Why Putin’s Russia is still a deadly threat
WHENEVER my ship visited a Russian port, the authorities would station a soldier at the foot of our gangway.
While these young men would always be very smart in their uniforms, they often showed lingering signs of childhood malnutrition and of being poorly educated.
Most appeared to have been recruited in remote areas of Russia, particularly from the east of the country. Often I was the first European they’d ever encountered and they were always deeply suspicious of my intentions.
However, a continuous supply of coffee and sandwiches soon warmed our relationship, thereby allowing me to continue going about undertaking the business of my ship unencumbered.
I suspect that even these poor lads were streets ahead of the 300,000 conscripts recently forced into uniform by President Putin.
After only three or four days of training, they are being sent to the front line in Ukraine where their life expectancy can be measured in hours rather than days.
There are many who see Ukraine’s liberation of Kherson as a pretext for peace negotiations with Russia – I would beg to disagree.
Notwithstanding that Russia’s “retreat” was stage-managed to the extent that its real intention may not be all it seems, Russia is unlikely to give up any of the territory it now holds, either as a result of its 2014 invasion or that gained in the past year.
Nor is it likely to want to pay any reparations for the damage it has caused to Ukraine’s infrastructure.
However, the most compelling reason not to engage in any treaty with Russia at this stage is that it will allow Putin sufficient time to regroup, recruit and retain a much more efficient army than the rabble he now commands.
No matter how badly the Russian soldier performs, he is not lacking in his love for the “Rodina” or Mother Russia. A well-trained Russian soldier is a lethal force.
The war in Ukraine may last for many years to come.
We will all be poorer as a result, but the alternative for not supporting Ukraine will have much worse consequences.
Better to live in poverty than the alternative.
Peter J Newton
via email