Backdrop &nbsp;

The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting. &nbsp;&nbsp;

While the West continues to give standing ovations to President Zelensky's emotional speeches and responds with a package of military hardware and funds, it is pouring fuel to the fire by prolonging global agony and encouraging Ukrainians to fight to the death in order to weaken Russia. &nbsp;&nbsp;

While NATO can claim that Ukraine is not part of it; hence it is not obligated to join fight against Russia through ‘No Fly Zone’ as repeatedly requested by Zelensky, risking the potential to trigger Third World War/Nuclear war, but NATO is very much part of the conflict through economic war, information war, diplomatic war, political war and other instruments of non-contact warfare. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Big power contest continues with no concern for humanitarian disaster &nbsp;&nbsp;

Any offensive into another sovereign country has disastrous consequences for the people and must be condemned, whether it’s current Russian offensive in Ukraine or earlier NATO invasions in Iraq and other parts of MENA. &nbsp;&nbsp;

With few security guarantees, this was avoidable, but the big power contest continues to spiral it, with display of heroics of President Zelensky, failing to read the extent, depth, and impact of Western support and President Putin's resolve, least realising that the nationalism and his peoples resolve is being used as an instrument to prolong an unwinnable, proxy war, leading his country to disaster. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The war of narrative seems getting dangerous with references to nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions in heated exchanges/allegations. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

&nbsp;

How has battlefield ‘Ukraine’ shaped up after three weeks? &nbsp;

After three weeks, the shaping of battlefield by Russians seems to make strategic sense, but at a very heavy cost, which is increasing consistently. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Russian main offensive is towards Kyiv, which is the Centre of &nbsp;Gravity to achieve political objective of imposing no-NATO diktat on its political leadership or force a regime change, through the shortest route from Belarus. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The complete isolation of Kyiv is yet to be achieved and the political consolidation is not in sight. Given the spirit of nationalism among Ukrainians, stoked by Zelensky's sentimental appeals and bolstered by western information warfare, Russians need to moderate their political objective from regime change to imposing a no-NATO agreement with Zelensky, because any pro-Russian puppet regime, even if imposed, is unlikely to survive. &nbsp;

The Russian military aim to demilitarise Ukrainian military to ensure that Ukraine cannot be used as a launchpad by NATO to threaten security of Russia, has been partially achieved by extensive air and missile strikes to neutralise air defence capability and air assets to achieve favourable air situation, pulverising military targets, claiming to have destroyed most of them, including air fields and military installations in Ukraine. It is increasingly capturing strategic installations to step up pressure on Zelensky. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The offensive from South is aimed at cutting off Ukrainian access to Black Sea and Sea of Azov by securing a permanent land corridor from Russia to Crimea with an end-state of landlocked Ukraine. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Russians have been able to achieve most of the corridor except Odessa, with intense fighting in townships. The offensive from the East is aimed at liberation of complete Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where intense fighting continues despite initial gains. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Ukraine’s strong resolve to resist Russian offensive under leadership of President Zelensky, has been noteworthy, having deliberately prepared for the conflict. To overcome the asymmetry in military asset holdings, the Ukrainian force deployed smartly in densely populated areas to fight pitched battles in townships, despite losing air cover in the early phases of the conflict. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The strategy is to deploy military assets in civilian areas, turn towns into fortresses, and residential areas into pillboxes, incite mercenaries and civilians to fight as part of the war machine, launch sniper attacks, ambushes, small team operations, drone attacks on softer convoys, and provoke Russians to target residential areas in order to gain propaganda advantage from civilian casualties through superior information warfare, backed by the west to demonise President Putin. &nbsp;&nbsp;

With adoption of urban insurgency model, the war has thus morphed from conventional to hybrid war with both sides planning to induct more non-state actors. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Ukrainian strategy seems to have succeeded in delaying Russian operations and placing Russia in an awkward position of having to choose between fighting in populated, built up areas, which is cost prohibitive in terms of human and equipment casualties in favour of defender, or isolating, bombarding townships, residential areas alleged to house military assets, disrupting essential services, and pressuring Zelensky, at the cost of risking international condemnation. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The Russians appear to have selected the latter option, extending the range of air strikes to western Ukraine which is the lifeline for assistance from West including military hardware. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Are actions by West helping Ukraine? &nbsp;

US and Western allies are claiming to be helping Ukraine through financial and diplomatic sanctions on Russia and military hardware support to Ukraine of the type (smaller calibre) which can improve staying power of Ukrainian fighters, and induce long term insurgency in Europe, even if negotiations reach some conclusion in due course. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The aim is to permanently weaken Russia by weaponising Ukrainian nationalism, posing Zelensky as hero, to continue fighting with their proxy support. &nbsp;&nbsp;

EU’s support to refugees from Ukraine is the only positive humanitarian support, where UK and US seem to be shying. &nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Decoding the future &nbsp;&nbsp;

If the war gets prolonged further, Ukraine will be destroyed physically, Russia will suffer punitive financial cost, EU will lose long lasting peace and energy security, and the entire world will suffer economically. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Ukrainians and Russian residents and soldiers will bear the brunt of the consequences. While the EU is presenting a bold, united front with the US in order to weaken Russia, it has its limits, up to the point when its gas supply is choked, with risk of insurgency at its doorsteps. &nbsp;&nbsp;

In the short term, the US may appear to benefit from Russia's weakness by increasing arms and oil exports, but in the long run, it will lose credibility and reliability globally. &nbsp;&nbsp;

China will emerge wiser, learning from Russian experience and assessing the risk profile of the US, whose leadership is fixated on the wrong adversary and unable to combat the real competitor in the Indo-Pacific. Diversion of focus from China to Russia will speed up US decline as superpower, faster than what its strategists anticipate. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Sanctions will eventually lose their lustre, as more sanctions may lead non-western countries to seek an alternative financial system that is not dependent on the West, jeopardising their long-term interests. The world is more intertwined than it was previously, and with the economic fulcrum shifting from the West to the Indo-Pacific, a de-dollarised financial system could be the most significant future risk to the US. &nbsp;

For European security, a neutral Ukraine is the best option. Ukraine has never been accepted into NATO and is unlikely to be welcomed in the future, as it has never met the basic criteria of a peaceful internal and exterior situation, having been involved in conflicts/disturbances in both dimensions. &nbsp;&nbsp;

It is preferable if Ukraine and Russia face reality as soon as possible and resolve the issue through direct dialogue, putting rhetoric, egos, and sentiments aside. It might be a better idea for the West, too, to encourage a ceasefire through discussions, addressing the legitimate security interests of all parties, rather than adding fuel to the fire by imposing more sanctions or providing more hardware support to prolong the war.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Backdrop The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting.

