Why Ukraine must win. The Economist editorial
A strong and democratic Ukraine would hinder Russia's expansionism, because its borders would be secure. The editorial of the weekly The Economist
When Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to enter Ukraine, he was not alone in thinking that victory would be swift. Many Western analysts also expected Kiev, the capital, to fall within 72 hours. Ukrainian valor and ingenuity have disproved these predictions. As the war enters its sixth week, the party contemplating victory is not Russia but Ukraine – and it would be a victory that would reshape the European security map – writes The Economist .
Speaking to The Economist in Kiev on March 25, President Volodymyr Zelensky explained how people's power is the secret of Ukraine's resistance and why the war is shifting in his nation's favor. "We believe in victory," he declared. “This is our home, our land, our independence. It is only a matter of time".
The battlefield begins to tell the same story as the president. After several weeks during which the Russian assault stalled, Ukrainian forces began to fight back. On March 29, Russia said it would "fundamentally reduce" the northern campaign. His retreat may only be tactical, but Russia has indeed admitted that, for the time being, it cannot take Kiev.
Yet much of Ukraine remains in Russian hands, including the strip of land on the southern coast that the Russians now claim is their long-time target. A large chunk of the Ukrainian army in the Donbas region is vulnerable to encirclement. Nobody should underestimate the Russian firepower. Even if his forces are exhausted and demoralized, they can entrench themselves. Victory for Ukraine means keeping its Donbas brigades intact and using them to deny Russia a secure grip on occupied territory.
For this, Zelensky told us, the West must impose tougher sanctions on Russia and provide more weapons, including planes and tanks. Sanctions exhaust Russia's ability to withstand a long war. Weapons help Ukraine take back its territory. But the NATO countries refuse to give him what he wants. Given what is at stake, both for the West and for Ukraine, this betrays a reprehensible failure of the strategic vision.
For Ukraine, a decisive victory would discourage another Russian invasion. The more Ukraine can convincingly push back the Russian military, the more it will be able to resist compromises that could poison the peace. Victory would also be the best basis for launching a postwar democratic state less corrupt by Russian oligarchs and infiltration.
The prize for the West would be almost as great. Not only could Ukraine reinvigorate the cause of democracy, it would also improve European security. During 300 years of imperialism, Russia has repeatedly been at war in Europe. Sometimes, as with Poland and Finland, he was the invader. At other times, as with Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France, it was seen as a lethal threat and was itself a victim of aggression.
A strong and democratic Ukraine would hinder Russia's expansionism, because its borders would be secure. In the short term, an angry and defeated dictator would remain in the Kremlin, but ultimately Russia, following Ukraine's example, would be more likely to solve its problems with internal reforms than with foreign adventures. By doing so, NATO would consequently become less of a drain on budgets and diplomacy. The United States would be freer to deal with its growing rivalry with China.
Alas, much of the West seems blind to this historic opportunity. America is conducting as needed, even though it has vetoed the sending of planes to Ukraine. But Germany is taking a short-term view of sanctions, balancing pressure from its allies and public opinion against maintaining its trade ties with Russia, the supplier of much of its oil and natural gas. French President Emmanuel Macron claims to speak for Western allies when he argues that providing the heavy weapons Ukraine needs would turn them into "co-belligerents". Zelensky accuses these countries of being shortsighted or fearful. He's right.
Perhaps Germany doubts that Ukraine can leave its post-Soviet past behind. It is true that, after the Maidan protests established democracy in 2014, the country has been unable to shake off corruption and political inertia. And after being hit by Russian artillery, Ukraine's economy will be in ruins. However, the EU can help ensure that this time around is different by starting work on Ukraine's accession right now. There could be no greater claim than the EU's founding mission to create peace on a war-torn continent.
Bringing Ukraine's governance into line with that of the EU will necessarily be long and bureaucratic. The risk is that Brussels will put Ukraine on the sidelines, as if Europe deigned to make it join. Instead, the EU should welcome Ukraine with enthusiasm, as Eastern Europe was greeted when it shook off Soviet domination in the early 1990s. This requires generous help to rebuild the economy, as well as political support and patience.
The other concern is that of Macron: that NATO provokes Russia. Since the beginning of this war, when he spoke of "consequences … such as you have never seen in all your history," Putin has hinted that Western involvement could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. Wisely, the West has therefore been clear that NATO will not fight Russian forces – because, if it does, the war could spiral out of control, with catastrophic results.
However, backing away from Putin's nuclear threat also carries risks. Limiting Ukrainian aid would help Russia impose an unstable – and therefore temporary – peace on President Zelensky. It would reward Putin for his threats, preparing his next act of atomic aggression. Conversely, more powerful weapons and sanctions would mark a change in the degree of aid, but not its type. And this week, in the face of Ukrainian success, Russia has paused the campaign in the north rather than escalating. For all these reasons, the best deterrence is for NATO to oppose Putin's veiled threat, and make it clear that a nuclear or chemical atrocity would lead to the total isolation of Russia.
Conflict is unpredictable. History is littered with wars that were supposed to be brief but have dragged on for years. Ukraine won the first phase of this by simply surviving. Now he needs to move forward, and therefore President Zelensky needs doubled Western aid. It would be terrible if what stands between a bad peace and a good peace were a defect of imagination in European capitals.
(Extract from the press review of eprcomunicazione)
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/ucraina-economist/ on Sat, 02 Apr 2022 06:10:07 +0000.