Can the West wake up to avert WWIII — opinion

Current events echo the lead-up to WWII.

In a joint column for The Telegraph, UK and French foreign ministers announced, as they put it, a “renewed Entente.” But this modern Entente cannot be compared with the previous alliance. At least because after WWI, Ukrainians lost their chance for an independent state, and to a large extent it was the Entente’s fault. I always say that one of the biggest problems of the Ukrainian movement at that time was that it didn’t get political support. And the reason was that the Entente didn’t give consent to the formation of a sovereign Ukrainian state.

Therefore, I wouldn’t go so far as to mistake today’s alliance for the Entente of that time. This is something else. This is the union of the West, which really feels the threat of war that could spill over the borders of Ukraine and lead to WWIII.

First of all, if we’re talking about the Entente, the United Kingdom was objectively the most pro-Ukrainian of all Entente countries. This, of course, wasn’t enough, but they took the biggest steps towards Ukraine. In particular, in the Polish-Ukrainian war.

But let’s turn to more recent events.

It seems that sometime in the late 1990s, the United Kingdom identified Russia as its main adversary. And no wonder — Russian intelligence services, Russian spies carried out several operations on the UK’s territory against British subjects, former Russian citizens [Boris] Berezovsky, [Alexander] Litvinenko, and others. And here the United Kingdom clearly as Russia as its enemy No. 1.

It’s encouraging that France now seems to be following the UK’s path. They’re also ready to recognize Russia as their main threat. Yes, France has traditionally been fundamentally pro-Russian, both politically, culturally, and geopolitically. We know this from the 20th century.

I believe that one of the culprits of the fact that [Russian dictator Vladimir] Putin was able to go to war against Ukraine is France and its position, in particular [former French President Nicolas] Sarkozy, during the Georgian-Russian war. I think the position of Sarkozy and other leaders gave Putin the feeling that he can go as far as he wants in his aggression, and he’ll see no serious resistance from Europe.

What happened? The sense of threat in France, among the political class, has increased sharply. We must quote not only [French President Emmanuel] Macron, but also his ministers, who say that they really believe that the threat of a war in which France will participate, possibly even on French territory, is very high. Paris has changed its rhetoric.

All these admirations for [Russian writers Fyodor] Dostoyevsky and [Leo] Tolstoy are one thing, while another one is that Putin, who is rattling nuclear weapons, has turned Russia into a fascist state. [Russian opposition leader Alexei] Navalny’s death had a great impact in France, and the LGBT ban is something the West is very sensitive about. That is, there is a feeling of a strong threat, and if there is a feeling of a strong threat, the policy changes. Therefore, we cannot rely on history here, these are things that have just happened.

It was my greatest surprise that even French opposition leader Marine Le Pen, who was traditionally pro-Russian, has done an about-face and now speaks about the need to protect Ukraine. This also means something.

I must say that even those, pardon the pun, useful idiots who are in the West (these are the far left, far right political forces) are also divided now. There are groups claiming that it’s necessary to negotiate with Russia, and there are those who say that it’s necessary to stand to the end and support Ukraine. We see some great change is taking place, almost seismic. The only question is whether it’s enough, even though it’s obviously too late. The question is will it change something now?

Now we very clearly see the reflection of what happened before WWII. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that [U.S. presidential candidate Donald] Trump is threatening that he’ll either cut spending on NATO or leave the Alliance entirely. Then it leaves Europe defenseless. So, the history can give a certain analogy to better understand that both WWI and WWII were won by the Entente and its allies precisely because and exactly when the United States stood on their side. Because it was a fresh power. The United States is protected enough by the oceans. In addition, it’s a great power. In short, the U.S. factor was decisive in both WWI and WWII.

And if it comes to a major confrontation (and it may well happen, the chances are increasing), this means the U.S. participation in this conflict may once again be decisive. And this is what Europe is afraid of: on the one hand, there’s the Russian threat, which is very great, and on the other hand, growing isolationism in the United States. In this case, Europe remains a kind of island, poorly protected and badly prepared.