Backdrop The conflict in Ukraine has rolled over to fourth week of devastation, resulting in over three million refugees, numerous military and civilian casualties, and intermittent reconciliatory tones of hopeful dialogue, alternated with rhetoric from opposing sides to continue fighting. While the West continues to give standing ovations to President Zelensky's emotional speeches and responds with a package of military hardware and funds, it is pouring fuel to the fire by prolonging global agony and encouraging Ukrainians to fight to the death in order to weaken Russia. While NATO can claim that Ukraine is not part of it; hence it is not obligated to join fight against Russia through ‘No Fly Zone’ as repeatedly requested by Zelensky, risking the potential to trigger Third World War/Nuclear war, but NATO is very much part of the conflict through economic war, information war, diplomatic war, political war and other instruments of non-contact warfare. Big power contest continues with no concern for humanitarian disaster Any offensive into another sovereign country has disastrous consequences for the people and must be condemned, whether it’s current Russian offensive in Ukraine or earlier NATO invasions in Iraq and other parts of MENA. With few security guarantees, this was avoidable, but the big power contest continues to spiral it, with display of heroics of President Zelensky, failing to read the extent, depth, and impact of Western support and President Putin's resolve, least realising that the nationalism and his peoples resolve is being used as an instrument to prolong an unwinnable, proxy war, leading his country to disaster. The war of narrative seems getting dangerous with references to nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions in heated exchanges/allegations. How has battlefield ‘Ukraine’ shaped up after three weeks? After three weeks, the shaping of battlefield by Russians seems to make strategic sense, but at a very heavy cost, which is increasing consistently. Russian main offensive is towards Kyiv, which is the Centre of Gravity to achieve political objective of imposing no-NATO diktat on its political leadership or force a regime change, through the shortest route from Belarus. The complete isolation of Kyiv is yet to be achieved and the political consolidation is not in sight. Given the spirit of nationalism among Ukrainians, stoked by Zelensky's sentimental appeals and bolstered by western information warfare, Russians need to moderate their political objective from regime change to imposing a no-NATO agreement with Zelensky, because any pro-Russian puppet regime, even if imposed, is unlikely to survive. The Russian military aim to demilitarise Ukrainian military to ensure that Ukraine cannot be used as a launchpad by NATO to threaten security of Russia, has been partially achieved by extensive air and missile strikes to neutralise air defence capability and air assets to achieve favourable air situation, pulverising military targets, claiming to have destroyed most of them, including air fields and military installations in Ukraine. It is increasingly capturing strategic installations to step up pressure on Zelensky. The offensive from South is aimed at cutting off Ukrainian access to Black Sea and Sea of Azov by securing a permanent land corridor from Russia to Crimea with an end-state of landlocked Ukraine. Russians have been able to achieve most of the corridor except Odessa, with intense fighting in townships. The offensive from the East is aimed at liberation of complete Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where intense fighting continues despite initial gains. Ukraine’s strong resolve to resist Russian offensive under leadership of President Zelensky, has been noteworthy, having deliberately prepared for the conflict. To overcome the asymmetry in military asset holdings, the Ukrainian force deployed smartly in densely populated areas to fight pitched battles in townships, despite losing air cover in the early phases of the conflict. The strategy is to deploy military assets in civilian areas, turn towns into fortresses, and residential areas into pillboxes, incite mercenaries and civilians to fight as part of the war machine, launch sniper attacks, ambushes, small team operations, drone attacks on softer convoys, and provoke Russians to target residential areas in order to gain propaganda advantage from civilian casualties through superior information warfare, backed by the west to demonise President Putin. With adoption of urban insurgency model, the war has thus morphed from conventional to hybrid war with both sides planning to induct more non-state actors. The Ukrainian strategy seems to have succeeded in delaying Russian operations and placing Russia in an awkward position of having to choose between fighting in populated, built up areas, which is cost prohibitive in terms of human and equipment casualties in favour of defender, or isolating, bombarding townships, residential areas alleged to house military assets, disrupting essential services, and pressuring Zelensky, at the cost of risking international condemnation. The Russians appear to have selected the latter option, extending the range of air strikes to western Ukraine which is the lifeline for assistance from West including military hardware. Are actions by West helping Ukraine? US and Western allies are claiming to be helping Ukraine through financial and diplomatic sanctions on Russia and military hardware support to Ukraine of the type (smaller calibre) which can improve staying power of Ukrainian fighters, and induce long term insurgency in Europe, even if negotiations reach some conclusion in due course. The aim is to permanently weaken Russia by weaponising Ukrainian nationalism, posing Zelensky as hero, to continue fighting with their proxy support. EU’s support to refugees from Ukraine is the only positive humanitarian support, where UK and US seem to be shying. Decoding the future If the war gets prolonged further, Ukraine will be destroyed physically, Russia will suffer punitive financial cost, EU will lose long lasting peace and energy security, and the entire world will suffer economically. Ukrainians and Russian residents and soldiers will bear the brunt of the consequences. While the EU is presenting a bold, united front with the US in order to weaken Russia, it has its limits, up to the point when its gas supply is choked, with risk of insurgency at its doorsteps. In the short term, the US may appear to benefit from Russia's weakness by increasing arms and oil exports, but in the long run, it will lose credibility and reliability globally. China will emerge wiser, learning from Russian experience and assessing the risk profile of the US, whose leadership is fixated on the wrong adversary and unable to combat the real competitor in the Indo-Pacific. Diversion of focus from China to Russia will speed up US decline as superpower, faster than what its strategists anticipate. Sanctions will eventually lose their lustre, as more sanctions may lead non-western countries to seek an alternative financial system that is not dependent on the West, jeopardising their long-term interests. The world is more intertwined than it was previously, and with the economic fulcrum shifting from the West to the Indo-Pacific, a de-dollarised financial system could be the most significant future risk to the US. For European security, a neutral Ukraine is the best option. Ukraine has never been accepted into NATO and is unlikely to be welcomed in the future, as it has never met the basic criteria of a peaceful internal and exterior situation, having been involved in conflicts/disturbances in both dimensions. It is preferable if Ukraine and Russia face reality as soon as possible and resolve the issue through direct dialogue, putting rhetoric, egos, and sentiments aside. It might be a better idea for the West, too, to encourage a ceasefire through discussions, addressing the legitimate security interests of all parties, rather than adding fuel to the fire by imposing more sanctions or providing more hardware support to prolong the war. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Is the West weaponising Ukrainian nationalism to checkmate Russia?  

