The Tribune

THE world headlines said it all on Friday. On February 24, one year ago, life for millions of people changed in an instant when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, expecting to take over the country in a matter of days. But, despite big advances at first, its assault on Kyiv itself was successfully repulsed and local Ukrainian forces later beat back attacks in other areas.

Such is the extent of the sympathy around the globe for Ukraine and the sense of outrage at the Russian action that many other countries far afield -- from Sydney to Stockholm -- took pains to mark this first anniversary with sombre memorial ceremonies and a one-minute silence.

Other gestures of support, like footballers in Britain wearing armbands in the Ukrainian national colours, also abounded. On the anniversary, President Zelensky held a marathon news conference in Kyiv for the world’s media and there were many harrowing firsthand accounts of the terrible experiences of the huge numbers who were displaced or affected in many different ways by the conflict. One of the most poignant of these was at the press conference when Zelensky himself – surely the embodiment of commitment, courage, resilience and strength - revealed, in answer to a question, that his own worst moment was the massacre of civilians at Bucha, a small town outside Kyiv – what I saw, he said, was horrible.

The words being used time and again about the war are not only loss and suffering amidst death, destruction and displacement of millions but also resistance, bravery and resolve on the Ukrainian side. Despite the refusal by a small number of countries to vote in favour of the latest UN resolution and condemn the invasion – not least China and India who abstained -- the main worldwide reaction to this sad anniversary has been almost unprecedented. It reflects the horror of the conflict that has affected people on an unimaginable scale.

Given the massive publicity and the endless assessment of the current situation, there is no need to dwell on details today. But, according to all reports, the largest conflict in Europe since the Second World War has become a grinding and protracted war of attrition while Russia still occupies about one-fifth of Ukrainian territory. Nonetheless, there appears to be a new optimism in Kyiv about the likely future course of the war because of fresh commitments by the West about the speed and delivery of continuing supplies of weapons and other military support, including the arrival of tanks. With more promised, it is said they could be a game-changer on the battlefield. Moreover, new rounds of sanctions have been announced by the US and the EU.

At the beginning of another year of this war, there are two aspects that perhaps now merit further separate analysis; namely, the background to Putin’s decision-making and the recent intervention by China.

In the past, I have mentioned the excellent reporting by Steve Rosenberg, the BBC’s Russia Editor in Moscow. In his latest assessment, he draws attention to Putin being at Russia’s helm for more than twenty years and portrays him as a sea captain steering the good ship Russia through the stormy waters of global unrest.

He has been seen by his own people as an oasis of stability and a safe harbour. But then the Kremlin captain set sail in a storm of his own making and headed straight for an iceberg. So why did he do this?

Rosenberg suggests that, with presidential elections on the horizon in 2024, he wanted a victory to show the captain was successfully steering the ship. He was intent on restoring Russia’s “historical frontiers” and genuinely regarded Ukraine to be part of Russia. De-Nazification meant “de-Ukrainianisation”, and in his early years in office he apparently did not view NATO as a threat. He expected his “special military operation” to be lightning fast and that within weeks Ukraine would be back in the Russian orbit. But that turned out to be a grave miscalculation and fatal mistake. Now, the fact that Putin is blaming the West for the crisis – and portraying Russia as the victim of NATO aggression rather than even recognizing that Russia itself is the aggressor towards Ukraine - shows he is living in some sort of “alternative reality”; particularly, since it has been reported that before the war Ukraine had agreed a provisional deal with Russia to stay out of NATO.

Meanwhile, Zelensky said at his press conference that he hoped China could be part of any peace process. He said that he intends to meet President Xi Jinping to discuss Beijing’s proposals to end the war - proposals which, he suggested, signalled that China was genuinely involved in the search for peace. These mention respect for “national sovereignty” but do not specifically call for withdrawal of Russian troops though they speak of “protection of national security interests” (meaning Russia) while opposing use of “unilateral sanctions” (meaning the West). The proposals followed the recent visit to Moscow by China’s top diplomat and his meetings with Putin and foreign minister Lavrov.

So far, it is reported that, since China still refuses to condemn the Russian invasion, the West doubts China’s motives and remains unimpressed. As a major adversary, it opposes what it regards as US hegemony in the world, and many now consider that its aim is to position itself as a global peacemaker and preach an alternative vision to a US-led world order. The immediate concern in the West is that China may send lethal weapons to Russia. This would be a “red line” for the US and its allies. But most analysts think it is unlikely – not least because it would lead to sanctions and the disruption of trade with the US and EU which are among China’s top trading partners.

As the only possible hope at present of bringing this terrible war to a close, many will anxiously await further developments. But it is too soon to judge whether China’s involvement could be a positive step forward after all. As well as annexing Crimea, Russia has occupied parts of eastern Ukraine since 2014. Unless he is forced out through defeat on the battlefield, it seems that some sort of face-saving formula will have to be found for Putin. The evil he has perpetrated is beyond comprehension. Whatever justification he claims for continuing this unprovoked and unnecessary conflict, which has caused death and destruction on an enormous scale and has inflicted so much misery on so many, this war has to end.