Unleashing this war, Putin clearly believed and spoke about the fact that the West doesn’t exist, that it’s a fiction, that there are individual countries with their own interests that you can talk to and bribe. It turned out the West wasn’t dead but was rather a Sleeping Beauty. But she is too slow to wake up. And what’s happening now in Russia, in the United States, forces [the West] to quickly wake up and take certain steps. I don’t know if it has the time to do so now. We’ll see whether it’s too late, but at least we’re seeing the awakening.

We don’t know Russia’s strength and weakness because we only see the facade. I would prefer if, instead of me, one of those experts who understand Russian affairs could assess Moscow’s real reserves. It’s obvious that Russia is frightening, it’s advancing at the front, although not so rapidly. That is, the question is whether Russia is ready to launch a frontal offensive on the entire front this year? Probably not. But now we’re increasingly talking about the possibility of Ukraine’s defeat. Not meaning that this defeat will happen, but as a possible scenario regarding Western policy choices.

Because the situation is quite clear. There’s a general consensus of most European politicians that Putin won’t stop at Ukraine. After all, he spoke about it openly back in 2007. It’s about pushing back NATO’s borders. This means it will be a European conflict, and perhaps not only a European one. One way or another, if Ukraine loses, the war will spill over into Europe.

A very important thesis that is being repeated now (and it appeared sometime at the end of last year) is that it’s much cheaper to help Ukraine now than to fight against Russia in case Ukraine falls. This is the thesis that politicians are trying to present to their electorate and convince that it’s necessary to support Ukraine.

One upside is that the general consensus, both among politicians and among the electorate, remains that it’s necessary to help Ukraine. The negative is that it’s not critical, but still there is a certain decline in willingness to help Ukraine. And the second, which is very important, we know that words are cheap. They can sometimes be radical, but they are not often followed by actions. Even when actions do follow, they come with great delay.

Therefore, time is the key factor now. I cannot say whether we have time. We assume that we have, because military experts whom I trust, whom I listen to, say the situation won’t significantly change in 2024, and, God willing, it will be so. But this means only one thing: this year, both Ukraine and Europe still have time for very radical and quick action to restrain Putin. We’ll see if that happens.

If it doesn’t happen, the question is whether it will be possible to save Europe and within what borders? Obviously, the worst option would be if this border, which will have to be fought for in Europe, is somewhere in the middle of Europe. An ideal option for everyone (for Ukraine, if not for the West), if this border is established on the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Niall Ferguson [a British-American historian], whose thesis I like, repeats the words of [Winston] Churchill, who addressed the United States: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” He meant [former German dictator Adolf] Hitler. The same goes with Russia: give Ukrainians weapons and they’ll finish Russia. This is a very important thesis.

The question is where will the border be? The further to the east, the more Ukraine, Europe, and, I suppose, the whole world, will benefit. But the question is to what extent political leaders will be able to convince their electorate of this.

NATO is now the only real force that can fight back against Russia. Because there are no other forces. There are separate European armies. I won’t judge their ability to fight, I’ll just say that it’s not too high. There’s been a discussion about a joint European military force, but this is only talk for now.

NATO remains the only real force that can stop Russian aggression. Will it be able to? Once again, I don’t know, this question is open. It depends on what the NATO leadership will do. But the very fact that Ukraine isn’t invited to the [upcoming] NATO summit is already a clear warning. The thing is that there’s a certain inertia of thinking. i.e. until 1991, during the Cold War, NATO and the United States had a deterrence policy. The idea is to contain the conflict, contain the Soviet Union, keep it within its own borders. To a large extent, this remains the strategy of the current [U.S. President Joe] Biden administration, and I assume also of NATO, i.e. to contain the war within the borders of Ukraine as much as possible, preventing it from spilling over [into Europe]. I think that’s why in such situations, when Russian missiles or drones fly into [NATO] airspace, there’s a restrained reaction.

But now there is more and more valid criticism that this deterrence strategy doesn’t work because deterring Putin is hopeless. He still has his own plan and it’s impossible to imagine Putin ever stopping. After he has turned the country into a fascist regime, put the economy on a wartime footing, after he’s facing a tribunal at The Hague, etc., how can he be restrained? No one has an answer.

There must be a political will, a strategic decision to move from deterrence to active resistance to the Russian aggression. Will it happen? We’ll see; we’ll wait for the [NATO] summit results.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine