The huge waves of lethal Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities last week had three main aims. One was to re-terrorise a civilian population grown accustomed to a certain level of attrition, while targeting energy and other key national infrastructure ahead of winter. Vladimir Putin’s crude message: if we cannot defeat you on the battlefield, we will try to scare, freeze and starve you into submission instead.
Russia’s second objective was to exact revenge for Ukraine’s audacious military incursion into its Kursk region, begun early last month. The attack caught Russian forces by surprise, and they have so far failed to repel it. Kyiv’s military commander, Col Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi, says Ukraine now controls 500 square miles of Russian territory. He said Ukraine has no intention of staying but is trying to draw Russian forces away from their offensive in eastern Ukraine. This tactic may be working. An estimated 30,000 Russian troops have been diverted. Even so, western analysts estimate Russia needs about 60,000 soldiers to expel Ukrainian forces.
Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, characterises the Kursk operation as a way of boosting national morale – and of demonstrating to Kyiv’s western allies, especially an increasingly doubtful, distracted US, that the war’s dynamic can be changed – and that stalemate or defeat are by no means inevitable. To better underscore his point, Zelenskiy revealed Ukraine has developed its first ballistic missile and is deploying new, state-of-the-art armed drones.
Challenging this idea that Ukraine can survive and win seems to be Putin’s third objective. The Russian president hopes to frighten governments, such as Germany’s, where fears about spillover run deep, and convince western opinion that continued assistance is futile. Putin is especially anxious that Zelenskiy’s passionate pleas for greater latitude in using advanced western weapons be spurned. For this and other reasons, it is vital that US president Joe Biden reverse his opposition to Kyiv firing US-supplied Atacms long-range rocket artillery at airfields and bases deep inside Russia from which the murderous attacks are being launched. Biden should also agree to Britain and France allowing their Storm Shadow missiles to be used for similar purposes. Such counterattacks would amount to legitimate self-defence, allowable under international law.
Ending the self-defeating US prohibition already has the support of Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, and France’s president, Emmanuel Macron. Keir Starmer should publicly join them in urging a too-cautious Biden to change tack. Likewise, Zelenskiy’s proposal that Nato air forces, such as Poland’s, be allowed to help defend Ukrainian airspace from missile and drone attacks against civilian targets deserves urgent support, as repeatedly urged in this space.
Despite the Kremlin’s claims, this would not amount to a declaration of war between the west and Russia. Nor would it lead to a nuclear brink, as Biden fears. Russia constantly up the verbal ante, but its actions are more circumspect. Putin is dangerous but not suicidal. He knows he would lose a confrontation with Nato’s vastly superior forces. He also knows he and his clique might not politically survive such an escalation.
Ukraine is fighting this war on behalf of us all. It is defending Europe’s frontline and the UN-based international system against open aggression, criminality and illegitimacy. Anyone who doubts that contention should look at what happened in Geneva last week. Marking 75 years since the signing of the Geneva conventions – the crucial foundation stone of international humanitarian law and the laws of war – Switzerland hosted 14 of the 15 current members of the UN security council.
Guess which country boycotted this symbolic event? Shockingly, Russia’s UN ambassador dismissed it as “a waste of time”.
Which sort of says it all.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
