Britain and its Nato partners, the USA included, have less than a month to decide on how deeply they are prepared to commit to saving Ukraine as a viable independent nation. Ukraine’s forces are now locked in a battle for survival in the Luhansk oblast of the Donbas region, which Russia wishes to claim for its own sphere of influence, if not outright possession.
The towns of Sievrodonetsk and Lyschansk have been under firestorms of Russian artillery, rocket and aerial bombardment. Russian ground forces aim to encircle and trap the most professional and best equipped Ukraine army units. Some are now trying to get away, beat an orderly retreat to defend the areas round Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.
Heavy weaponry and ammunition resupplies from Western countries are not reaching the battle area quickly enough, to pose an adequate riposte to Russia’s artillery and rocket batteries firing the BM21 Grad and the BM30 Smerch, with ranges of 28 and 60 miles respectively.
The Biden administration is havering over whether to supply the latest MLRS, US multi-barrel rocket system with a range of 100 miles or so, and even the lighter HIMARS system, which can still outrange most Russian ordnance. But it would take four to six weeks to train Ukrainian crews with these systems.
This underlines Kyiv’s growing frustration at what they see as the dithering of the US and its allies.
Nato’s defence ministers meet on 15th June and the heads of government meet at the big Nato summit in Spain at the end of June. By then it may be too late for the towns of western Donbas now under attack. There seems to be a lot of mouth in strings of Nato meetings and visits, with diminishing delivery of what is needed most – heavy weapons, training, logistics management.
Leading European Nato partners are increasingly discussing the need for ceasefire talks and for President Zelensky to give up territory. Germany is manoeuvring to buy Russian oil and gas with rubles. Italy has already cited a loophole in sanctions rules to buy Russian oil and gas, for which the government says it can find little realistic alternative suppliers, and pay in rubles. Prime Minister Mario Draghi has proposed a ‘realistic’ ceasefire plan which would mean Ukraine cedes much of the Donbas and Crimea permanently, become a neutral entity with limited access and aspiration to EU and Nato membership. This has been rejected by both sides.
Nato and the EU now have to draw up a long-term plan, a genuine strategy for defence and reconstruction of Ukraine, if it is not to be shredded by the end of the year. Though their forces have recovered momentum in the Donbas, not everything is going the Russians’ way. Equipment is still breaking down and wearing out, the infantry is unreliable. Vladimir Putin has asked 40 year olds to report for duty, and hospitals in Crimea have been told to switch from civilian patients and concentrate on military casualties.
The ultimate strategic aim of Putin is still obscure. He wants to humiliate the Western Alliance, sure, and, in his own terms, make Russia great again. But how? Cancelling an independent Ukraine may be just a stepping stone. He may be planning a big move in the now-thawing High Arctic – a cruise missile was fired at Ukraine this week from a naval ship in the Barents Sea. And he has a huge technical advantage in Russia’s arsenal of hypersonic missiles – as does Xi’s China.
At this month’s Davos World Economic Forum, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, 98, warned that Ukraine should cede territory or expect the worst. “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war with Russia itself.”
Kissinger was a dominant counsellor of US foreign policy in the 20th century. His views on Ukraine, territory and maps, seem to belong more to the 19th century of his academic studies. Wars today are made of climate change, demography, drones and super-hackers, biological , chemical and nuclear weapons.
