Putin Has Again Made His Intentions Very Clear — Ukraine’s Allies Must Not Blink

-OpEd-

PARIS — Only 70 kilometers (43 miles) separate Lviv, a major city in western Ukraine, from the Polish border. Lviv has again become the target of Russian air attacks, reminding us that the war is not only spreading into Russian territory — with the invader now invaded — but also moving symbolically closer to the European Union, and of course NATO.

The escalation of Russian bombardments on Ukrainian cities is clearly Moscow’s response to the humiliation Kyiv has inflicted upon it with the incursion into the Russian region of Kursk.

Putin’s initial silence came as a surprise, but the increasingly violent bombardments of cities such as Poltava (more than 50 dead and 300 wounded) and Lviv are designed to break the Ukrainians’ newfound morale as if Russia was saying: “You have taken the risk of humiliating me by bringing the war home to me, thus I shall destroy your cities and bleed your people.”

Confronted with this escalation, Ukraine’s allies need to clarify and unify their positions. Do they really know what their objective is? They do not seem quite sure themselves. Starting with the United States, which has been Ukraine’s biggest supporter until now.

Preventing Kyiv’s defeat and putting a stop to Moscow’s victory is not the same as ensuring Ukraine wins the war. From Europe, it seems as though America’s main objective is to prepare the ground for future negotiations leading to a truce, along the lines of the 1953 Korean Armistice agreement. The other main goal is to avoid the risk of direct confrontation with Russia.

Doesn’t the U.S. – regardless of the outcome of the November 5 elections – have other priorities, both internal and external? Will it be, in the event of a Kamala Harris victory, enlightened realism, emphasizing the absolute necessity of rebuilding the nation’s unity in the face of Chinese adversity? Or will it adopt a more chaotic policy of sacred egoism if Donald Trump wins?

Either way, Russia is a distraction.

Desire for neutrality?

Clearly, things are different on the European side due to geographical, historical, economic and cultural reasons. It would be easy to say that the closer a country is to Russia, the greater its support for Ukraine. This is obviously true of Poland, the Baltic states, not to mention the Scandinavian countries. But this notion of geographical proximity is too schematic.

How, for example, can we explain the fact that, from the beginning of the Russian invasion, Britain’s positions have been firmer and clearer than those of Germany? The recent regional election victory of the far-right in Thuringia and its very good score in Saxony, not to mention the significant surge of the far-left in these two Länders, can only give cause for further concern.

Is eastern Germany watching the war in Ukraine with the same distance, or is it “neutrality” like the Global South’s? It would be a shocking analogy, but not necessarily inaccurate, reflecting the same emotions, made up of a mixture of resentment and humiliation. As if they thought “since they never treated us as equals, why should we adopt your priorities? Russia is not our enemy.”

In Central-Eastern Europe, there are almost as many nuances to the war in Ukraine as there are countries: with the Czech Republic in line with Poland, and Slovakia on the “ultra-realistic” line of Viktor Orban’s Hungary. “I’m on the side of the only possible winner: Russia.”

France, for the moment, simply seems too caught up in itself to offer an update on its position.

Almost three years after the start of the Russian invasion, the question remains the same. How far can supporting Ukraine go in order to prevent Moscow from winning? All of this while staying out of the conflict.

Controlled escalation

Putin does not hesitate to strike Ukrainian cities close to European Union territory. And even more generally, civilian and energy targets throughout Ukraine. Putin’s aim is to bend the Ukrainian people, who, exhausted, will eventually accept peace on Moscow’s terms.

Defeating Russia’s strategy means allowing Ukraine to use the Western weapons it now has at its disposal to strike the very bases in Russia from which the increasingly bloody attacks originate.

That would demonstrate what Putin has long been proclaiming: “The West’s time is past”

Of course, this process of controlled escalation contains risks. But isn’t the alternative (placing limits on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself) more dangerous in the long run? It could lead to the collapse of Ukraine and resignation in the face of our ally’s defeat.

We would then be demonstrating what Putin’s Russia has long been proclaiming: “The West’s time is past, we can’t count on its protection.” The alternative would be a direct, last-minute engagement on Kyiv’s side, with all the risks of uncontrolled escalation that such a scenario entails.

Russia vs the West

The contrast could not be greater between the “variations,” in the almost musical sense of the word, of Western positions on Ukraine and the brutal clarity of Putin’s Russia.

It’s a clarity that reflects Putin’s worldview. For him — as he has mentioned several times in both public and private statements — Russia is destined to find itself in 30 years at the center of a “multipolar and just” world. A world where the West, marginalized, will no longer be able to impose its will.

Red carpets laid out for Putin in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, which welcomed with honors a leader it should have been obligated to arrest as a member of the ICJ (International Court of Justice). A carpet of bombs raining down on Poltava and Lviv. Isn’t this a perfect summary of the current situation?

Russia is counting on the understanding, if not the goodwill, of a world where force prevails over law.

The clarity of Putin’s intentions should prompt Ukraine’s allies to demonstrate total unity and solidarity against Moscow. Unfortunately, this is not quite the case.