Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good
Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here.
February 24, 2022 A Dark Day for Europe, a Darker One for Ukraine "The events of last night are a turning point in the history of Europe," President Emmanuel Macron told French citizens Thursday, as missiles were landing in Ukraine.
Around the Western world, many agreed.
"The chapter of history opened by the fall of the Berlin Wall, bringing hopes that states could choose their destinies inside a 'common European home', has been closed," the Financial Times editorial board wrote. "A new, darker, chapter has begun."
"The larger meaning of Russia's Ukraine invasion is that the world has entered a dangerous new era," The Wall Street Journal's editorial board concurred. "Or perhaps it's more accurate to say the world has returned to its pre-World War II state in which the strong take advantage of the weak, and authoritarians are on the march."
Many critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin—most recently former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a New York Times essay—have argued he seeks to reverse history to a time when major powers carved up the globe and dominated their regions. The sense, today, is that he has succeeded.
Putin has perplexed a watching world. He is not perpetrating a Holocaust, to be sure, but in terms of territorial aggression, Ukrainian journalist and recent GPS guest Nataliya Gumenyuk compares Putin's advance to Hitler's, in a Guardian column written from Kyiv as the assault began.
"What other analogy is there?" Gumenyuk asks. "With no reason, in an act of pure madness, an old-fashioned air assault has been inflicted on a neighbouring country. … There is a famous phrase, '4am Kyiv is bombed'. Every Ukrainian and Russian kid knows it. That's how the announcement of the German bombardment of Kyiv in 1941 sounded. And here we are: 24 February, 5am Kyiv is bombed by Russia." In a speech laying out his casus belli, Putin seemed intent on settling scores with the West, Christina Hebel writes for Der Spiegel. The scope of his aims caught many off guard.
Up until the attack was announced, almost, analysts had suggested Putin might recognize separatist-held regions in eastern Ukraine and then back off. "I was one of those who until the very last moment could not accept the notion of a full-scale invasion with airstrikes on our major towns," Gumenyuk writes for The Guardian. "Putin's speech was sickening, but still there was a logical, if fictional, justification for a limited Russian operation. The full-scale attack on Ukraine destroys even that."
"Until the very last moment, until yesterday, yesterday evening, very smart Russia observers here, much smarter than I am, still assumed that Putin will not do what he just did," Michal Baranowski, director of the German Marshall Fund's Warsaw office, told journalists on a conference call, deeming what has unfolded a "maximalist scenario" many failed to predict. 'A Big War,' With Refugees "This is not a small war," the German Marshall Fund's Baranowski concluded. "This is a big war." Before the invasion, Michael Kofman and Jeffrey Edmonds wrote for Foreign Affairs that an all-out Russian assault could be devastating—as it indeed appears to be.
The consequences are already being felt beyond Ukraine's borders. Germany has offered to help Poland and other countries in handling an expected influx of refugees, and Moldovan President Maia Sandu tweets that more than 4,000 have already arrived in her country. Will Russians Support This? Before the invasion, Der Spiegel's Hebel found mixed views of potential conflict in western Russia. Doubts have been raised as to whether Russians will get behind it.
Before the attack began, Arik Burakovsky wrote for The Conversation that Putin's seizure of Crimea in 2014 caused a "collective euphoria" in Russia and saw his approval ratings jump—but that Russians have shown less affinity for other regions in Russia's near orbit, don't generally see Ukraine's separatist-held regions joining Russia in the future, and have positive views of Ukrainians. Independent polling from the Levada Center has hinted at weak support for a war, military-strategy scholar Matthew Schmidt noted at CNN: "Last April, its polling reported that among the military-age cohort (18-24), a full 41% thought a war with Ukraine would hurt Putin's standing. 35% of the young-parent-age cohort (25-39) agreed, and it was nearly the same for the middle-age cohort."
Particularly if Russian forces suffer casualties, Burakovsky and Schmidt argued that a war could see Putin lose political standing at home. The West's Role, Past and Future While there's broad agreement that Putin is responsible for his decision to attack, some have seen strategic failures by the West.
At Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt has voiced amazement at a "yawning gap in both capabilities and resolve." Despite evidencing no willingness to fight for Ukraine, the US and its European allies have nonetheless refused to grant Putin any of the concessions he seeks, Walt writes, arguing diplomacy has not matched the balance of power. Before Russia's attack began, Walt suggested the West was bungling its way toward it.
Former German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer tweets: "I'm so angry at ourselves for our historical failure. After Georgia, Crimea, and Donbas, we have not prepared anything that would have really deterred Putin."
As Western countries offer support, some observers want the US and its allies to back a Ukrainian insurgency, if it comes to that. At Responsible Statecraft, Ted Galen Carpenter calls this a terrible idea that would bring the US into business with "unsavory" partners, noting America's dubious track record in fighting proxy wars and warning that other interested parties can fuel violence from afar, too. |
