof, is but one example. Ukrainian leaders have been warning for weeks that, if they are to repel Moscow’s long-anticipated assault on the east of the country, they will require significant supplies of heavy armour.

Yet, instead of ensuring that the Ukrainians were properly equipped to defend their sovereignty, there has been a noticeable lack of urgency on the part of far too many Nato countries to fulfil their obligations.

One of the more prominent instances of Western prevarication has been the Biden administration’s reluctance to satisfy the Ukrainians’ request for long-range missiles to counter the relentless Russian artillery bombardment of the Donbas region.

President Biden has been a leading voice in condemning Russian aggression, and has made numerous pledges to provide vital weaponry. His enthusiasm for actually giving Kyiv the kit it needs to achieve victory, though, has seemed more muted, especially in terms of supplying Ukraine with multi-launch rocket systems.

Washington has voiced concern that sending missiles to Ukraine that have the range to attack Russian territory would risk unnecessarily antagonising Putin. Instead, the White House has agreed to supply medium-range missiles.

It is a moot point whether, given how long it has taken the Biden administration to make up its mind on the issue, the missile systems will arrive in time to prevent the Russians seizing control of key strategic points in the Donbas.

Nor is the US the only Nato member that has been dragging its feet. Germany is another that has failed to provide any heavy weapons to Ukraine in recent weeks, despite Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s claim that his country has an unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s defence.

The reality, though, is that Mr Scholz, together with French President Emmanuel Macron, seems more interested in appeasing Moscow than in displaying solidarity with Kyiv.

Add to this deeply unimpressive track record the difficulties the European Union has experienced this week in its efforts to agree to an embargo of Russian oil imports, and it is easy to see why Putin might believe the tide of the conflict is turning in his favour.

Certainly, when global statesmen of the calibre of Dr Henry Kissinger advocate hiving off large chunks of eastern Ukraine to Moscow to end the war, it is clear the West has little appetite for properly defending its interests.

The less-than-convincing support for Ukraine makes a striking contrast to the West’s robust response to another unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation more than 30 years ago, when Saddam Hussein’s assault on Kuwait prompted a Us-led coalition to mobilise a 500,000-strong army to liberate the emirate.

The circumstances surrounding these two events may be very different but, back in the 1990s, the West clearly had much more of an appetite for confronting rogue dictators than it does today.

Failure to provide Ukraine with the military support that it requires to withstand the Russian assault is not without risk, as it will encourage other rogue states to believe that they, too, can ride roughshod over international law without facing any consequences. It is surely no coincidence that, since the start of the Ukraine conflict, there has been an upsurge in North Korean ballistic missile tests, while it is now being reported that Iran has acquired sufficient quantities of enriched nuclear material to build an atom bomb.

Giving Ukraine the backing it needs to win the war is not just about teaching Putin that unprovoked acts of aggression will not succeed. It sends an important signal to other rogue states that they will also be held to account for their bad behaviour.

read more at telegraph.co.uk/opinion