UK PM Boris Johnson said it was a terrible mistake to let Putin get away in 2014. He is likely to travel to Saudi and UAE this week.

Boris Johnson's admits to West's mistake, backs oil drilling

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has announced fresh set of sanctions on Russia. Russia also also lost most favoured nation status.

US imposes fresh sanctions on Russia amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine

Has Joe Biden's oil embargo on Russia fractured western unity? EU-nations say they can't ban Russian oil imports. They say they're too 'dependent' on Moscow for energy supplies. Is Biden's decision then a symbolic move? Watch this report to know more.

Decoding US President Joe Biden's oil embargo on Russia: Will it cripple Putin's war machine?

What is a frozen war? Ukraine war to lead to a frozen conflict? Russia wants peace but on its own terms? Watch this report to know about Russia's ploy to keep the West away.

Ukraine war to lead to a frozen conflict? Russia's ploy to keep the West away

The Pentagon rejected a surprise offer from Poland to send MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine via a US airbase. Warsaw made the surprise offer on Tuesday amid repeated appeals from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky for more warplanes.

US diplomat says Poland 'caught us off guard' with offer to send fighter jets to help Ukraine

The United States said that it was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material amid concerns. Meanwhile, Russia has claimed that the US is making bio-weapons.

The US says Russia after Ukraine's bio-lab

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine grinds on, Moscow is finding itself mired in a parallel conflict: a contest of economic and political endurance against the West.

Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, had prepared Russia for sanctions like those imposed after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, as if daring Western countries to cut off their citizens from Russian trade and see who blinked first.

But the severity of Western measures has far exceeded expectations, not only devastating Russia’s economy but also isolating its citizens from travel and even from Western brands like Apple and McDonald’s.

Now, both sides face a test of their ability to maintain domestic support for a standoff whose costs will be borne by regular citizens. More than a battle of wills, it is a test of two opposing systems.

Putin’s Russia, which rallied around nationalist fervor in 2014, now relies on propaganda and repression. Western leaders increasingly appeal to liberal ideals of international norms and collective welfare that had been in global decline — until now, they hope.

The economic balance favors the West in the extreme. One study estimated that a full trade war would curb the combined gross domestic product of Western countries by 0.17% but Russia’s by a devastating 9.7%.

Public opinion may also advantage the West, where surveys find wide support for harsh measures against Russia, whereas Putin dare not even acknowledge the war’s extent for fear of triggering more protests.

Still, Western leaders must maintain unity across 20-plus fractious democracies, persuading citizens from Canada to Bulgaria that spiking energy prices — which may be just the start of the economic shocks — are worth the sacrifice.

Political fissures will inevitably open within the West, said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The polls really tell us nothing about how people will actually react to economic pain and masses of refugees,” Shapiro said.

The question is when.

Putin, meanwhile, must maintain his grip on both Russia’s public and the network of political power brokers who back him. If their tolerance of the war’s rapidly rising toll slips before Western resolve does, it could imperil not just his war, but his very hold on power.

The question of who breaks first may shape Ukraine’s fate as much as any weapons transfer or tank assault. And although the outcome is impossible to predict, a range of economic indicators and political signals offer some clues.

The West’s Challenge

Western countries’ secret weapon, nearly as important as their economic edge, may be their citizens’ sudden desire for concerted and unified action.

In polls, Europeans across the continent express a moral imperative to punish Russia’s invasion, as well as a belief that Russia now poses a direct threat to their countries.

In a seven-country survey taken just before the invasion, a plurality said they were willing to personally bear the economic toll of isolating Russia, which provides much of Europe’s energy. Country-specific polls suggest that share has likely increased.

In Germany — the European Union’s largest economy and often its decider on Russia matters — only 38% supported increasing military spending as of September; now it is up to 69%.

In past standoffs, European leaders often went against the will of their voters to confront Moscow, seeing it as a grim necessity.

Now, leaders such as Olaf Scholz of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France are seeing their approval ratings surge as they rally against Russia. Far from playing down the costs to everyday citizens, some emphasize it as a point of pride.

Political risks are further eased by the election calendar: Macron is nearly alone among Western leaders in facing reelection this year and is a strong favorite to win.

Still, President Joe Biden is under countervailing pressure from Republicans and voters alike to simultaneously stand up to Russia while keeping down gas prices. If politics around the crisis shift, Biden may feel compelled to adjust, especially as the November midterm elections, already expected to be difficult for his party, near.

