Europe is on the brink of war – and the West is leaderless
Is Vladimir Putin going to order the invasion of Ukraine today, or on Wednesday afternoon, or perhaps next Monday once the Winter Olympics, staged by his putative comrade-in-arms Xi Jinping, are safely out of the way?
Alternatively, is he going to leave large numbers of Russian troops and heavy equipment strewn along the Ukrainian border for the next five years, obliging the West to remain on alert while he decides his next move? Or is he just having a laugh, getting us all wound up and dancing to his tune?
Nobody knows. America thinks it knows, but all it actually knows is what would most likely happen if Putin gives the order to go.
As things stand, it doesn’t matter what Britain thinks. Or France or Germany for that matter. If Europe’s Big Three were in a mood for war, it would be a different story. But they’re not. They are fully prepared to let Putin walk all over Ukraine and will only react post facto by imposing sanctions, the extent and efficacy of which remain to be agreed.
Reports from Ukraine over the last few days, in particular by The Times’s Anthony Loyd, indicate the extent of the frustration felt by ordinary Ukrainians in the face of the panic displayed by America and Europe. People trying to get on with their everyday lives are being told on a constant basis by Washington and its allies that war is coming and that there is nothing to be done about it. Worse, they – the Western powers – appear more concerned about getting their people out than about the consequences of an invasion for those at the receiving end of Russian aggression.
It is Afghanistan all over again.
On Sunday, Jake Tapper, CNN’s number one political commentator, ripped into President Biden over his casual dismissal of an official, 250-page Armed Forces review of last August’s chaotic retreat from Kabul. The review concluded that American forces on the ground were kept out of the loop and denied the resources required to conduct an orderly withdrawal. US commanders in charge of the operation said that neither the State Department nor the US ambassador seemed aware of the urgency of the situation and that officials looked to have no idea what was happening just a couple of miles down the road from the US embassy.
In the course of an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, Biden had made clear the extent of his contempt for the appraisal of what happened given to him by his own people. Did he recognise the validity of any of the points raised? Holt inquired. “No,” he sneered, sitting back, his eyes like slits. And then he paused. “No … that’s not what I was told.” So was he rejecting the conclusions of the Army’s report, including accounts by officers and NCOs who were there throughout the operation? “Yes I am,” he said. “I’m rejecting them.”
Tapper – a liberally-minded Democrat to his fingertips – was disgusted. He was tired listening to Biden expressing his compassion for those who had died in action, and their families. Actions were how a President showed that he cared. “Otherwise, isn’t it just words?”
Bear in mind, Biden, aged 79, slower both mentally and physically than he was when he campaigned for the presidency, is first and foremost the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, joined at the hip to the heads of the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. The trust between the President and the joint chiefs has to be absolute. And yet here Biden was, behaving as if the generals were making it up and that only he knew the truth of what went on.
He sounded like an old man who really should have been upstairs taking a nap.
Now consider his approach to Ukraine. No one expects America to go to war with Russia over the latter’s dispute with Ukraine. World War is not on any sane leader’s to-do list. But when Ukraine’s beleaguered president, Volodymyr Zelensky, appealed to Biden to go to Moscow to persuade Putin to stay his hand, answer came there none. At the same time, a lengthy phone call between Biden and Zelensky “did not go well,” according to reports in Kiev.
Biden, it seems, would rather sit this one out. He is, he says, ready to impose the mother of all sanctions on Russia if and when the fighting starts. But he is not prepared to get personally involved during the build-up. He has more important things to do at home, we are asked to believe, than get between the Russian bear and its prey.
Most independent observers would probably agree that if Donald Trump had remained in power, the situation would be even worse. Trump – who three years ago made the supply of US weapons to Ukraine dependent on Zelensky’s agreement to provide “dirt” on Biden’s son, Hunter – might even have sided with Putin. But that is by the way.
What we in Britain and Europe, and across the US, have to accept is that if Putin does order his troops forward, the only direct involvement of the West will be via its media. Broadcasters and print journalists will be trying on their helmets and bullet-proof vests en route to the front lines while our armed forces do no more than look on from the sidelines.
For now, that is where the situation rests. The diplomats are leaving town and the men and women in uniform have been told to await further orders.
The last time Russia invaded another European country was in 1968, when Moscow sent tanks into Czechoslovakia to put an end to the Prague Spring. Prior to that, Russia went in, bayonets fixed, to put down the 1956 Hungarian uprising. In response, the West huffed and puffed, but did nothing because the disputes that arose were held to be within the Soviet sphere of influence.
This time round, Putin is counting on the fact that the same logic applies. Ukraine was always part of the Soviet Union and for centuries before that played a prominent role in the development of Russian culture. He is certainly not going to allow it to slip out of his backyard to be annexed by the EU and NATO.
Seated in the Oval Office, Biden knows that he cannot order his forces to liberate Ukraine. And in pretty well every European capital, including Warsaw and Vilnius, no one would expect him to issue any such order. The risk to all concerned would be too great. But in the US Congress as well as in parliaments across Europe, the fear has to be that American leadership is most conspicuous by its absence and that, from now on, Europe will have to depend on itself when it comes to confrontations with the East.
Maybe it will be left to the UK, once shorn of Boris Johnson, to take the necessary steps forward. There is talk, apparently, of the EU offering Britain a leadership role in a new security apparatus acting outside of the treaties, to counter future geopolitical challenges.
It is reported that proposals for a “European Security Council,” possibly based in London, are being drawn up by Germany, the Netherlands and Poland in order to bring “Britain back into the fold” post-Brexit.
If confirmed, this would be a positive move – though it would require the support of France, whose president, of whatever stripe, would no doubt demand an Anglo-French duumvirate. But such an idea would do nothing to resolve the present crisis. For now, as all eyes turn to Moscow and away from Washington, the dearth of leadership in the West is the next great crisis we all must face.