The West should stop tiptoeing around Putin
Modern-day Russia is a gangster state. It will only respond to steely strength, not diplomatic niceties
Nothing better illustrates Vladimir Putin’s approach to his long-running confrontation with the West than the old Leninist adage for waging war against your enemies. Speaking at the time of Russia’s Bolshevik revolution a century ago, the communist leader advised that, if you encounter mush, then continue to advance. If, on the other hand, you come up against steel, then withdraw.
And, judging by Mr Putin’s conduct over the past two decades, the Russian president seems to have taken Lenin’s advice very much to heart as he has sought to expand Moscow’s sphere of influence through force of arms.
Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 was launched on the assumption that the West was far too preoccupied with the military campaigns it was fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to come to Tbilisi’s aid. Mr Putin made a similar calculation when he invaded and annexed the Crimean peninsula six years later, concluding that, as Western leaders were unwilling to fulfil their pledge to punish the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-assad, for using chemical weapons in 2013, they would not intervene over Crimea.
Mr Putin’s confidence that Moscow would not face serious reprisals for his misconduct even extended to his willingness to liquidate his opponents abroad, with the Kremlin’s assassins not even bothering to cover their tracks when carrying out their mission to murder prominent dissident Alexander Litvinenko at a London hotel in 2006.
Now that the Russian leader has compounded his track record of violence by invading Ukraine, it is vital that Western leaders fully comprehend Mr Putin’s adherence to the Leninist doctrine of exploiting any sign of weakness to his advantage.
There has, it is true, been a welcome display of unity and resolve on the part of the Western alliance since the invasion began in February, with it providing military support to Ukraine and hitting Russia with punitive sanctions. But there has also been a marked reluctance, especially on the part of the United States and European powers such as Germany and France, to demonstrate unequivocally to Moscow that unprovoked aggression on the scale witnessed in Ukraine will no longer be tolerated.
On the contrary, Western policy appears to be aimed at making sure that no measures are taken that might lead to a direct confrontation between Nato and Russia. This is certainly the case in Washington, where the position of Joe Biden’s administration has been to avoid escalating tensions with Moscow at all costs instead of providing Ukraine with the wholehearted support it requires to repel the Russians.
This would explain the maddening delay in providing Ukraine’s beleaguered defenders with the firepower that they require to defeat their foes. After weeks of dithering, the US, along with Britain, has finally agreed to provide Kyiv with long-range missiles with the scope to destroy Russian artillery. However, the Russians may well have achieved their goal of seizing control of the Donbas region by the time these arms become operational in a few weeks’ time.
Concern about provoking Russia also explains the reluctance of Western leaders to take decisive action to end its blockade of Ukrainian grain, which has raised the prospect of mass starvation in the developing world. Rather than taking measures to safeguard shipping lanes through the Black Sea, Western leaders are still clinging to the belief that they can negotiate a deal with Moscow to facilitate grain shipments.
The naivety of this approach was laid bare yesterday when Moscow said that it would be willing to allow grain exports to international markets, but only on condition that economic sanctions imposed against it for invading Ukraine were lifted first.
Rather than being surprised that Moscow should so readily resort to blackmail on such a vital issue as global starvation, Western leaders need to understand that modern-day Russia is a gangster state that plays by gangster rules and acts accordingly.
Instead of accommodating Russian concerns, the West needs to be more assertive. If it wants to prevent a global famine then it must put the measures in place to guarantee the free passage of grain shipments through the Black Sea. If the West wants Ukraine to win the war, which its leaders repeatedly claim is their goal, then it should supply the Ukrainian forces with the weapons they need to prevail on the battlefield, and not worry about how Moscow might react.
In short, the West needs to call Moscow’s bluff, as the Turks did to great effect in Syria in 2015 when they shot down a Russian warplane after the Russians ignored repeated warnings not to violate Turkish air space. Rather than provoking open hostilities between Moscow and Ankara, the Turks’ uncompromising response meant that the Russians learnt their lesson and avoided further confrontations with Turkish forces.
The Turks’ no-nonsense approach certainly taught Mr Putin a lesson, and Western leaders need to demonstrate a similar steely resolve in support of Ukraine’s cause, instead of constantly pandering to Moscow’s objections.