Putin’s Invasion Gerry OShea
I was among
the many “experts” convinced that Vladimir Putin would not invade Ukraine. Our
thinking still seems logical: why would he attack the second largest country in
Europe – smaller only than Russia – and start a continental war in the 21st
century?
What would
drive him to initiate a major murderous conflict, drawing the anger of most
people in Europe and beyond? Why make Russia a pariah nation, viewed
contemptuously almost everywhere?
On the
evening of February 21st, three days before the Russian invasion,
President Putin spoke at length about his beliefs in an interview on Russian
radio. He angrily attacked NATO for its alleged eastern expansion, accused
Ukraine of aggressive behavior and condemned the presence of Western missiles
on Russia’s borders.
However, most
of his tirade was directed against Ukraine’s sense of nationhood. “Ukraine is
not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our
history, culture and spiritual space. Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia.”
In other words, from his standpoint, the border between the two countries represents
just a convenient administrative division.
True to this
thinking that Ukraine doesn’t really exist except as an extension of Russia,
Putin grabbed Crimea and the Donbas following the Maidan protests and murders
in Kyiv in 2014. However, his stooge leader in Kyiv, Viktor Yanukovych, was
forced out and the new regime there favored close ties with the European Union.
Russian government media describe Ukraine as a
failed state taken over by neo-Nazis with Russian forces riding to the rescue.
Moscow’s master of propaganda, Vladislav Surkov, explained that historically
all that works with Ukraine is “coercion into fraternal relations.”
The late
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, always
stressed the central importance of Ukraine, asserting that without it Russia
ceases to be an empire. The genesis of the current crisis can be traced back to
the collapse of the Soviet Union. Until that historic development in 1991
Ukraine was ruled by Moscow for over 300 years.
The
exceptional bravery and resilience shown by the Ukrainian population since the
February invasion clearly contradicts the Russian war narrative. Asserting that
because Ukraine was dominated by Russia in the past somehow justifies their
subjugation today is clearly absurd. That logic would allow Great Britain to
re-conquer Ireland because they ruled the country for seven hundred years.
The Russian
approach to their neighbors has all the marks of a colonial power. They see Ukrainian
culture and language as inferior to their own. This disdainful attitude of
inherent superiority as much as their vastly superior armaments undergirded the
February invasion. The superiority myth has come face to face with the reality
of a determined population that has no intention of bowing down before the
ongoing fierce Russian bombardment.
While the
Russian empire takes in a 3000-mile slice of northern Asia, including more than
a dozen nationalities, it has always seen itself primarily as a European power.
Its string of great novelists and composers has looked west for inspiration and
approval, and its historic military victories over Napoleon and Hitler
guaranteed Moscow great power status. In this context, the departure of
Ukraine, edging towards membership of the European Union, is a huge blow to the
old power structure, and it shook Putin into extreme and ill-advised military
action.
Ironically,
his barbaric behavior has strengthened the hands of the pro-European people in
Ukraine – a clear majority of the population. Even if Moscow wins the current
war, imagine the repressive regime they would have to install in Kyiv and how
would they get any credibility or respect from the more than 40 million locals.
The vast majority of Russian-speakers living in the country have shown the same
disgust and repudiation of Moscow’s savage attacks as Ukrainian-speaking
citizens.
Putin sees
NATO as his bete noire with designs on expanding eastward, all the way to
Moscow. The NATO countries have rallied strongly behind the brave Ukrainian opposition,
and, led by the United States, they are pouring money and armaments into the
resistance movement.
In addition,
Sweden and Finland, both geographically close to Russia, but, until now, remaining
in the non-aligned corner, have declared that, because of Putin’s
war-mongering, they need NATO protection and both countries plan to apply soon
for membership. They will add considerably to its strength and to Putin’s
worries.
Ukraine was
also at the center of oppression during the years of Soviet domination.
Beginning in 1929 Joseph Stalin launched the Holodomor, literally the killing
by hunger, a program of compelled deportations as well as the forceful theft of
the abundant local food from Ukraine’s rural population. This policy was rolled
out in conjunction with a purge of the country’s urban intelligentsia, and it resulted
in over four million deaths leaving a historical residue of deep tribal hatred.
The military
consensus in the West projected that Russia would overwhelm the smaller
Ukrainian forces and take control of its neighboring country in a few weeks.
Russia, after all, has a defense budget twelve times larger than Ukraine’s as
well as a powerful, modernized air force, navy and army which would quickly
overcome their inexperienced opponents.
Putin
completely underestimated the way the West coalesced behind American leadership
and provided Ukraine with an abundance of their best tanks and missiles.
President Biden’s request to Congress for a massive 33 billion dollars is
likely to be approved, and this level of generosity is matched by some of the
powerful European countries.
The Russian
generals’ belief that the Germans especially would never support serious
sanctions because they depend on Russian oil and gas for their economic
development was completely off the mark. They underestimated the disgust evoked
throughout Europe by Russia’s war-mongering. The leaders of the vibrant
European economies and President Biden have Zelensky’s back.
Their firm
support for Ukrainian forces has turned the tide in the war, and an increasing
number of military experts give them a real chance of driving the Russians back
and re-establishing control over their own country. If the Russians are
defeated it will be a massive fillip for democracies everywhere in the world
and a huge setback for all stripes of belligerent fascism.
Putin has
dangled the use of chemical or nuclear weapons in case his conventional forces
are losing and in disarray. In making these threats he is wearing the hat of a
mad scientist who gains credibility because of his derangement. Would he really
press the button that would lead to a world conflagration that might well end
all life on the planet rather than accept defeat?
Surely not,
but think of a defeated and humiliated Russian leader who values power over everything,
losing all credibility and international standing. In his bitterness and
disillusion, would he resort to using
weapons of mass destruction?
Comments
Post a Comment