Last weekend saw a series of summits. A G-7 leader meeting, a NATO summit, an EU Council (heads of state) meeting and a visit by US President Joe Biden to Poland.
Many people, above all those in Ukraine, were waiting for major decisions or announcements that could break the course of the Russia-Ukraine war. As is often the case when expectations are too high before an event, the loudly announced summit of world leaders fell short of expectations. One could even say that the loud headlines were absent, were it not for Biden's speech on Saturday in Warsaw, where he unveiled a new US goal: the elimination of the Putin regime. "We are in for a long, long struggle against tyranny, for democracy. For God's sake, this man (Putin) cannot remain in power", Biden said.
However, immediately after his speech, the White House issued an official statement in which it tried to soften the President's words, saying that "the President's point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbours or the region. He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change."
Biden's speech in Warsaw differed in its resolve from the statements of EU and NATO leaders of previous days, but this "retraction" of Biden's speech was fully in line with the tone of the West's mainstream, in which assurances of unprecedented Western and NATO unity; support for Ukraine; condemnation of Russian aggression and calls for an end to the war are central. But the main message, repeatedly underlined by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in his press conference in various guises, remains the same: NATO's main task now is to prevent the conflict from escalating.
In the current phase of the war, this means: NATO countries will continue to supply Ukraine with light small arms, which will allow the Ukrainian army to maintain its resistance, but will not start supplying heavy weapons, which could cause a break in the war and provoke an inadequate response from Putin. In this war, at least for the time being, Putin must not be driven further into a corner, because in his self-destructive tendencies, he could bring the whole world down with him.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed all three events by videoconference and repeated roughly the same thing throughout: "Ukraine asked for your planes. So that we do not lose so many people. And you [NATO] have thousands of fighter jets! But we haven't been given any yet. You have at least 20,000 tanks! Ukraine asked for a percent, one percent of all your tanks to be given or sold to us!" Everyone listened to Zelensky respectfully, gave him a standing ovation, but pretended not to hear his desperate pleas.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried to explain that Zelensky's request was difficult to fulfil because of logistical problems. What he meant by this was not explained by Johnson, but it can be guessed that there are fears that in the event of more serious arms deliveries, Russia could direct a missile strike at the transshipment points for this equipment in Poland or Slovakia.
If such a strike were to take place, NATO would be faced with a very difficult choice. It would have to be seen as an attack on one of the NATO countries and responded to accordingly, but the constantly repeated phrases by both Stoltenberg and Biden that "we will not intervene in any way" and "NATO's main task is to prevent the conflict from escalating" do not give confidence that the response would be symmetrical. In order to avoid such a dilemma, NATO is giving a fairly clear signal to Putin: Ok, we will not give heavy equipment to Ukraine, but then you also respect this unwritten agreement and don't you even think of provoking something in Poland.
It should be noted that although NATO leaders claim that the alliance is more united than ever, not everyone is on the same page. In his speech, Zelensky named each country individually and said what he thought about each one. Special mention was made of Hungary and its Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom Zelensky addressed by name: "Listen, Viktor, do you know what’s going on in Mariupol? I have been to Budapest. I adore your city. I have been many times - very beautiful, very sincere. And so are the people. You have had tragic moments in your life. I was on your embankment. I saw this memorial... Shoes on the Danube Promenade. About the massacres. I was with my family. Please, if you can, go to your embankment. Look at those shoes."
In fairness, Zelensky also addressed French President Macron by name, adding "Emmanuel, I really believe that you will stand for us". Orbán responded to Zelensky's insults by saying that he was not siding with Ukraine or Russia because he was siding with Hungary, but Macron did not engage in any exchange of "pleasantries". He outlined France's position in a very businesslike and straightforward way: "There is a limit - not becoming a belligerent. All the allies agree. That is why no one is now planning to supply new types of equipment, above all aircraft and tanks, because that would mean becoming belligerent."
Why it is that delivering a Javelin or a Stinger does not make you belligerent, but delivering something more serious does, Macron did not explain. Obviously, everyone had to realize for themselves that by supplying light armaments we would not provoke Putin, but as soon as we started supplying something more serious, it would "anger Putin", with unforeseeable consequences.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz pointed out that "each country has its own criteria and there is no single model [for arms deliveries]". He added, however, that the volume of military aid is regularly reviewed depending on the evolution of the situation. Scholz suggested that these volumes could increase and the types of weapons supplied could expand. Johnson expressed a similar view that the range of arms supplies could become more diverse over time.
Some dissatisfaction with the lack of strong support for Ukraine was expressed by countries closer to the threat. The Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia came up with their own 10-point plan for the EU to save Ukraine. Published in Politico, the plan states:
Cut off all Russian banks from the SWIFT international payment system;
Put in place a common asylum policy for Russian soldiers who refuse to serve the criminal regime in Moscow;
Completely stop Russian propaganda in Europe;
Block Russian ships from our ports;
The same blockade must be put in place for road transport in and out of Russia;
Impose sanctions not only on oligarchs but on their entire business environment;
Suspend visas for all Russian citizens who want to enter the EU. The Russian people must understand that they will bear the consequences of this war;
Impose sanctions on all members of Putin’s party, United Russia;
Put in place a total ban on the export to Russia of technologies that can be used for war;
Exclude Russia from all international organizations.
This plan has not yet gained widespread support, which allows some conclusions to be drawn. Whenever any serious decisions have to be taken, we must look at the main issue that is being debated: whether it is what we can do to achieve the stated objective, or what and why we cannot do it. So far, the second approach has prevailed on the issue of containing Russia: why we cannot do something (for example, to impose an embargo on Russian energy resources) rather than what else we could do to stop Putin.
Three examples to illustrate. The G-20 summit in Indonesia in the autumn. In a press conference after the G-7 leaders' meeting, Biden called for Russia to be excluded from this club of the world's 20 most economically powerful countries, but added: "I say yes, but the decision is up to the 20." Given that Indonesia, China, India and other non-Western countries are unlikely to exclude Russia, the Russian delegation will attend the summit as if nothing had happened.
The International Red Cross refuses to help civilians in Mariupol, but at the same time is negotiating in Moscow to open an aid center in Rostov-on-Don to support people forcibly evacuated from the Donbas before the outbreak of the war.
The International Ice Hockey Federation postponed its decision on the venue for the 2023 Ice Hockey World Championship, which is to be held in Russia. If Red Cross officials could still make excuses that they are not physically present in Mariupol and therefore cannot help, and the G-7 cannot force the other G-20 countries to vote Russia out, what is still unclear about the hockey championship? Will the war crimes committed be "forgotten" by next year and the World Championship can be held in Moscow as if nothing had happened?
It should be clear to everyone by now that the world is facing its gravest threat since the end of World War II only because, for years, it has looked the other way at Putin's aggressive policies for the sake of peace and for its own comfort. If the world reaction had been much sharper in 2014, we might not have reached today's war.
However, it is already clear that the reaction could not have been any sharper, because even today, when the death toll is in the tens of thousands, when peaceful people are being bombed every day, it has not yet fully sunk in for many that World War III has basically begun. Resources must no longer be spared or "losses" counted, because if Putin is not stopped in time, there may be nothing left to count. The NATO Madrid Summit in July, which is scheduled to detail the strengthening of NATO's eastern wing, may be too late.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.