Giving in to Putin’s blackmail now should not be an option

Editorial: History teaches us that the only way to stop a dictator bent on territorial expansion is to stand up to them. Appeasement is not an option

Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting of his Security Council on Friday (AP)

It was always a weak move for the West to send lethal long-range weaponry to Ukraine – and then to tell the Ukrainians not to use it in such a way that it might actually help them win the war, or at least force Russia to disgorge some of its territorial gains.

Use was confined to Ukrainian territory and targets close by. Recent intense diplomatic activity, culminating in the prime minister’s visit to Washington, suggests that the situation will soon be remedied – and Ukraine at last allowed to defend itself properly, as any nation would when involved in total war.

Soon, at last, Western assurances about standing by Ukraine will be more impressively and effectively matched by actions. It cannot come soon enough.

The present restrictions placed on the use of American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow long-range ballistic missiles left many Russian air bases and munitions way out of range, politically but not militarily. In effect, it left the Russians still free to use drones, missiles and bombers to kill and terrorise Ukrainian citizens and destroy the basic infrastructure needed to sustain life, especially during a typically freezing winter. From bases far from the Ukrainian border, and safe from any counterattack, the Kremlin could order deadly strikes with impunity.

The Ukrainians have thus been fighting their war of survival with one arm tied behind their back for far too long. With stalemate prevailing across the front lines – and despite the success of the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk, President Putin’s forces have been making slow, grinding progress in Ukraine’s occupied eastern provinces. The risk is that by the time any peace talks come, the “facts on the ground” will have been turned to Russia’s advantage, perhaps decisively.

No war can be fought entirely defensively, especially not with a numerically superior army such as Russia’s, which also has the perverse “advantage” that its generals place little value on the lives of their soldiers. It is called “the Russian meat grinder” for a reason – and it is a long and dishonourable tradition that poorly armed and ill-equipped conscripts are thrown at the battlefield until, finally, they overwhelm their overstretched opponents in a long war of attrition.

So it threatens to pass in Ukraine, where President Zelensky’s forces have fought with skill and astonishing bravery against the odds, often saved only by Russian military incompetence and, latterly, Western technological prowess. All the military arguments point to allowing the Ukrainians to press home the advantage they have been gifted with modern battle tanks, armoured vehicles, F-16 fighters and long-range missiles.

Indeed, the uncomfortable truth is that had the West provided maximum military assistance as soon as President Putin’s “special military operation” was launched in February 2022, Ukraine would have regained far more of its territory by now and the Russians might now be asking for genuine peace talks. It may be remembered that, for entirely understandable historical and diplomatic reasons, Germany at first limited its military assistance to helmets.

The general attitude of the West, again naturally, was one of fear of escalation – and the ultimate threat of a nuclear confirmation with Russia. Throughout the war, President Putin has mumbled dire threats about the consequences of Nato action. He did so every time sanctions were imposed. He did so when successive waves of ever more lethal and offensive weaponry were despatched to Kyiv. He did so when Finland and Sweden sought shelter by applying to join Nato. He is doing so again now.

That does not necessarily mean that every message that the Kremlin puts out is a lie or a bluff – but there is a pattern here. As the prime minister reminds us, it is Russia that escalated peaceful, though uneasy, relations between Russia and its neighbour into armed aggression. It began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and occupation of eastern Ukraine.

It escalated again with the invasion and the march on Kyiv, two years ago. It has since escalated further with the deployment of the Wagner mercenaries, the mass bombing of civilians, and other war crimes. At each stage, the response of the West has been inadequate, and successive red lines have been crossed by President Putin with insufficient punishment. That is why he has kept going – not only in Ukraine but in Georgia, Syria and elsewhere.

History teaches us that the only way to stop a dictator bent on territorial expansion is to stand up to them. Appeasement is not an option because the dictator will never be satisfied, and he cannot be trusted in any case. Putin is on record as believing that the fall of the Soviet Union, the last manifestation of the Russian empire, was a tragedy and he clearly wishes to reverse it. Sooner or later, with such a man, war becomes necessary and the later it is left, the harder it is to win.

If Putin can be stopped and pushed back in Ukraine with the help of Western equipment – and deterred by the strength of the Nato alliance – that means that a direct war between the West and the Russian Federation with its allies, Iran and North Korea, will be much less likely.

Indeed, as with the Cold War, it would be unthinkable for the Kremlin to even try it on. Giving in to Putin’s blackmail now should simply not be an option.