What the West should be doing
It should be clear that I think what it is doing is at best ill thought out and may even be reckless and to be clear there is no just war the west can wage Note; no just intervention for the west but it isn't the west's problem alone. Note; Embedded culture of harshness
I suggested in section 2 that in order to balance ends and means two reasonable objectives would be
- The war should be brought to an end as soon as possible
- To respond and act in a way that supports and strengthens a rules based international order
Using the principles above a way forward begins to emerge
- Work to create support for a United Nations intervention in the Ukraine
- Stop actions which can be misinterpreted as, or which are in fact escalations.
- Control actions which will prolong the fighting,
- Provide help and refuge first and ask questions later
- Seek unity around these aims
1. Work to create support for a United Nations intervention in the Ukraine
Such intervention must be robust and may include a no-fly zone and have rules of engagement that allow force to be used to stop illegal actions
Badging an intervention to create a no-fly zone as a UN operation and having someone in charge of it who isn’t from Europe would be a start for the first and using the United Nations would show a commitment to a rules-based world order.
Russia also has a veto in the Security Council of the UN making it difficult to see how the Security Council can be made to take any meaningful action. Well let’s take this head on.
There is absolutely no doubt that the crime of aggression has been committed, the case needs to be made that because of its action Russia has forfeited its place on the Security Council. As President Zelensky said to the Security Council on 5th April “Where is the security that the security council needs to guarantee? It’s not there, although there is a security council. So where is the peace? Where are those guarantees that the United Nations needs to guarantee?”….“It is now clear that the goals set in San Francisco in 1945, for the creation of a global security international organisation, have not been achieved,” he continued “And it is impossible to achieve them without reforms.” Note; Zelensky calls for UN reform
Absolutely correct, why wasn’t one of the leaders of The West sponsoring such change and being proactive in advocating it – accompanying the President of the Ukraine in joint approach asking for action now an putting reform on the agenda as a sweetener.
The author claims no expertise is international law but merely observes that when it suits us, we can be all over the UN looking for legal cover for military operations.
A package of reforms could address the reality of the multi-polar world. Maybe a way of thinking about the Security Council is that it needs needs to become an equivalent (suitably updated) of the Congress of Vienna after 1815. One might ask why Britain and France continue to occupy places, France could be represented though the EU which would bring in a re-arming Germany, it would be ‘global Britians’ job to justify its continued place or to cede it gracefully in exchange for getting action on the Ukraine Note; Country Rankings
What the author finds shocking, as a citizen of one of the countries making up the West, which likes to see itself as the bearer of western/enlightenment values, and calls itself the free world, is how easily the politicians (right across the spectrum) have given up on the UN having created it in the first place. One of its members is criminal and should be expelled, with the veto gone action becomes possible; surely it is our duty to save the UN now or see it sink into complete irrelevance.
A multi-polar world without any moderating institution faced with the disruptions that will come as global heating continues is a frightening prospect; extreme weather events will cause famine, mass migration and wars throughout many areas. We have had a financial crash, a (relatively mild) pandemic and now a war to nudge us along, to give us chance to rehearse, the signs are not good that our current political leaders have the measure of how serious this is.
2. Stop actions which can be misinterpreted as, or which are in fact escalations
As I have outlined above, actions aimed at wrecking the Russian economy and hoping for regime change, are escalatory if they are perceived as full-scale economic warfare – they will have consequences we cannot control or predict but they will not stop the war. Viewed in this way they may be considered reckless.
There is a simpler and more obvious objection, on purely pragmatic grounds they are unlikely to work if the more muscular, but limited and reasonable objective is to stop the war as fast as possible and bolster a rule based international order.
3. Control actions which will prolong the fighting
The supply of arms is legitimate if undertaken at the request the of the Ukraine government during the conventional phase of the war; it is not legitimate to support a long-term, destructive guerrilla campaign if the Ukrainian army is defeated, instead, we must work through UN to insert peacekeeping forces between the two sides and bring about a negotiated peace.
As at 5th April we have the prospect of the Czech republic breaking ranks to supply Soviet era tanks to the Ukraine, Biden early refused Poland’s wish to send Soviet era fighter aircraft Note; Ad hoc assistance
4. Provide help and refuge first and ask questions later
As a citizen the author is frustrated by the tawdry response of UK. It seems to require a process that might just work in peacetime when the urgency of the situation demands waiving it.
We should open borders and provide as much humanitarian aid as we can muster for the refugees and people stranded in Ukraine. How can the government decry Russian actions and continue its bureaucratic hinderance of sanctuary, it rings very hollow?
My guess is that we are seeing the long-term consequences of actively developing a ‘hostile environment’. It was created as a response to populist (often racist), media amplified fears of immigration. It has persisted for years and is now so culturally embedded in the Home Office that it cannot be kind and humanitarian when it needs to be. Note; A World Problem
5. Seek unity around these aims
All politicians and leaders should to unite around these aims. It seems to the author that the majority of political leaders in the West have lost their moral compasses when it comes to international relations. They have lost their vision, fail to build political capital that can be drawn on when needed and do not appear to be willing to undertake the hard work of thinking through how complex questions need to be addressed.
These proposals are at the same time, more ethical, more balanced and if they could be enacted more muscular and likely to succeed than the current response by the West.
Economic sanctions are ill thought out, a scattergun approach not without serious risk. The risk may actually be greater than a no-fly zone badged as a UN operation and blue helmeted peacekeeping troops going in with robust rules of engagement. The supply arms at some point moves from justified help to unnecessary prolonging (although the signs are we are not there yet by quite a long way).