The Tribune

THE endless swirling information in the international media about what might happen next in Ukraine remains as intense as ever. Is the world drifting towards war in eastern Europe because of Russian aggression? If so, that could turn out to be the deadliest conflagration on the continent since the end of the Second World War in 1945.

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied any intention of invading Ukraine, it is now feared in the West that eastern Europe is on the verge of a potential humanitarian catastrophe as well as economic disaster, and there is a general determination this must be prevented. Responsibility for the immediate situation lies firmly at Putin’s door - however justified his broader concerns about NATO and European security may or may not be. The present crisis has been created by his amassing some 130,000 combat troops and armaments on the border with Ukraine and conducting military exercises in neighbouring Belarus.

With its vast intelligence sources, the US is arguably best placed to predict the timing of any invasion. It is now saying there is “extremely detailed” information about invasion plans and that such an attack could happen as early as this week.

Western countries are taking their cue from the Americans in threatening Putin with massive sanctions if he pushes ahead with an invasion. As has been well publicised, President Biden has warned of a decisive response and “swift and severe costs” and, reportedly, Secretary of State Blinken has separately told his opposite number, Sergey Lavrov, that an invasion will be met with “a resolute, massive and united transatlantic response”. Meanwhile, the Russians themselves contend that Western countries are fanning tensions over Ukraine “for their own geopolitical ends”. They say the West is not interested in serious negotiations and will not take seriously Russia’s concerns about NATO and the security of Europe.

How often over the last few weeks have we heard these messages in various forms from both sides. Putin’s main demand is Ukraine should not become a member of NATO. But he knows the West cannot agree to rule this out since it is a matter for Ukraine itself as a sovereign country to determine. He also wants to push NATO forces back from his own borders which means out of parts of eastern Europe. In response, Western leaders agree a tough and uncompromising reaction is needed by meeting strength with strength.

It is interesting to look at the background. The experts say the Kremlin’s overall strategy is to end the US’s global hegemony and to drive a wedge between Washington and the EU. Putin is on record as calling the collapse of the Soviet Union the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He wants to re-establish Russia’s de facto control over as much as possible of the former Soviet Union - and that means bringing the sovereign countries on its western borders back into its sphere of influence, particularly Ukraine which was incorporated into the USSR in 1945 but which is said to be sliding fast into the Western orbit - except for the separatist eastern part of the country.

Some commentators in Britain are now wondering whether, in order to prevent an immediate attack on Ukraine, something is needed in the way of concession and compromise rather than publicly berating and threatening Putin with massive sanctions that could cripple the Russian economy.

They suggest Western leaders should heed what the Russian ambassador in Sweden is reported to have said in a recent hard-hitting press interview about the need to understand the Russian mentality: the more the West threatens, the stronger the Russian response becomes.

They ask, therefore, what is happening to diplomacy. It is said talks are continuing but, according to media reports, all that happens is further stern warnings to Putin. Little is said publicly about a possible diplomatic solution by introducing concessions that would outweigh the costs of war for Putin. For example, an offer of new negotiations on wider European security issues including reduction of missiles, arms control and transparency about military exercises; or revival of the Minsk Agreement of 2014-15 designed to end war between government forces and Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine. Or perhaps Ukraine could be declared a neutral state like Finland which adopted formal neutrality during the Cold War and stayed out of NATO. That could mean Ukraine temporarily renouncing its NATO ambitions - at least in the foreseeable future - despite its long-term commitment to joining the organisation.

It almost goes without saying that a war in Ukraine - a large country with a population of some 43 million equipped and ready to fight back against a Russian invasion - is a terrifying prospect. It would have devastating humanitarian and economic consequences and could lead to a direct US/Russian confrontation in a conventional conflict that could quickly escalate into nuclear war – and that is an outcome too terrible to contemplate.

THE FAILED POLICY OF APPEASEMENT AT MUNICH

In stating over the weekend that Russia is “highly likely” to invade Ukraine, the British Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, was also reported to have remarked that there was a “whiff of Munich in the air”. This was, of course, a reference to the policy of appeasement in the 1930s which failed to prevent the Second World War.

