As the Christian world began its Easter rituals, Ukraine marked 50 days since Russian troops crossed its borders and began the first European war in decades. But Ukraine - a country where at least three-quarters of the population describe themselves as Christian remains trapped in a Good Friday world of death and despair. Resurrection for the embattled nation seems a long way away.
But it may be even further removed for Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Putin’s chosen war has shaken up the world order in a way even he could hardly have predicted two months ago. So what do we know 50 days into this invasion? Here are a few thoughts on some of the wider implications of this war.
Ukraine’s military and armed public have shown a level of resistance and bravery that wasn’t expected by anyone, least of all the Russian military. As in so many invasions before, people fighting for their homeland and their survival have been able to humble military might. On the flip side Russian intelligence, strategy, equipment, training and personnel have been shown up as woeful.
Russia’s military, as some have astutely pointed out, has long prospered thanks to bullying its neighbours and casting a long shadow rather than, y’know, actually winning wars. Its famous victories over Napoleon and Hitler were on home soil and involved huge errors by the invaders. As far back as 1854 - in the Crimean War - Russia’s military culture was shown to be corrupt, overly-centralised and run in service of a dictatorship. Little has changed on those fronts and it seems Russia’s military remains all the weaker for it.
Russia’s military failings are not necessarily good news for Ukraine. While most of the country remains free as a result, the war is likely to drag on, a lack discipline and command on the ground means likely more brutality – and possibly war crimes – by the invaders.
The war has now split in two and while Russia seems to be losing in most of the rest of the country, it is achieving much in the south and east. Its slow, ravaging progress there could yet amount to much the same as an overall win for Putin. If Russia can control Ukraine’s coastline from its eastern border with Russia through to Crimea or even Odessa, almost landlocking the country and turning the Black Sea into ‘a Russian lake’, Ukraine would effectively become the client state Putin wants. So he can fail in his goal of regime change in Kyiv and still win by taking economic and geopolitical of the country in the south. Beyond the crushing blow it would deliver to Ukraine, it would empower Putin and imperil Moldova.
So while Putin could yet get what he wanted from this war, his invasion has changed the world in ways he certainly did not want. After talk of red lines but no action of any significance in Syria and Yemen, Putin calculated that the democracies of the West were weak and vulnerable. This war has strengthened them. As fragile as democracy has looked in recent years, the response to Putin’s war shows government ‘by the people, for the people’ – however flawed – can still stand up to dictators.
Putin’s attempt to fracture Europe has in fact united it. For some countries, such as Sweden and Finland, military neutrality has been a wise and safe option. Sweden, even more so than New Zealand, has been proud of its independent foreign policy that eschews military alliances. But neutrality is less appealing when a massive aggressor is on your doorstep is showing a willingness to ignore borders and world order. Sweden and Finland are now seriously thinking about joining NATO and Ukraine has started the paperwork to join as well.
While this renewed European unity is welcome and it may be tempting to see such NATO expansion as a bloody nose to Russia the aggressor, it also comes with massive risks. Bad can come from good. Russia has threatened nuclear retaliation. Even if we consider the literal nuclear option as unlikely, more NATO countries on Russia’s border (along with the harsh economic sanctions) may push Putin to feel like he has nothing to lose, triggering more war and mayhem. It’s fair to say that NATO’s expansion while Russia was at its weakest was less than magnanimous and at worst a trigger to inevitable conflict, like this one.
(Or more countries joining NATO may ensure more security, if Russia is forced to see as an attack on one as an attack on all. It certainly seems to stall Putin’s dream of himself as a Tsar at the centre of a new Russian Empire. Such are the high-stakes calculations being played out across Europe).
Putin has gambled and lost billions of dollars and decades spent on building up soft power through the likes of the Olympics, the football World Cup and integration into the global capitalist ecosystem. All the PR and propaganda has been abandoned and the mask removed.
As well as unifying Europe, the invasion has also roused Germany from its security slumber, as it now promises mammoth growth in its military spending. Perhaps more importantly it has pushed Germany and other European countries to seek solutions to its energy needs in places other than Russia. Even more than the military consequences of this invasion, a move away from European reliance on Russian gas and oil could change the balance of power in Europe.
Germany’s reliance on Russian gas in part stems from its nuclear-free commitments, a good example of how rights and wrongs, good deeds and bad, can have unintended consequences over time. The European Union as a whole and the US have also promised to wean themselves off Russian oil, gas and coal, but it will take time. All this means the Ukraine invasion will impact climate change, but not just in one way. While the move away from Russian fossil fuels promotes a faster transition to alternatives such renewable energy sources, it has also prompted the US to open up more public land for oil drilling.
Speaking of the US, thank goodness an autocrat wasn’t in power when Putin invaded Ukraine. The war has been enhanced the reputation of a few presidents, not least Joe Biden. After the travesties of his exit from Afghanistan, Biden’s global connections and diplomatic skills have come to the fore. He is the right man at the right time for this conflict. And even more so, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has turned from a struggling anti-establishment leader into a global hero whose skills as a performer have been central as he’s kept his country united and strong of will and inspired global support.
That global support shows, in part, that the post-imperial moment we are living in is wide and deep. Largely in the West the debate has been around wrestling with our pasts and how to address the sins of colonisation. But this invasion shows that anti-imperialism also matters in the here and now, and the future. Ukraine is insisting on its independence today and refusing to be seen as part of anyone’s modern empire, regardless of its history. The world’s support for Ukraine is not just a no to wilful invaders but a no to empire. China and the US take note.
Finally, one of the most heartening things for me is that the citizens of the West have been willing not only to support the rhetoric of independence and justice in Ukraine, but have been willing to pay a price for those beliefs. We are seeing inflation and, most notably, a significant increase in petrol prices, as a result of this war. Thus far, ordinary people have not punished their politicians as a result and are taking the hit in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. It is the West at its most altruistic. The question is now how long it will last. Petrol prices and inflation generally are dynamite at the ballot box and I expect that the repercussions of this war will play out in many Western capitals over the next 18 months.