The Tribune

ALL too often during a major world crisis a plethora of information and divergent opinion in the international media soon reaches saturation point. This has happened in the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. With an avalanche of news updates by the minute in a continuous news cycle, it can be hard to extract the essential from a mass of detail. So, it has been interesting to study what a range of international commentators have been saying most recently about this unprovoked and terrible act of aggression which is now in its fifth day.

Widely seen as a grim new chapter in the pages of European history that is scarcely credible in modern times, it has been labelled the worst conflict in Europe since the end of the Second World War; and it has been widely condemned around the world with protest marches in many capital cities. A brutal exercise in military might and imperialist ambition, it was an unprecedented and premeditated full-scale armed assault that is an egregious violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. It has led already to a tragic sequence of events – widespread suffering and heavy loss of life as Ukrainians fiercely resist with patriotic resolve, a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and massive instability in the country as a whole with serious damage to buildings and infrastructure.

While NATO has made clear it will not put troops on the ground or create a no-fly zone that could lead to a third world war, there has been a huge coordinated Western response – with imposition of the toughest financial sanctions ever used in targeting banks and individual Russian leaders and expulsion of the country from the international payments system, SWIFT, thereby ensuring its economic isolation. The effects are already being felt with the collapse of Russia’s currency the rouble. A wide range of sporting, cultural and other links have also been cut while all Russian aircraft have been banned from the airspace of EU countries. Russia has been turned in to a pariah state and Putin has been vilified as an evil megalomaniac, with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying he will be “condemned by the world and by history... never able to cleanse the blood of Ukraine from his hands”.

Amid the mayhem and disaster, it is noteworthy that most commentators claim Putin himself is personally responsible as an aggressor who believes in imperial conquest. As ruler of Russia for the last 20 years, he has become an unscrupulous dictator and a tyrant who is as much a danger to his own people as to the rest of the world. He has been described as a demented sociopath with no concern for human life as he plunges eastern Europe into a bloody war – a dangerous former KGB thug who regarded it as a mistake for Ukraine to have become an independent state at the time of the break-up of the Soviet Union. He is obsessed with Ukraine, calling it “an artificial creation without any “tradition of genuine statehood” and therefore inherently part of “the same historical and spiritual space” as Russia. He also makes an absurd claim about “de-nazifying” the country and wants to overthrow its existing government, install a puppet regime and bring it back as a satellite state in to what he regards as Russia’s sphere of influence.

Some observers claim he is now “borderline unhinged” and disconnected from reality. He is also cold and calculating - though at the same time unstable and guilty of irrational judgment - in wanting to restore what he sees as the glory of greater Russia.

There is thus a genuine threat to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of whom are members of NATO which would be compelled to respond to any attack on them – and that is doubly dangerous when an unstable dictator controls the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world, not least now he has ordered Russian nuclear forces to be placed on high alert.

Putin no doubt calculated he could get away with the invasion without a severe reaction from the West, as he did over the annexation of Crimea and suppression of Chechnya when it tried to secede from the Russian Federation. If so, he seriously misjudged the situation. NATO is now saying his action was a terrible strategic mistake for Russia, for which it would pay heavily in political and economic terms for many years. He also seems to have underestimated Ukraine’s military capability as his forces face stiff resistance by people determined to fight for their national survival. He clearly misread their mood if he was deluded enough to think they would welcome the Russians into their country.

With peace talks attended by President Zelensky and Russian representatives now having taken place in Belarus there appears to be at least a glimmer of hope of a possible ceasefire. But whatever now happens, with stronger military forces and weaponry the Russians presumably had expected at the outset to overcome Ukraine’s defences. But then what? What was Putin’s end game? Following an invasion, the chances of securing a wider political victory and winning over hearts and minds must have been practically zero – and, realistically, how would it have been possible to maintain control in the long-term over the largest country in Europe after taking it over by military force?

Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Putin’s evil acts of aggression have been a monumental failure. The West is standing firm and he has gained nothing but opprobrium worldwide, with even his friend China abstaining on the UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia’s invasion. Ironically, the only thing Putin has achieved is a strengthening of NATO on his borders and a commitment by its members to increase military spending - including, crucially, Germany’s decision not only to spend more but also to send weapons and military equipment to Ukraine while separately cancelling the Nord Stream2 pipeline carrying gas from Russia to Europe.

Much time and effort were spent by Western countries in recent weeks in trying to dissuade Putin from invading Ukraine. But it has now become clear he made a mockery of diplomacy which could never have worked because it was always incompatible with his warped view of the world.

A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OR DISTORTING THE TRUTH

“Only the anti-war movement of Russians can save life on this planet”. These dramatic words have been attributed to Russian journalist Dimitry Muratov, editor-in chief of the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, who shared with another journalist last year’s Nobel Peace Prize. He has spoken out recently against his country’s invasion of Ukraine about which he says he feels grief and shame.

This is, of course, in stark contrast to the main Russian media outlets that justify and support their leader’s actions. Putin’s state propaganda machine controlled by the Kremlin is reported to be portraying the invasion of Ukraine as a defensive campaign to “liberate” the eastern region of the country while protecting the self-proclaimed republics of Donbas and Luhansk, which have been recognised by Russia, against claimed attacks by Kyiv. This follows Putin’s narratives in his recent addresses to the nation when he called the invasion a “special military operation” against Ukraine aggressors in order to “demilitarise” the country and save people from the leadership of “drug addicts and neo-nazis”. Thus, in the midst of a crackdown on social media and individual news sites, state TV and Radio maintain the fiction that Russian forces are targeting military sites only and not harming civilians.

There is said to be mounting public opposition to the invasion within Russia but the evidence is local protests are quickly shut down by the police and demonstrators arrested. Ordinary people have access to various independent outlets for information, but these are heavily censored. Some can also read the foreign press.

More generally, the growing overall view internationally now seems to be that by instigating the invasion of Ukraine Putin has finally shed his posture as the enlightened autocrat in favour of peaceful collaboration who accepted the needs of a modern Russia that might even lead in due course to reform and free elections and free speech. Instead, he has changed to his ruthless self as a hater of western democracy who also continues to wallow in his resentment over the fall of the USSR while wanting to restore the former Russian Empire.

This is not the place to examine further the situation in Russia. But, clearly, state TV, which is widely watched and is said to shape public opinion, has lapsed further into pure propaganda while the political leadership indulges in disinformation and distortion of the truth – if not plain lies and a reversal of the facts.

It is the case, of course, that none of this should come as any surprise to western observers. But it illustrates again the power of both the spoken and written word. For it is said that what matters is not so much what happens in the world but what people think happens; and that depends on what they hear and read. Repetition is also an important tool in disseminating information. The advertising industry relies on it in getting a message across. But it can also be used negatively to convey disinformation. Infamously, historians will not allow people to forget the example of Hitler’s evil chief propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, whose cynical contention was that, if you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

IMPORTANT MISSION FOR A US PRESIDENT

An interesting and significant recent milestone in international relations seems to have attracted little media attention. Last week marked the 50th anniversary of US President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China in 1972. This trailblazing trip re-established America’s relations with mainland China after a quarter of a century of no communication or diplomatic ties between the two countries.

There is no space today to examine the significance of this visit in any depth, but it is generally agreed that it was one of the most important undertaken by any US President because it opened the way for China’s entry into the United Nations and trade with the West.

Of course, much has been written over the years about Nixon’s visit. But, most recently, an instructive and interesting account of it was contained in Dr Henry Kissinger’s mighty tome – described as a sweeping and insightful history - entitled “On China” which was published in 2011. The former National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford had made the preparations for Nixon’s trip to China and had accompanied him on it.

In writing about the visit, Kissinger concludes that it “brought about a seminal change in international affairs” – and discussion, in particular, of issues like geopolitical imperatives overcoming ideology and the importance of understanding and recognising each other’s national interests make fascinating reading.