And a slowdown in Russian energy exports — already underway as Russian firms are buffeted by the turmoil — is expected to hit Europe hard. Germany imports more than half of its gas from Russia, as does Austria. Some Eastern European countries run on nearly 100% Russian gas.

Europe’s West gets most of its gas elsewhere, such as from Norway and Algeria. Still, as Russia is cut off from buyers, fossil fuels will become scarcer and therefore costlier worldwide. Some Germans’ energy bills are already projected to increase by two-thirds this year.

To ease the burden, European governments are putting in place sweeping energy subsidies, worth 15.5 billion euros, or about $17 billion, in France, 5.5 billion euros in Italy, 2 billion euros in Poland, 1.7 billion euros in Austria, and so on. Many target low-income households.

But there may be a timer on Western resilience. Unless European countries radically re-engineer their infrastructure for importing gas or take on perhaps the fastest shift to renewable energy in history — both considered technically feasible but costly — they could potentially run out of fuel next winter.

Economic shocks could extend well beyond heating costs. A number of European industries are already slowing production because of rising energy prices. Russia also exports much of the world’s copper and other industrial materials.

At the same time, while Europeans express wide support for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, it is unclear whether this will last.

Europe is already expecting a major surge in refugee arrivals this summer, many from Afghanistan. Western leaders have proved extremely sensitive to anti-immigration backlash.

“There remain significant divides that are being buried in the emotion of the moment,” Shapiro said.

The West’s greatest ally in maintaining unity may be Putin himself. By massing forces on NATO’s borders and producing shocking images of destruction in Ukraine, he has given Europeans something to rally against, distracting from their disagreements, for now.

Moscow’s Challenge

In a telling contrast to 2014, when many Russians cheered their country’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin has turned almost immediately to repression and censorship, threatening severe prison terms for so much as calling the invasion a “war.”

This has accelerated a kind of authoritarian feedback loop in Russia, with tightening repression feeding popular discontent, beyond even the extremes of recent years.

But Putin belongs to a particular club of authoritarians — individual strongmen, rather than military or party dictatorships — for whom popular support is a secondary concern.

Rather, such leaders draw their power from the backing of political elites, like the heads of security agencies or state industries, said Erica Frantz, a Michigan State University scholar of authoritarianism.

“This is not to say that ordinary citizens don’t matter, but rather that if we’re looking for regime vulnerabilities at the moment, the focal point really needs to be on these indicators of elite discontent,” Frantz said.

Authoritarian elites, garrisoned behind vast personal wealth, can more easily endure the economic hardship that will be borne by regular Russians. They also tend to give leaders wide latitude in wartime, which may be why strongmen rarely lose power because of battlefield losses, research has shown.

Still, such elites are not fooled by state propaganda. And they are not indifferent to their country’s fate.

Surveys of Russian political elites conducted in 2020 found that most backed Putin for exactly the accomplishments now under threat: stabilizing the country and winning it respect abroad. Many also expressed concern over his handling of the economy — and opposition to military adventurism in Ukraine.

“The crisis will be most severe for a minimum of three years. Take the 1998 crisis and multiply it by three,” Oleg Deripaska, a prominent Russian billionaire, said in an unusual break with the Kremlin, referring to Russia’s economically catastrophic 1990s.

Sanctions could hurt Putin with the elite by limiting his ability to distribute the spoils they expect in return for their support. So could popular unrest, if it grows severe enough to make those elites question whether Putin is imperiling Russia’s stability.

“Russian public opinion is becoming such a problem that Putin is effectively fighting two wars: one in Ukraine, and one at home,” Sam Greene, a Russia scholar at King’s College London, wrote this week.

The danger is not only anti-war protests, which have been mostly associated with segments of society already skeptical of Putin. Bank runs or other forms of mass economic panic, Greene argued, could trigger a sense of national crisis, overriding even the sanguine lies of state media.

Putin, by hiding the scale and nature of the invasion, is in effect tying his own hands, making it impossible for his government to adequately inform citizens about the struggles ahead. You can’t ask citizens to rally around a war you insist does not exist.

Much as European disunity is all but inevitable as the tolls mount, apprehension among the Russian elite may simply be a matter of time.

“The indicators of elite discontent that we have seen thus far are unusual in Putin’s Russia and should therefore be taken seriously,” Frantz said, referring to comments by Deripaska and a few others.

Though she stressed that Putin could well ride out the self-made crisis, “in the long term, this external pressure — coupled with the domestic unrest — could lead to Putin’s downfall.”

