Ukraine: time for belling the Russian bear

The war in Ukraine changes. Today it is not the war of two months ago, when the Russian military marched across an internationally-recognized border based simply on the Russian president asserting Ukraine was not a country, and therefore his to invade and conquer. Ironically, it seems Vladimir Putin has not read Napoleon, whose military operations were based on the idea “no plan survives encounter with the enemy.” So today it is a new war and, bearing in mind Napoleon’s advice, probably yet another war in the days ahead. In this shift, three dynamic developments are involved. First, the Russian army was not as good as Moscow or even many in the West believed. Second, the Ukrainian national will to survive is greater today than before. And third, the strained cohesion of Western Europe emerged as an effective countering force against Russia. It also served as a supporting force for Ukraine; again, something that Moscow and many others did not anticipate. Collective action remains the most important factor to try to lessen or even put an end to the continuing death and destruction in Ukraine. But to quote Niccolò Machiavelli: “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.” So today there is a need, as the war stumbles on, for further action to disabuse Russia of the idea that it can act with profligacy and eliminate a neighbouring country with the same international legitimacy as itself. We know Russia's objectives from two months ago and, so far, these have not changed. Undoubtedly, these will change if the Ukrainian military achieves a military stalemate or even some limited success in rolling back Russian advances. Missing from these developments is an articulated Western policy that would provide greater support for Kyiv, and carry the support of Western Europe, including the European Union (EU), NATO, and the United States. Such a policy should include specific warnings for Moscow to bring its war in Ukraine to a quick end. The new policy should also include a complete rebuttal of Russia's claim that NATO policy and actions were significant factors in the disintegration of the Soviet Union since 1991. The opposite is true. For the last 50 years, Western Europe and NATO members states have been supportive of both the Soviet Union and, later, Russia. That's especially true in the aftermath of 1991, when political support and billions in economic aid were provided to successive governments in Moscow as it sought to cope with the enormous changes underway. There are six points essential to effective Western policy: The doors of NATO and the EU are open to all countries in Western Europe expressing interest in membership and the anticipated entry of Finland and Sweden should be promoted; NATO reasserts its right to intervene militarily in non-member countries where there are threats to its members, including the supply of required military equipment; NATO will resume military training activities inside Ukraine for members of the Ukrainian armed forces; Unless Russia ends aerial bombing and the use of missiles and long-range artillery in Ukraine, NATO will extend its air defence systems to provide all of Ukraine with appropriate protection; NATO will explore the establishment of a senior formal command structure for its activities in Ukraine and seek to have it operate in close cooperation with the Ukrainian command structure; and NATO will declare Belarus, as a facilitating ally of Russia, subject to the full range of Western political and economic sanctions that have been implemented against Russia. At the time of the acceptance and endorsement of such policies, NATO and EU countries could offer high-level discussions with Russia seeking a negotiated end to the war. To give immediacy to such discussions, former German chancellor Angela Merkel should be asked to accept an appointment as the EU and NATO negotiator. As part of such an appointment, there would have to be a cease fire and stand down of all Russian forces inside the territory of Ukraine. The discussions should take place under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which was established in 1975. Today it has 57 participating states, including Canada, the other members of NATO, the EU, Russia and Belarus, and all other states of Western Europe. The OSCE is guided by principles that provide appropriate scope to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. These principles include sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty, nations refraining from the threat or use of force, the inviolability of frontiers, and the territorial integrity of states. As a member of NATO and an original signatory to the OSCE, Canada should adopt and promote the use of the OSCE as the basis for bringing the war to an end. If there ever was a requirement to use Canada’s “convening” experience, it is now. The Ukrainians need not only support but specific help, beyond weapons, to bring this diabolical Russian invasion to an end. Gar Pardy is retired from the foreign service and comments on public policy from Ottawa. His latest book China in a Changing World is available online and Books on Beechwood in Ottawa. The Hill Times