Fighting the Bully

Over the past few weeks, I have spotted many people on social media asking why President Zelensky simply doesn’t give in to Putin’s demands and thus bring peace to Ukraine. 

On the surface, this may appear to be a reasonable suggestion.

But is it?

This is simply a game of blame the victim rather than assess full responsibility to the aggressor for this rape of Ukraine.

And much like any rape situation, the victim is not to blame for the rapist’s actions.

In 1936, Hitler invaded the Rhineland in direct contravention to the Versailles Treaty.

The Allies did nothing, believing him when he said that this was all Germany wanted.

In 1938, the Allies gave him Czechoslovakia, rendering forever Munich as the principal example of appeasement.

Again, the Allies did nothing.

On September 1, 1939, after signing a non-aggression pact with the then Soviet Union, he invaded Poland.

Finally, the Allies responded with force, and World War II began.

Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.

Appeasing the aggressor is never the answer. He will only want more and, if one listens to Putin’s ramblings over the years, he wants it all. The resuscitation of the Soviet Union. Of the Russian Empire at whatever cost to Russia or others. 

And he will not stop until he either gets it or is removed from power.

Some say that Putin will never risk attacking a NATO country.

Hitler attacked an allied country – Poland – and followed up with Belgium and Holland and later France.

Appeasement had led him to believe that the Allies did not have the resolve to fight a second global war with Germany. His own hubris led him to believe that the Allies would never match Germany’s military prowess. And his own ego led him to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, putting an end to his expansionist dreams.

He miscalculated.

If Ukraine capitulates to Putin’s demands, Putin will likely conclude that other targets (the Baltic states, Poland, Moldova, and others) will follow suit and capitulate, gambling that NATO will not want to directly confront a nuclear power like Russia.

So, what are the options?

Ukraine has Russia bogged down and Russian soldiers are demonstrating their lack of discipline and training. Five generals and some 15,000 troops are dead. The Russian economy is in tatters. In this David vs Goliath fight, many Russians are bravely taking to the streets, the oligarchy is increasingly divided, and the military must be worried about another quagmire like Afghanistan.

As well, the current sanctions and public diplomacy campaign by NATO countries, together with brave moves by dissident Russians themselves, are having an impact. 

Writing in the New York Times this past week, Thomas Friedman reported that Russian factories are now having to shut down because they cannot get microchips and other raw materials they need from the West; air travel to and around Russia is being curtailed because many of its commercial planes were actually owned by Irish leasing companies, and Airbus and Boeing won’t service them or the ones that Russia owns outright. Meanwhile, thousands of young Russian tech workers are voting against the war with their feet, and just leaving the country — all within only a month of Putin starting this misbegotten war.

NATO must strengthen its narrative and up the ante so that Putin doesn’t conclude that a desperation move on his part will work. Putin is calculating that the massive flow of refugees to NATO countries will put NATO off and lead the Alliance to force concessions from Zelensky.

In my view, NATO countries should use confiscated Russian assets abroad to fund the care and maintenance of Ukrainian refugees as well as to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine’s infrastructure when the war ends.

NATO’s public diplomacy campaign must target potential dissidents in the Armed Forces and oligarchy to wrest them from Putin’s control. The objective could be to get soldiers to put down their arms and surrender with a promise of money and safe legal residency outside of Russia. 

Finally, the West must make it clear to China that there will be enormous costs to supporting Russia militarily and that neutrality is in its best option.

NATO must also create viable public relations campaigns with its own citizens to impress upon them that supporting Ukraine is in their interest despite the economic costs that this may carry. 

To suggest capitulation at this stage is to reward Putin and to create a sense of losing among NATO members and other potential victims of Putin’s territorial ambitions.

This serves no one’s interests.

Keep reading: The Human Costs of Putin’s War

[email protected]

Edición: Laura Espejo