3 Does the West’s response stack up and what should it be doing?

As noted above this is a war of aggression perpetrated by a nuclear power that had previously guaranteed the security of the nation it is invading. Neither of these differences can be used to fully explain the reaction by the EU and NATO which look both dangerous and cowardly at the same time. 

The West’s response

Because the West thinks that the UN is useless and cannot be cajoled into line  Note; Irony , because it thinks its way of doing things is the only way to do things, because it thinks business is the answer to everything and ignores the rest of civil society,  because it has double standards, because it just must do something, because its politicians (at least those in charge now) will not do not do the hard thinking needed to match ends and means…and above all because it is morally and physically weak underneath its nuclear virility umbrella it reach’s for the only things it can do the supply arms and economic sanctions and hopes for the best. 

The supply of arms

The scale and extent of these has surprised a lot of observers, there have been comments in the media about how this shows the resolve of the liberal capitalist democracies, they may have been asleep but now they have woken up  Note; Waking up

However the US would not back up the Polish proposal to supply Migs (i.e. Russian aircraft, inherited from its Warsaw Pact days) for the same security risks I have been describing. If it was thinking in leadership terms the US would be asking for this help to be UN badged – it might still fail but the symbolism would be better. 

It seems to be agreed that the supply of arms must fit a definition of defensive weapons which has so many logical problems it seems risible, we will supply anti-tank weapons but not tanks. A tank can be used defensively, active defence involves counter-attacking. What is in play here is simply the fear of provocation. 

The Ukraine didn’t provoke Russia, except by its existence. The issue for NATO is being outside the reemit of article 5 it has not got ‘proper authority’ for involvement. The United Nations isn’t NATO, what it is a constituted legal authority, one which could be a ‘proper authority’ for action – if it can be persuaded to. We don’t seem to be trying  Note; UN Reform

Economic sanctions

If the problem with arms supply, is that it could be seen as NATO interference then the problem with economic sanctions is that they can be seen in exactly the same way. In addition they are a blunt instrument, difficult to aim and control and with unpredictable results. They will either fail or take a (relatively) long time to have an effect. If our aim is to stop the war this isn’t the obvious choice of tactic. 

Let’s suppose that economic sanctions also hurt the economies imposing them. There will be some political blowback. There will be some public reaction, it might be on the lines of why are we doing this if it isn’t working, we want to do more. Given the populist nature of some western governments this sort of pressure may well be a spur to further escalation – it shouldn’t need to be said that embarking on war to satisfy an emotional public is unwise  Note; Need for cool heads  What will they do to Russia? It seems to depend on who you read. 

According to assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto “The central flaw in the design of western sanctions is the premise that putting economic pressure on the inner circle of Russia’s president will cause them to demand change”  Note; Why sanctions will not work

Expecting that there are people who will stop him may be wishful thinking and is certainly very dangerous. We are far from the days when Khrushchev could be removed for adventurism - there isn't a politburo of rivals, there are just people who are locked into the system that has been created. 

According to Robert Reich following this logic they need to be widened at the same time as remembering that Russian citizens are not Putin  Note; More Sanctions but

If the economic sanctions prove disastrous to Russia they could throw Russia into chaos, lead to more repression (they, or the war not proceeding to plan, may already be doing that) and in the ensuing confusion who is to say the nuclear wire will not get tripped. The only historical precedent I can think of is US policy towards Japan in the late 1930's. Whether or not the attack on Pearl Harbour was a response to that or was coming anyway I could not say.