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine grinds on, Moscow is finding itself mired in a parallel conflict: a contest of economic and political endurance against the West.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine grinds on, Moscow is finding itself mired in a parallel conflict: a contest of economic and political endurance against the West. Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, had prepared Russia for sanctions like those imposed after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, as if daring Western countries to cut off their citizens from Russian trade and see who blinked first. But the severity of Western measures has far exceeded expectations, not only devastating Russia’s economy but also isolating its citizens from travel and even from Western brands like Apple and McDonald’s. Now, both sides face a test of their ability to maintain domestic support for a standoff whose costs will be borne by regular citizens. More than a battle of wills, it is a test of two opposing systems. Putin’s Russia, which rallied around nationalist fervor in 2014, now relies on propaganda and repression. Western leaders increasingly appeal to liberal ideals of international norms and collective welfare that had been in global decline — until now, they hope. The economic balance favors the West in the extreme. One study estimated that a full trade war would curb the combined gross domestic product of Western countries by 0.17% but Russia’s by a devastating 9.7%. Public opinion may also advantage the West, where surveys find wide support for harsh measures against Russia, whereas Putin dare not even acknowledge the war’s extent for fear of triggering more protests. Still, Western leaders must maintain unity across 20-plus fractious democracies, persuading citizens from Canada to Bulgaria that spiking energy prices — which may be just the start of the economic shocks — are worth the sacrifice. Political fissures will inevitably open within the West, said Jeremy Shapiro, the research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The polls really tell us nothing about how people will actually react to economic pain and masses of refugees,” Shapiro said. The question is when. Putin, meanwhile, must maintain his grip on both Russia’s public and the network of political power brokers who back him. If their tolerance of the war’s rapidly rising toll slips before Western resolve does, it could imperil not just his war, but his very hold on power. The question of who breaks first may shape Ukraine’s fate as much as any weapons transfer or tank assault. And although the outcome is impossible to predict, a range of economic indicators and political signals offer some clues. The West’s Challenge Western countries’ secret weapon, nearly as important as their economic edge, may be their citizens’ sudden desire for concerted and unified action. In polls, Europeans across the continent express a moral imperative to punish Russia’s invasion, as well as a belief that Russia now poses a direct threat to their countries. In a seven-country survey taken just before the invasion, a plurality said they were willing to personally bear the economic toll of isolating Russia, which provides much of Europe’s energy. Country-specific polls suggest that share has likely increased. In Germany — the European Union’s largest economy and often its decider on Russia matters — only 38% supported increasing military spending as of September; now it is up to 69%. In past standoffs, European leaders often went against the will of their voters to confront Moscow, seeing it as a grim necessity. Now, leaders such as Olaf Scholz of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France are seeing their approval ratings surge as they rally against Russia. Far from playing down the costs to everyday citizens, some emphasize it as a point of pride. Political risks are further eased by the election calendar: Macron is nearly alone among Western leaders in facing reelection this year and is a strong favorite to win. Still, President Joe Biden is under countervailing pressure from Republicans and voters alike to simultaneously stand up to Russia while keeping down gas prices. If politics around the crisis shift, Biden may feel compelled to adjust, especially as the November midterm elections, already expected to be difficult for his party, near. And a slowdown in Russian energy exports — already underway as Russian firms are buffeted by the turmoil — is expected to hit Europe hard. Germany imports more than half of its gas from Russia, as does Austria. Some Eastern European countries run on nearly 100% Russian gas. Europe’s West gets most of its gas elsewhere, such as from Norway and Algeria. Still, as Russia is cut off from buyers, fossil fuels will become scarcer and therefore costlier worldwide. Some Germans’ energy bills are already projected to increase by two-thirds this year. To ease the burden, European governments are putting in place sweeping energy subsidies, worth 15.5 billion euros, or about $17 billion, in France, 5.5 billion euros in Italy, 2 billion euros in Poland, 1.7 billion euros in Austria, and so on. Many target low-income households. But there may be a timer on Western resilience. Unless European countries radically re-engineer their infrastructure for importing gas or take on perhaps the fastest shift to renewable energy in history — both considered technically feasible but costly — they could potentially run out of fuel next winter. Economic shocks could extend well beyond heating costs. A number of European industries are already slowing production because of rising energy prices. Russia also exports much of the world’s copper and other industrial materials. At the same time, while Europeans express wide support for welcoming Ukrainian refugees, it is unclear whether this will last. Europe is already expecting a major surge in refugee arrivals this summer, many from Afghanistan. Western leaders have proved extremely sensitive to anti-immigration backlash. “There remain significant divides that are being buried in the emotion of the moment,” Shapiro said. The West’s greatest ally in maintaining unity may be Putin himself. By massing forces on NATO’s borders and producing shocking images of destruction in Ukraine, he has given Europeans something to rally against, distracting from their disagreements, for now. Moscow’s Challenge In a telling contrast to 2014, when many Russians cheered their country’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin has turned almost immediately to repression and censorship, threatening severe prison terms for so much as calling the invasion a “war.” This has accelerated a kind of authoritarian feedback loop in Russia, with tightening repression feeding popular discontent, beyond even the extremes of recent years. But Putin belongs to a particular club of authoritarians — individual strongmen, rather than military or party dictatorships — for whom popular support is a secondary concern. Rather, such leaders draw their power from the backing of political elites, like the heads of security agencies or state industries, said Erica Frantz, a Michigan State University scholar of authoritarianism. “This is not to say that ordinary citizens don’t matter, but rather that if we’re looking for regime vulnerabilities at the moment, the focal point really needs to be on these indicators of elite discontent,” Frantz said. Authoritarian elites, garrisoned behind vast personal wealth, can more easily endure the economic hardship that will be borne by regular Russians. They also tend to give leaders wide latitude in wartime, which may be why strongmen rarely lose power because of battlefield losses, research has shown. Still, such elites are not fooled by state propaganda. And they are not indifferent to their country’s fate. Surveys of Russian political elites conducted in 2020 found that most backed Putin for exactly the accomplishments now under threat: stabilizing the country and winning it respect abroad. Many also expressed concern over his handling of the economy — and opposition to military adventurism in Ukraine. “The crisis will be most severe for a minimum of three years. Take the 1998 crisis and multiply it by three,” Oleg Deripaska, a prominent Russian billionaire, said in an unusual break with the Kremlin, referring to Russia’s economically catastrophic 1990s. Sanctions could hurt Putin with the elite by limiting his ability to distribute the spoils they expect in return for their support. So could popular unrest, if it grows severe enough to make those elites question whether Putin is imperiling Russia’s stability. “Russian public opinion is becoming such a problem that Putin is effectively fighting two wars: one in Ukraine, and one at home,” Sam Greene, a Russia scholar at King’s College London, wrote this week. The danger is not only anti-war protests, which have been mostly associated with segments of society already skeptical of Putin. Bank runs or other forms of mass economic panic, Greene argued, could trigger a sense of national crisis, overriding even the sanguine lies of state media. Putin, by hiding the scale and nature of the invasion, is in effect tying his own hands, making it impossible for his government to adequately inform citizens about the struggles ahead. You can’t ask citizens to rally around a war you insist does not exist. Much as European disunity is all but inevitable as the tolls mount, apprehension among the Russian elite may simply be a matter of time. “The indicators of elite discontent that we have seen thus far are unusual in Putin’s Russia and should therefore be taken seriously,” Frantz said, referring to comments by Deripaska and a few others. Though she stressed that Putin could well ride out the self-made crisis, “in the long term, this external pressure — coupled with the domestic unrest — could lead to Putin’s downfall.”

