The nuclear threat
Moscow warned this week that the conflict in Ukraine risked escalating into a third world war. The remarks, by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, came after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin visited Kyiv and promised more military assistance to Ukraine. Austin said that the US wanted to see Russia “weakened” so that it wouldn’t be able to launch further such offensives. The US later hosted more than 40 countries for defence talks in Germany, where Berlin, which has faced criticism for not offering more help, joined others in pledging to supply heavy weaponry to Ukraine. Western allies, said Austin, were gearing up “for the long haul”.
On Wednesday, the Russian energy giant
Gazprom said that it had halted gas exports to Poland and Bulgaria in response to their refusal to pay for supplies in roubles, a condition recently introduced for “unfriendly” countries. Ukraine’s war also appeared to spill over to Moldova this week, where Russia was accused of staging falseflag attacks in the separatist region of Transnistria (see page 7).
What the editorials said
Now that Russia has scaled back its campaign in Ukraine, having failed to seize Kyiv, it’s tempting to think “the stakes have shrunk” for the West, said The Wall Street Journal. Alas, that’s not the case. Last week a Russian general implied that Putin is still aiming to seize a swathe of the south, cutting Ukraine off from the sea, and that “Transnistria, if not all of Moldova, may be next on the Kremlin menu”. Russia’s faltering offensive is far from over, agreed The Independent. UK intelligence officials reportedly believe that “an inconclusive war could continue until the end of next year, and that Russian forces could regroup and even eventually prevail”. All the more important, then, that we lend Ukraine as much support today as possible.
America appears keen to do just that, said The Economist. The initial, wary approach of the Biden administration seemed designed merely to impose more costs on Russia, but it now looks as if the US has embraced the idea that Ukraine, with the right help, could actually win. Moscow has responded by “issuing yet more shadowy warnings” about the risks of nuclear war. But both the US and its allies seem less cowed by such sabre-rattling today.
What the commentators said
The Ukraine war hasn’t gone well for Putin, said Ruth Deyermond in Prospect – and things are only likely to get worse. Russia is losing men and materiel at a fast rate, and sanctions are hampering its ability to “resupply and repair – let alone upgrade – equipment”. The West, meanwhile, is providing Ukraine with a “staggering” amount of military assistance. Since the start of the war, the US alone has supplied or pledged $3.4bn-worth of arms. “It is impossible for Russia to compete with this.” That may leave Putin with just two options, said Roger Boyes in The Times. One is to “go home trumpeting a transparently fake victory”. The other is “to escalate”. Were he to declare a general mobilisation of able-bodied Russian men, that would enable him to bolster exhausted units and wage a “war without end” – one that, he might hope, would eventually sap the West’s resolve and nudge Ukraine “into his grasp”.
Another way Putin could dramatically up the ante, said Colin Freeman in The Daily Telegraph, would be by deploying low-yield tactical nuclear weapons. Doing so would “cross a red line that no nation has dared to step over in the 76 years since Hiroshima”, but Putin may be capable of it. He was, after all, reckless enough to invade Ukraine in the first place, something no rational leader would have done. And he took great delight last week in test-firing his latest intercontinental nuclear missile, the Sarmat II – dubbed “Satan II by Western officials” – bragging about how it would make those who try to threaten Russia “think again”.
Putin isn’t crazy enough to actually follow through with his veiled nuclear threats, said Gideon Rose in Foreign Affairs. “He knows that extraordinary retaliation and universal opprobrium would follow, with no remotely comparable strategic upsides to justify them – not to mention the fact that the radioactive fallout from such use might easily blow back onto Russia itself.” No, this conflict will continue to grind on with conventional weapons, until one side gains a decisive advantage or the conflict “curdles into a stalemate”.
What next?
Poland, which bought 53% of its gas from Russia in the first quarter of this year, says it will be able to manage without the supply thanks to alternative sources. Bulgaria, which currently relies on Russia for more than 90% of its gas supply, also claims it can get by without Russian gas. Both countries were already planning to stop importing it by the end of the year, when their contracts with Gazprom expire.
The Finnish media reported this week that Finland and Sweden could launch joint Nato membership bids in May. Finland’s foreign minister said it would be “useful” for the nations to move together, but said no date had been fixed.