BOYCOTT THREAT LOOMS OVER PARIS OLYMPICS

IN A troubled world, yet another international crisis is quietly brewing almost unnoticed – hardly to be compared with the horrors of war but nonetheless linked to Ukraine and potentially damaging. It relates to the next Olympic Games due to be held in Paris in 2024.

Some people may be surprised that the Olympics seem to have come around again so quickly after the Tokyo Games in 2021. But, of course, these had to be postponed from the year before because of the pandemic.

Earlier this month, the Polish foreign minister summed up the issue by saying that allowing athletes from Russia and Belarus (Russia’s close ally) to compete at the Paris Olympics could lead to a large-scale boycott and render the Games “pointless”.

President Zelensky has said that there is “no place” for these athletes at the Paris Games as long as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues.

He has won support from, among others, Poland, the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Denmark. They have called for a total ban on Russia and Belarus and have threatened a boycott of the Games if athletes from those countries are allowed to participate, since that would enable sport “to be used to legitimize and distract attention from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine”.

They have also pushed back against an International Olympic Committee(IOC) plan to allow such athletes to compete in Paris as “neutrals” without flags or anthems.

The IOC has said it is working on a pathway towards this end and under certain other conditions. But that seems to represent a change of policy since, following the invasion, athletes from both countries have been excluded from many international sporting events after a previous recommendation from the IOC.

This change seems to have been at the beginning of this year. Last week, the IOC president, Thomas Bach, said that the IOC stood in solidarity with Ukraine’s athletes but at the same time sport had to respect the human rights of all athletes who should not be discriminated against because of the passports they hold.

The IOC has also said that threatening a boycott goes against the fundamentals of the Olympic Movement and the principles it stands for and is a violation of the Olympic Charter. It adds that history has shown that previous boycotts have not achieved their political ends and have served only to punish the athletes concerned – although such a contention remains debatable.

As far as I can see, the current situation rests on a statement dated February 20 released by the governments of thirty-four nations who have pledged their support for the ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes to stay in place while the war continues. They are calling on the IOC to clarify its definition of “neutrality” as it seeks a way to allow these athletes back into international sports and, ultimately, next year’s Paris Olympics.

The statement said that the quickest way for Russia to get back into international sports would be to end the war it started. Signatories included the US, Britain, France, Canada and Germany. Those five countries brought nearly one-fifth of all athletes to the Tokyo Games. Poland, the Baltic states and Denmark also signed the statement though, reportedly, it did not mention a boycott.

Interestingly, last week EU lawmakers condemned the IOC’s efforts to reintegrate Russia into world sports.

As for Britain’s stance, the Culture Secretary has told the IOC that the UK government will continue to support the ban and have urged it to reconsider its position while taking account of the seriousness of the situation on the ground in Ukraine.

According to UK press reports, the British government believes that the IOC’s plans are “not credible” and has serious concerns that these could see a route back into elite sports for the athletes of Russia and Belarus.

Boycotts of sporting events for political reasons have always been controversial even though it is generally accepted that sport and politics are to an extent intertwined. There is a continuing debate about their justification and effectiveness -- and it will be interesting to see how the dispute surrounding this potential boycott pans out.

WELCOME TO ANOTHER SPRING

PERHAPS it is a shade early to write about the joys of spring. But I wonder whether others will have noticed recently that the days are getting noticeably longer – and what a pleasant thought it is that this year clocks in The Bahamas change from standard time to daylight saving time as soon as March 12.

Here, of course, winter is the high season for tourism, with fine and stable warm weather and cool nights – and many consider it is the best and most comfortable time of year. But it is a very different story for people living further north who have had to endure the rigours of an invariably long and hard winter. For them, the onset of spring is a blessed relief, with more daylight to enjoy and the prospect of summer on the horizon. Spring also heralds hope and new beginnings – and, of course, it brings with it the resurgence of Nature as wildlife emerges from its winter hibernation.

A friend of mine has just sent me evidence in England of the arrival of this most welcome of seasons from watching the renewed activity of birds and animals in his garden together with spring flowers heralding the start of warmer weather.

For people in England this means, in particular, daffodils. So I take the liberty of repeating what I wrote a year ago about the description of these flowers by William Wordsworth, one of England’s best loved poets, in his work “I wandered lonely as a cloud”. This poem is also commonly known as “Daffodils” and it is loved by so many because of the picture it paints of the beauty of Nature together with its encouraging message of fresh beginnings and hope for the future.

Wordsworth’s famous line in his autobiographical work, The Prelude, that “Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven” was written in the context of the French Revolution. But some suggest that it could equally reflect his love of Nature in all its springtime glory.