Russia’s other contest with the West: Economic endurance

Away from the war in Ukraine, Pakistan is stuck on the same old record. It's still obsessing over India. Imran Khan says EU envoys are pressurising him to condemn Russia. He wants them to build the same pressure on India. Here's what Palki Sharma has to say.

Gravitas: 'West pressurising Pak to condemn Russia' claims Imran Khan

As Ukraine conflict deepens, the fears of an energy war between Russia and the West have grown on Tuesday. &nbsp;

This comes as the United States pushed its allies to ban oil imports from Russia to penalise it for invasion of Ukraine. The talks on humanitarian corridors have also made little progress. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/to-allow-civilians-to-leave-russia-proposes-humanitarian-corridors-in-five-ukrainian-cities-say-reports-460072">Russia proposes humanitarian corridors in five Ukrainian cities, say reports</a>

In response, Russia has said that it could cut the gas supply to Europe. Russia currently supplies 40% of Europe's gas. So, it could hit the continent badly and result in major blackouts.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak on Monday said, "We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline." &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russian-belarusian-hackers-target-ukraine-european-allies-through-phishing-campaigns-says-google-460083">Russian, Belarusian hackers target Ukraine, European allies, says Google</a>

Earlier, Russia had also warned that it could stop the flow of gas from Russia to Germany through pipelines after Berlin decided last month to halt the opening of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline. &nbsp;&nbsp;

If the United States and its allies banned imports of Russian oil, Novak also warned that oil prices could go more than double to $300 a barrel. It is a crucial source of revenue after the country was effectively frozen out of Western financial markets. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

As Ukraine conflict deepens, the fears of an energy war between Russia and the West have grown on Tuesday. This comes as the United States pushed its allies to ban oil imports from Russia to penalise it for invasion of Ukraine.

As Ukraine conflict deepens, the fears of an energy war between Russia and the West have grown on Tuesday. This comes as the United States pushed its allies to ban oil imports from Russia to penalise it for invasion of Ukraine. The talks on humanitarian corridors have also made little progress. Also Read: Russia proposes humanitarian corridors in five Ukrainian cities, say reports In response, Russia has said that it could cut the gas supply to Europe. Russia currently supplies 40% of Europe's gas. So, it could hit the continent badly and result in major blackouts. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak on Monday said, "We have every right to take a matching decision and impose an embargo on gas pumping through the Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline." Also Read: Russian, Belarusian hackers target Ukraine, European allies, says Google Earlier, Russia had also warned that it could stop the flow of gas from Russia to Germany through pipelines after Berlin decided last month to halt the opening of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline. If the United States and its allies banned imports of Russian oil, Novak also warned that oil prices could go more than double to $300 a barrel. It is a crucial source of revenue after the country was effectively frozen out of Western financial markets. (With inputs from agencies)

Fears of energy war between Russia, West grow. What’s at stake?

Over the past week, in response to the gut-wrenching scenes in Ukraine, Western unity has been impressive and heartening. I know from my near-daily conversations with President Volodymyr Zelensky that this has provided Ukrainians with some comfort in their hour of need.

Never in my life have I seen an international crisis where the dividing line between right and wrong has been so stark, as the Russian war machine unleashes its fury on a proud democracy. Russia’s reckless attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant reminds us just how grave the stakes are for everyone. More than one million people have fled the violence, toward an uncertain future.

President Biden has displayed great leadership, consulting and convening allies, exposing the lie that America’s commitment to Europe is somehow diminished. The European Union has undertaken a remarkable effort to align behind severe sanctions on Russia. Dozens of European countries are sending defensive equipment to Ukraine’s armed forces. But have we done enough for Ukraine? The honest answer is no.

Vladimir Putin’s act of aggression must fail and be seen to fail. We must not allow anyone in the Kremlin to get away with misrepresenting our intentions in order to find ex post facto justification for this war of choice. This is not a NATO conflict, and it will not become one. No ally has sent combat troops to Ukraine. We have no hostility toward the Russian people, and we have no desire to impugn a great nation and a world power. We despair of the decision to send young, innocent Russians into a futile war.

The truth is that Ukraine had no serious prospect of NATO membership in the near future — and we were ready to respond to Russia’s stated security concerns through negotiation. I and many other Western leaders have spoken to Mr. Putin to understand his perspective. The United Kingdom even sent emissaries to Moscow before Russia’s invasion to deal directly with Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the general staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, who are spearheading this awful campaign.

It is now clear diplomacy never had a chance. But it is precisely because of our respect for Russia that we find the actions of the Putin regime so unconscionable. Mr. Putin is attempting the destruction of the very foundation of international relations and the United Nations Charter: the right of nations to decide their own future, free from aggression and fear of invasion. His assault on Ukraine began with a confected pretext and a flagrant violation of international law. It is sinking further into a sordid campaign of war crimes and unthinkable violence against civilians.

Though there can be no comparison with the assault on Ukraine, we in the United Kingdom know something of Mr. Putin’s ruthlessness. Four years ago, we endured the outcome of Russian operatives’ use of chemical weapons against people in Salisbury, England — and our allies rallied to our side. In our defense and foreign policy review, published a year ago, we warned that Russia remained the most acute security threat, and we announced the biggest increase in our defense spending since the end of the Cold War.

We also warned that the world was entering into a period of competition in which authoritarian states would test the mettle of the West in every domain. Last year’s agreement among the United Kingdom, America and Australia to help deploy nuclear submarines for the Australian Navy demonstrated our shared resolve to meet the challenges we face in the Indo-Pacific.

