It is certain that, thirty years after the Balkan Wars, Europe is on the brink of a fathomless moral abyss. It watches as cities are destroyed, with the people in them. And it struggles with complex dilemmas. Western countries supply arms to Ukraine and have imposed harsh sanctions. But their only red line is NATO territory: ‘every centimeter’ of it is defended. The boundaries of Western involvement have been drawn very sharply: no ‘direct confrontation’ with Russia. The same reluctance exists with regard to chemical and nuclear weapons. The alternative, says US President Biden, is a “third world war.”
A growing number of international analysts are questioning whether this is misleading. After all, it does not do justice to the gradually increasing scale of sanctions and arms supplies to total and direct military confrontation. But it does work. Russian President Putin looks unstable to some, defying him leads to accidents. The attitude was no different in the run-up to the last world war, and we may now understand that better.
But will that attitude be tenable as Russian violence increases, in terms of size but also in weapon choice? Critics say the West is giving Putin plenty of room to escalate the war further. Kristi Raik, director of the Estonian think tank EFPI, sees under Western unity ‘a division between countries with a recent memory of Russian aggression and countries without such experience. A gulf between daring and prudence, courage and cowardice if you will.’
Power, not caution
The West wants to curb Putin’s aggression by not provoking him. “But Russia is stopped by power, not prudence,” Raik said. “No amount of diplomacy makes Russia redefine its imperial goals.” She recalls that in the 1990s, the Baltic countries were criticized for “provoking” Russia. But had they not been in NATO now, they would have been swallowed up by Russia.
French security expert François Heisbourg is also critical. “We have left Putin the choice of which weapons he uses, that is our mistake,” he tells de Volkskrant† Although a no-fly zone is a step too far for him, as it leads to direct fights with Russia, he does not understand the American “puppet show” around the delivery of MiG fighter planes (which amounted to a blockade).
‘There are plenty of historical examples of where countries went further. It is also fully in line with international law to help Ukraine resist aggression. This also applies to sending specialists, as long as they do not work for your armed forces. So don’t impose non-existent restrictions on yourself.’ He also disputes that fighter planes are of no use: ‘They would force the Russian air force to focus on that’.
‘Does Western formalism that Ukraine is not a Navolid justifies Western aloofness? That is the key question’, says diplomacy expert Robert van de Roer. ‘Or is that a shame for the fear of Putin’s nuclear weapons?’
These are poignant questions, because the chance that Putin will let the situation in Ukraine escalate is at least as great as the chance that he will settle for less spoils of war. Western countries have a lot to lose in terms of living comfort and will try everything to get out of it with as little ‘damage’ as possible. A potentially effective ‘weapon’ – a direct EU embargo on Russian oil and gas – would force the West into a war economy, temporarily shutting down certain industries. It is not seriously considered.
Red line
Certainly in a longer conflict, the West is forced to formulate answers to further Russian escalation. So far they are missing. Heisbourg names Biden’s spokesman who declined to say whether the use of chemical weapons is a red line. “That’s how you lose escalation dominance.” He recalls 2013, when Assad crossed Obama’s chemical weapons red line in Syria and US and French warplanes were ready to hit him. “But four hours before departure, Obama changed his mind. The Americans did that loss of deterrent power to themselves.’
Ukrainian President Zelensky holds up a mirror to Western politicians. His message: Ukrainians are now paying in blood for your blindness, greed and shortsightedness. On Thursday he told the German Bundestag: you have provided the building blocks with which Putin builds a wall in Europe between freedom and lack of freedom. ‘Everywhere he reaps clapping Chamberlains,’ says Van de Roer, referring to the British Prime Minister who tried to prevent a war with Hitler at all costs. The question is how long that will be enough. Now there are more than three million refugees. If Putin continues to bomb, there could be ten million. Van de Roer: ‘How many Srebrenicas are needed to change Western attitudes?’
To meet or show teeth?
The key question is always: do you stop Putin by meeting him or by showing your teeth? The West is silent about nuclear weapons, so as not to escalate the conflict and not to make Western citizens more concerned than they already are. Understandable, but if Putin is on the warpath, wouldn’t a signal to the Russian military establishment make sense? As Putin increased the ‘preparedness’ of his nuclear forces, a reminder rang out from Paris: we have nuclear weapons, so does NATO as an alliance.
Precisely because the choice of the West is not as simple as Biden proposes – my policy or a world war – Western unity can be severely tested as the battlefield continues to escalate. What is the least dangerous option, yet effective, and preserves the unit?