"A Whiff of Munich in the Air"

The chance of a Russian invasion of Ukraine? Highly unlikely. That's not me, but Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian President speaking a fortnight ago. Since then, the US and UK governments have warned conflict is imminent. Russia had planned spectacular false flag operations to use as a pretext for an invasion, a plot to engineer a coup and install a pro-Putin puppet, a campaign of sabotage by undercover agents, and all manner of skulduggery prefacing the kind of lightning war not seen in Europe since the 1940s. The US State Department and the duumvirate, with the emphasis on the dumb, of Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Defence Secretary Ben Wallace have talked tough on consequences and sanctions for Russia. But if they're too tight how will the Tory Party make up the lost Russian money?

If Putin's show of strength on Ukraine's borders are for internal consumption, that is doubly true of the posturing by the Joe Biden and Boris Johnson governments. For Biden it's about telling his hawkish establishment that the chafing isolationism of the Donald Trump years are done, and the USA is back, baby. Whereas the Donald flattered dictators and authoritarians, in the US liberal imaginary Biden is leading the charge against them. Just don't mention Saudi Arabia, ever. And for the Tories here? Post-Brexit, the diminishment of the UK economically can be recuperated, at least on the level of spectacle, militarily. As the Tories fancy the UK as Western Europe's largest martial power (it isn't), sabre rattling is a way of demonstrating to its audiences that it matters and can still play a leadership role in world affairs. And given the fundamental anxieties of the Tory popular base, frightening them a little won't hurt either.

It's with this in mind one should approach the absurdity of the Ben Wallace interview in the Sunday Times. Because we haven't had enough Second World War similes these last two years, Wallace argues that the Ukraine crisis has "a whiff of Munich in the air." Now there's a line designed to attract attention. This pong is a not subtle dig at the diplomatic efforts of Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz. Macron in particular has attracted ire for offering guarantees in exchange for certain guarantees. Or what is normally referred to as "diplomacy" and "talks". What's scary, says Wallace, is as the talks have continued the troops have carried on building up on the border, though outlets have been reporting there are now 130,000 gathered for "military exercises" for about a week now. And, adding to a contrived sense of urgency, Der Spiegel have acquired a Russian plan to invade Ukraine. I'm sure the Russian military have planning documents for putative invasions of all its neighbours and the near abroad, just as NATO have a continually updated plan to attack Russia.

There is real danger made all the more combustible by the stupidities of Anglo-American diplomacy. They misrecognise, probably entirely wilfully, what this game is. The basic reading that Putin is chancing his arm to rewrite the status quo in Eastern Europe is largely correct. There's the long-standing grievance over the expansion of NATO eastwards after the end of the Cold War. Though, contrary to Moscow's claims, there was no formal agreement between the West and the USSR (as was), the admission of former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet republics are perceived as a block on the Kremlin's big power ambitions by Putin and his circle. This is reinforced by the fire last time, when the Western powers publicly backed and supported the overthrow of Moscow's man in Kyiv. Having seen the bad blood in Europe over Brexit, the paralysis induced by Covid, the Afghanistan debacle, and noting Western publics' scepticism toward military action, shifting troops towards Ukraine's border while undertaking joint exercises in Belarus is pretty straightforward brinkmanship. Think the periodic histrionics customary to the North Korean dynasty, minus the blood curdling language but backed by more serious military hardware.

The US/UK view, however, is that having wrenched Ukraine out from under Putin's thumb, save the long-running conflict in the Donbas and the "loss" of Crimea, seeing it back in Moscow's orbit is unconscionable. Even allowing Ukraine to consider a permanently neutral status guaranteed by treaty is a step too far. In fact, the current status of Ukraine as a friendly associate of the alliance suits US and UK governments. The permanent tension is good for the arms trade and, they believe, domestic politics - something that transcends party divisions. With both sides seemingly committed to a zero sum game, the danger of war can never be entirely discounted.

Nevertheless, there are good reasons to think the threat is overblown and that there's something pf the "45 minutes to launch WMD" about Wallace's claims an invasion is nigh. As the defence secretary is fond of WWII comparisons, let's consider another. In 1939, Poland's population was 34 million and Hitler fielded an army of 1.5 million, 2,500 tanks and 2,000 planes to overwhelm the country. In 2022, Russia has 130,000 troops in place and more modest complements of armour and air support. It is facing a Ukraine of 44 million people with 215,000 front line troops ready to go, with 53,000 militarised "border guards" and a 60,000-strong national guard. This is not counting the irregulars. Great show has also been made of the materiel and "advisors" dropped into Ukraine by the Western powers. In short, Putin hasn't amassed anywhere near a sizeable enough force if he was serious about invading. A war would be costly, drawn out, and a thrust toward Kyiv could easily get bogged down, air supremacy or no. And Russia has a colourful history of dealing with leaders who take them into unwinnable wars. Putin knows this, Macron knows this, and Wallace, Truss, and Johnson know it too.

I suppose in one respect the Defence Secretary's posturing aligns with the UK/France connivances over Munich. Wallace's appeasement comment was sharply criticised by Ukraine's ambassador to this country, attacking him for pouring cold water on the efforts of others and showing up division in NATO. What Wallace shares with Neville Chamberlain is the utter disdain of small countries and minor nations. When the signatures went on the Agreement, which gifted the Sudetenland to Hitler, Britain and France did so without consulting with the Czechoslovak government at all. They signed away the country's border areas, which contained some of its most advanced industries and most defensible terrain to appease the Nazis. Over Ukraine, witness the contrasting behaviours of our respective governments. The UK, shouting its mouth off about invasion and trying to whip up fears of war. And Ukraine? The President repeatedly saying the chances of a Russian attack are low, and generally trying to keep a cool head on things. If Wallace and the Tories respected the rights of small nations, they would defer to Kyiv's efforts at defusing the crisis instead of attempting to ramp it up.

Image Credit