We have failed to learn the lessons of Russian aggression. For too long, we have turned the other cheek. No one can say we were not warned: We saw what Russia did in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014 and even on the streets of Salisbury. And I know from speaking to my counterparts on recent visits to Poland and Estonia just how acutely they feel the threat.

It is no longer enough to express warm platitudes about the rules-based international order. We are going to have to actively defend it against a sustained attempt to rewrite the rules by force and other tools, such as economic coercion. We must restore effective deterrence in Europe, where, for too long, the very success of NATO and of America’s security guarantee has bred complacency. What happens in Europe will have profound implications worldwide.

We are pleased to see more nations beginning to grasp this hard reality. In January, the United Kingdom was among a handful of European countries sending defensive aid to Ukraine. Now more than 20 countries are part of that effort. Defense spending is going up, though it will take time for that to translate into capability.

That’s a welcome development, but it is not going to be enough on its own to save Ukraine or keep the flame of freedom alive. Russia has overwhelming force and apparently no regard for the laws of war. We need to prepare now for even darker days ahead.

So we must begin a six-point plan for Ukraine, starting today.

First, we must mobilize an international humanitarian coalition. On Monday, I will meet the leaders of Canada and the Netherlands in London to talk about creating the widest possible coalition to expose the outrages that are taking place in Ukraine. On Tuesday, I will host the leaders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, now on the front line of a refugee crisis. The United Kingdom has 1,000 troops on standby for humanitarian operations, on top of 220 million pounds ($291 million) of aid. We must all work together to establish an immediate cease-fire and allow civilians safe passage, food and medical supplies.

Second, we must do more to help Ukraine to defend itself. More and more nations are willing to provide defensive equipment. We must act quickly to coordinate our efforts to support the government of Ukraine.

Third, we must maximize the economic pressure on Mr. Putin’s regime. We must go further on economic sanctions, expelling every Russian bank from SWIFT and giving our law enforcement agencies unprecedented powers to peel back the facade of dirty Russian money in London. We must go after the oligarchs. So far, the United Kingdom has imposed sanctions on more than 300 elites and entities, including Mr. Putin himself. But these measures will be insufficient unless Europe begins to wean itself off the Russian oil and gas that bankroll Mr. Putin’s war machine.

Fourth, no matter how long it takes, we must prevent any creeping normalization of what Russia does in Ukraine. The lesson from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and seizure of Crimea in 2014 is that accepting the results of Russian aggression merely encourages more aggression. We cannot allow the Kremlin to bite off chunks of an independent country and inflict immense human suffering and then creep back into the fold.

Fifth, we should always be open to diplomacy and de-escalation, provided that the government of Ukraine has full agency in any potential settlement. There can be no new Yalta, decided over the heads of the people of Ukraine, by external powers.

Sixth, we must act now to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security. This includes not only bolstering NATO’s eastern flank but also supporting non-NATO European countries that are potentially at risk of Russian aggression, such as Moldova, Georgia and the nations of the western Balkans. And those that participate or enable Russian aggression, such as Belarus, will be subject to maximum sanctions.

Ukrainians have bravely defended their country. It is their valor that has united the international community. We can’t let them down.

Over the past week, in response to the gut-wrenching scenes in Ukraine, Western unity has been impressive and heartening. I know from my near-daily conversations with President Volodymyr Zelensky that this has provided Ukrainians with some comfort in their hour of need.