Appeasement is a legitimate tool of diplomacy used to placate a potential aggressor if it is in the interests of the country concerned to do so in order to ward off possible danger and harm, particularly in the short term. But, historically, it will always be associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s policy in dealing with Hitler and Nazi Germany. This culminated in the Munich Conference of September, 1938 and an agreement reached between Germany, Britain, France and Italy that permitted Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia where some three million people of German origin lived. This followed his absorption of Austria into Germany earlier the same year, and the Munich Agreement did not stop Germany’s occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia the following year.

In September, 1939 Hitler’s forces invaded Poland and, in response, Britain declared war on Germany. The deadliest conflict in history, affecting the whole world, had been unleashed.

Thus, giving in to a dictator in a vain attempt to stem his territorial ambitions had resulted in failure, and appeasement had been given a bad name. Ever since, it has become almost a pejorative term.

Nonetheless, amid heavy criticism of Chamberlain at the time for being so naïve as to think that at Munich he had really achieved what he proclaimed was “peace in our time”, historians attest to the admiration many had for his perseverance in seeking to maintain peace even though he badly misjudged Hitler’s intentions.

It can be argued there are parallels between Munich and what is happening now in relation to Ukraine in so far as an aggressive dictator is intent on making a land grab by force. But the circumstances are wholly different because of the solidarity displayed by NATO countries and the direct involvement of the US. All have agreed on a stern and uncompromising response to Putin’s aggression and are taking action accordingly.

DISGRUNTLED TRUCKERS OR A WORLDWIDE PROTEST?

Headlines like “grass roots rebellion has paralysed Canadian capital” make alarming and surprising reading since Canadians are reputed to be among the most law-abiding people on the planet. These refer, of course, to what are being called the “Freedom Convoys” of truckers which have been using their vehicles recently to gather in cities like the capital Ottawa and bring them to a gridlocked standstill. Border crossings like the Ambassador Bridge linking Michigan to Ontario, which carries some 25 percent of the annual trade between the US and Canada, have also been blocked.

What is particularly interesting is whether these occurrences in Canada may have repercussions elsewhere. Other countries wonder whether it is a one-off situation or a manifestation of what some are calling a global freedom movement that is funded by international far-right groups and involves the exercise of power by the so-called common man challenging those in authority who may be overstepping the limits of their own power. Some are suggesting this is a rallying cry against big government intervention, and it is noteworthy that similar protests have now occurred in Britain, France and New Zealand as well as a gathering in Australia.

Reportedly, the protests began in response to a vaccine mandate brought in recently by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s minority Liberal government requiring all Canadian truckers to be vaccinated or to quarantine on their return from the US. This was after truck drivers working the cross border routes had previously been exempt from such mandates as they were considered essential workers. Ninety percent of them have been vaccinated and the Canadian Trucking Alliance has disavowed the protesters as not being representative of the Canadian haulage industry as a whole.

Leaders of the “Freedom Convoy” say, theirs is a fight for freedom within a democracy against a dictatorial government arbitrarily imposing unnecessary mandates on ordinary people. They claim to represent the working class or blue collar worker against an arrogant elite telling them what to do; and, as long as it is peaceful, civil disobedience is a time-honoured tradition in their country.

The protests have been described as a “primal scream of rage and frustration” from a segment of the population who are fed up with two years of pandemic restrictions. But they have now snowballed in to a wider movement pushing for an end to all COVID mandates and in general opposition to Trudeau’s government in a country said to be beset by rising inflation, supply chain difficulties and labour problems.

According to reports, some observers in Canada consider Trudeau has handled the situation unwisely by dismissing the “Freedom Convoy” as a “small fringe minority” and accusing its activists of bigotry, racism and even Nazism. He refuses to negotiate with them because they hold views he maintains are unacceptable. But fringe groups anywhere can have a disproportionate influence on public opinion - especially truckers who play an essential role in a country’s economy - and now he is facing a spiralling crisis in which he himself is the focus of widespread rage.

Despite the grievances of the truckers, in a democracy an elected government is empowered by the vote of the people to make decisions and, while peaceful demonstration is at the heart of the democratic system, most people agree the broader issue of what is good for the majority should always take precedence over the actions of a minority. Most people also agree civil disobedience needs to be limited and controlled if the actions by a minority become unreasonable and get out of hand. That said, politicians rule in a democracy at the will of the people. So it behoves them to listen to the voters - even to fringe groups - most of the time if they want to prosper in government.