The Guardian view on the G20 and supporting Ukraine: stay on course
Vladimir Putin’s absence from the G20 summit in Bali, and the wave upon wave of missiles that struck Ukraine on Tuesday night, are both testament to the Russian president’s failure. Moscow remains diplomatically isolated by a large part of the international community, and its troops continue to lose on the battlefield – most recently evidenced by last week’s retreat from Kherson, the only major city that they had managed to capture. Mr Putin lost his gamble that he could defenestrate the Ukrainian government in February, and he is still losing.
His response is to terrorise civilians once more. Putting Sergei Surovikin, the man who oversaw the destruction of Aleppo and other Syrian cities, in charge of this war emphasises that the strategy is to maximise suffering and grind down morale. As the foreign secretary, James Cleverly, told MPs on Wednesday: “We know what Putin intends to do – to starve and freeze the Ukrainians into submission.”
Russia’s deliberate targeting of the energy infrastructure has stepped up as the bitter winter weather sets in: more than 40% of it – including transmission lines, power stations and pipelines – has been damaged or destroyed already. Though air defences have helped to shield some facilities, and Ukraine is carrying out repairs at remarkable speed, the impact has been severe, with millions living with rolling blackouts or long-term loss of power. Tuesday’s attacks also highlighted the ongoing risks of escalation, as a missile landed in Poland, killing two of its citizens. Though that now appears to have been fired by Ukrainian air defences, Russia bears the ultimate responsibility for those deaths.
Its strikes were in part a riposte to Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s speech to what he called the “G19”. He sought to portray himself as a man who wanted a deal – but stressed that a ceasefire would only be possible when Russian troops left Ukrainian soil. That followed reports that the US has urged Kyiv to at least signal an openness to negotiations, reflecting Washington’s concern about “donor fatigue” in Europe, and public remarks by Gen Mark Milley. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff suggested that an outright victory for Ukraine was out of reach and that the opportunity to negotiate should be seized – comments that the Biden administration has since played down.
This week, the president asked Congress for another $37.7bn to support Ukraine.
But the attacks also ensured that the crisis dominated a summit which the host, Indonesia, had originally hoped would focus on climate breakdown and on the broader issues of food and energy security. India has grown more critical, and China appears to be edging away from Russia in some regards – or at least seeking to give the impression of doing so – but fundamentally, Beijing is still trying to straddle irreconcilable interests. It will not turn its back on its partner. The missiles were a clear challenge to Kyiv’s supporters: are you really willing to keep pouring your money into a war that shows no signs of ending, with costs mounting as your own citizens face spiralling prices and the threat of energy blackouts?
Russia’s brutal air war persists because its original strategy failed, and failed not only due to extraordinary Ukrainian resilience, but also to the remarkable levels of support that Kyiv has received from outside. Those standing against Moscow’s aggression should not allow Mr Putin to distract them, but stay on course.