Over the past week, in response to the gut-wrenching scenes in Ukraine, Western unity has been impressive and heartening. I know from my near-daily conversations with President Volodymyr Zelensky that this has provided Ukrainians with some comfort in their hour of need. Never in my life have I seen an international crisis where the dividing line between right and wrong has been so stark, as the Russian war machine unleashes its fury on a proud democracy. Russia’s reckless attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant reminds us just how grave the stakes are for everyone. More than one million people have fled the violence, toward an uncertain future. President Biden has displayed great leadership, consulting and convening allies, exposing the lie that America’s commitment to Europe is somehow diminished. The European Union has undertaken a remarkable effort to align behind severe sanctions on Russia. Dozens of European countries are sending defensive equipment to Ukraine’s armed forces. But have we done enough for Ukraine? The honest answer is no. Vladimir Putin’s act of aggression must fail and be seen to fail. We must not allow anyone in the Kremlin to get away with misrepresenting our intentions in order to find ex post facto justification for this war of choice. This is not a NATO conflict, and it will not become one. No ally has sent combat troops to Ukraine. We have no hostility toward the Russian people, and we have no desire to impugn a great nation and a world power. We despair of the decision to send young, innocent Russians into a futile war. The truth is that Ukraine had no serious prospect of NATO membership in the near future — and we were ready to respond to Russia’s stated security concerns through negotiation. I and many other Western leaders have spoken to Mr. Putin to understand his perspective. The United Kingdom even sent emissaries to Moscow before Russia’s invasion to deal directly with Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the general staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, who are spearheading this awful campaign. It is now clear diplomacy never had a chance. But it is precisely because of our respect for Russia that we find the actions of the Putin regime so unconscionable. Mr. Putin is attempting the destruction of the very foundation of international relations and the United Nations Charter: the right of nations to decide their own future, free from aggression and fear of invasion. His assault on Ukraine began with a confected pretext and a flagrant violation of international law. It is sinking further into a sordid campaign of war crimes and unthinkable violence against civilians. Though there can be no comparison with the assault on Ukraine, we in the United Kingdom know something of Mr. Putin’s ruthlessness. Four years ago, we endured the outcome of Russian operatives’ use of chemical weapons against people in Salisbury, England — and our allies rallied to our side. In our defense and foreign policy review, published a year ago, we warned that Russia remained the most acute security threat, and we announced the biggest increase in our defense spending since the end of the Cold War. We also warned that the world was entering into a period of competition in which authoritarian states would test the mettle of the West in every domain. Last year’s agreement among the United Kingdom, America and Australia to help deploy nuclear submarines for the Australian Navy demonstrated our shared resolve to meet the challenges we face in the Indo-Pacific. We have failed to learn the lessons of Russian aggression. For too long, we have turned the other cheek. No one can say we were not warned: We saw what Russia did in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014 and even on the streets of Salisbury. And I know from speaking to my counterparts on recent visits to Poland and Estonia just how acutely they feel the threat. It is no longer enough to express warm platitudes about the rules-based international order. We are going to have to actively defend it against a sustained attempt to rewrite the rules by force and other tools, such as economic coercion. We must restore effective deterrence in Europe, where, for too long, the very success of NATO and of America’s security guarantee has bred complacency. What happens in Europe will have profound implications worldwide. We are pleased to see more nations beginning to grasp this hard reality. In January, the United Kingdom was among a handful of European countries sending defensive aid to Ukraine. Now more than 20 countries are part of that effort. Defense spending is going up, though it will take time for that to translate into capability. That’s a welcome development, but it is not going to be enough on its own to save Ukraine or keep the flame of freedom alive. Russia has overwhelming force and apparently no regard for the laws of war. We need to prepare now for even darker days ahead. So we must begin a six-point plan for Ukraine, starting today. First, we must mobilize an international humanitarian coalition. On Monday, I will meet the leaders of Canada and the Netherlands in London to talk about creating the widest possible coalition to expose the outrages that are taking place in Ukraine. On Tuesday, I will host the leaders of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, now on the front line of a refugee crisis. The United Kingdom has 1,000 troops on standby for humanitarian operations, on top of 220 million pounds ($291 million) of aid. We must all work together to establish an immediate cease-fire and allow civilians safe passage, food and medical supplies. Second, we must do more to help Ukraine to defend itself. More and more nations are willing to provide defensive equipment. We must act quickly to coordinate our efforts to support the government of Ukraine. Third, we must maximize the economic pressure on Mr. Putin’s regime. We must go further on economic sanctions, expelling every Russian bank from SWIFT and giving our law enforcement agencies unprecedented powers to peel back the facade of dirty Russian money in London. We must go after the oligarchs. So far, the United Kingdom has imposed sanctions on more than 300 elites and entities, including Mr. Putin himself. But these measures will be insufficient unless Europe begins to wean itself off the Russian oil and gas that bankroll Mr. Putin’s war machine. Fourth, no matter how long it takes, we must prevent any creeping normalization of what Russia does in Ukraine. The lesson from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 and seizure of Crimea in 2014 is that accepting the results of Russian aggression merely encourages more aggression. We cannot allow the Kremlin to bite off chunks of an independent country and inflict immense human suffering and then creep back into the fold. Fifth, we should always be open to diplomacy and de-escalation, provided that the government of Ukraine has full agency in any potential settlement. There can be no new Yalta, decided over the heads of the people of Ukraine, by external powers. Sixth, we must act now to strengthen Euro-Atlantic security. This includes not only bolstering NATO’s eastern flank but also supporting non-NATO European countries that are potentially at risk of Russian aggression, such as Moldova, Georgia and the nations of the western Balkans. And those that participate or enable Russian aggression, such as Belarus, will be subject to maximum sanctions. Ukrainians have bravely defended their country. It is their valor that has united the international community. We can’t let them down.

Boris Johnson: 6 steps the West must take to help Ukraine right now

Russian Invasion of Ukraine enters day 11 and protests around the world against Russian invasion has raged further. In the latest, Biden spoke to Ukraine President Zelensky.

Ukraine President Zelensky speaks to US President Biden to discuss security & financial aid

UNSC held an emergency meeting after Russia seized control of nuclear plant. The West allies criticized Russia for shelling and seizure of Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.

West allies criticised Russia over shelling, seizing of 2nd nuclear plant in Ukraine

A day after Russian forces attacked and took control of a nuclear plant in Ukraine, the US said that it is a possible war crime committed by Russia.

US: Attack on a nuclear plant in Ukraine by Russia a possible 'war crime'

Britain has been facing criticism for taking too long to target people with links to Russian President Vladimir Putin and now to make it easier to sanction Russian oligarchs Britain could introduce new legislation.

Britain ponders change in legislation as 11 wealthy Russians sanctioned

Russian Invasion of Ukraine enters day 9 and reports of a fire at Europe's largest nuclear plant has sent the world in shock. In the latest, Biden spoke to Ukraine President Zelensky.

The US to activate Nuclear response team amid reports of a fire at Europe's largest nuclear plant

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States has announced fresh set of curbs on Russian Oligarchs.

US announces fresh curbs on Russian Oligarchs amid Russian invasion of Ukraine

Biden speaks to Ukraine President Zelensky amid reports of a fire at Europe's largest nuclear plant

The United States has announced more sanctions. This time the targets happen to be Russia's defence industry and its ally Belarus in response to Belarus' support of the Russian war.

Washington steps up pressure on Moscow: Russian defence industry sanctioned amid invasion of Ukraine

US President Joe Biden has delivered his first State of the Union address in the chamber of the United States House of Representatives. Biden said that the US and the West are united against the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

US President Biden's State of the Union address: 'We are ready, we are united'

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the EU has intensified its sanctions regime as it bans Russian state media outlets.

Brussels intensifies sanctions regime as it bans Russian state media outlets in EU

Diplomats and envoys from the US, EU staged a mass boycott of the Russian Foreign Minister's speech at the United Nations amid the invasion of Ukraine.

Diplomats at UN boycott Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's speech

Amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US has banned Russian flights from its airspace. Biden also slammed Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Biden sends clear message to Russian Oligarchs as he bans Russian flights from US airspace

US bans Russian flights from its airspace amid the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine

west

West, News on West, stories on West, articles on West, West stories at Wion, West news, West latest news