More than 50 days into Europe’s largest land war since World War II, the U.S., Europe and NATO are still reacting to the horrors left in Bucha. These sites of Russian war crimes continue to be discovered in many other towns and villages, including Borodyanka, Hostomel and Makariv, prompting the International Criminal Court to send representatives to these besieged sites to document war crimes.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen took the important step of travelling to Kyiv on April 8 to meet with President Zelensky. She commented that “the unthinkable has happened here” and that “we have seen the cruel face of Putin’s army.”
On April 13, the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, reported 6,500 documented instances of war crimes. Among these was a missile strike by Russian forces which killed over 50 and injured more than a hundred civilians who were waiting for evacuation at Kramatorsk train station in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
Ukrainian civilian casualties continue to mount daily. As the war drags on and Russia prepares for a new offensive in Ukraine’s east, satellite images show a several-miles long Russian tank convoy moving towards the Donbas. This preparation for a new offensive is creating more and more calls for the West to do everything in its power – short of boots on the ground or in the air – to facilitate an outright Ukrainian victory without any territorial concessions to Russia.
Back in mid-March, the unity of NATO around opposition to a no-fly zone over Ukraine began to splinter. Between March 14 and 17, three NATO countries passed resolutions in favor of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, in response to a formal request from President Zelensky on Feb. 28. In the first such resolution, Estonia called on “showing absolute support to Ukraine in its war for maintaining its freedom, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Days later, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania gave their official backing to Estonia’s resolution while the Slovenian prime minister gave his own support to the idea tweeting: “Introduce a no-fly zone over Ukraine.”
The Baltic states have since pivoted to stand wholly behind President Zelensky’s call for robust military aid, the kind that will ensure not only Ukraine’s sovereignty but also victory. “In my view, NATO member states should be doing the absolute maximum they can in order to give Ukraine enough weapons – not just defensive but offensive ones,” Rihards Kols, chairman of Latvia’s Foreign Affairs Committee told me on April 10. He added: “We don’t have to be bystanders” and “we need to give Ukraine heavy, long-range artillery now.”
Since the war began on Feb. 24, the Ukrainian government has skillfully balanced public expressions of gratitude for assistance from the West with forceful requests for specific types of weapons. In his interview with “PBS Newshour” on April 12, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was asked about U.S. and NATO concerns that providing fighter jets to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia: He asserted: “To provide Ukraine with weapons is actually to prevent further escalation” and that “the stronger we are, the more careful Russia will be with launching subsequent attacks.”
Kuleba’s call on the U.S. and NATO to provide Ukraine with more offensive weapons to win the war is echoed in the U.S. military intelligence community and in mainstream American media.
According to the “Wall Street Journal” on April 15: “The paradox of U.S. President Biden’s response in Ukraine is that he has been too casual with words like ‘genocide’ while he’s also too hesitant to offer the lethal weapons Ukrainians need to win.”
Short of introducing a no-fly zone, the journal continued that the U.S. and NATO need “to prevent Russian domination of the skies” by training Ukrainian pilots to fly NATO aircraft. “The fastest end to the human suffering is to confront the Russian dictator with the gradual destruction of his military.”
Gradual shift from sanctions to more robust military aid to Ukraine
General Philip Breedlove, former head of NATO armed forces, told the “New York Times” on April 6 that the U.S. and NATO have erroneously believed they could deter Putin with sanctions since its invasion of Georgia in 2008: “In the West, when we deal with Putin, it’s almost always completely in terms of sanctions, including additional sanctions, wider sanctions, special sanctions, extra special sanctions and magnificent-incredible sanctions! But sanctions have never changed Mr. Putin’s actions. My biggest learning point is that we’re going to have to do more than sanctions to change Mr. Putin’s behavior.”
Asked what the U.S. could have done differently, Breedlove replied that the U.S. and NATO should have imposed a no-fly over Ukraine two weeks before the invasion to deter the man who only understands force.
Breedlove’s comments reflect a growing consensus that sanctions, no matter their dimensions and scope, will not stop Putin’s war.
Andris Strazds, Latvian economist of the European Council on Foreign Relations, is quoted as saying on April 5: “It’s extremely strange to think that the collective West can come up with sanctions of a size that will immediately break the Russian war machine” and that the Russians “have all the main resources to keep going for a while.”
Calls by Western diplomats for more robust military aid to Ukraine
The argument by major economists like Strazds cautioning the West about sanctions has boosted views in favor of more direct assistance to Ukraine’s war effort.
One of these voices is that of Andrei Kozyrev, former Russian minister of foreign affairs until 1996, who told CNN on April 6: “The West, especially the U.S. and NATO, should provide the Ukrainians with much more powerful military weapons which will actually change the situation on the ground”. He concluded that “this action – not sanctions – is the only way to defeat Russia without U.S. and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine.”
Kozyrev’s view is shared by William Taylor, formerly U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in 2019-2020. Asked by MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace on April 7 what the western response should be to the revelations of Bucha, Tayor replied: “We have to provide every ounce, every bit, every ton of military equipment to the Ukrainians.”
Another forceful voice for increasing U.S. military aid to Ukraine has come from former U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Speaking on CNN’s “Amanpour and Company”, Panetta said on April 12: “This is a fight for democracy. We have a lot invested in what happens in Ukraine and I think we have to do everything necessary to work with President Zelensky to ensure that they win this war.”
Jason Beardsley, executive director of the Association of the US Navy, told MSNBC on April 11 that there is an opportunity here for the Ukrainians to turn the tide, but this would require “amplified logistics from the U.S. and the West” at a much quicker pace.
Russian émigré chess champion and chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, Gary Kasparov, was more blunt when he told CNN on April 12: “Only military defeat can put Putin’s dictatorship in jeopardy.”
President Zelensky’s emotional and forthright pleas have played a significant role in changing public opinion in the West in favor of more aid. In his “60 Minutes” interview on April 10, host Scott Pelley introduced Ukraine’s hugely popular president as “the man who stands between the Russian army and the free world.” In the interview, Zelensky called on the West to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs to be victorious in the war: “It all depends on how fast we will be helped by the United States,” Zelensky said. “To be honest, whether we will be able to survive depends on this. I have 100% confidence in our people and in our armed forces. But unfortunately, I do not have the confidence we will receive everything that we need.”
So what does Ukraine need from the U.S. president? “To tell you the truth, I asked President Biden for very specific items. He has the list,” Zelensky replied.
Foreign Minister Kuleba likewise warned the West of the consequences of inaction, stating on the BBC’s “HardTalk” on April 6: “It’s important to understand that some politicians in Europe still believe that this is just a Ukrainian problem. But this is a European problem. Dark times are back in Europe and if Putin is not stopped now, Ukraine will only be the beginning of much darker tragedies.”
Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, tweeted on April 12, “Give Ukraine MIG-29s now. Provide S-300 & S-400 air defense systems. Use offensive cyber aggressively. Give anti-ship missiles & sink Russian ships in Black Sea.”
Citing Admiral Stavridis’s position tweet, Fareed Zakaria went further in his Washington Post column on April 14. The Russian navy “continues to pose a great danger to Odesa, threatening either to lay siege to it or to launch an amphibious landing behind Ukrainian lines.” NATO, Zakaria continued, “should enforce an embargo around these waters, preventing Russian troops from entering to attack Ukraine’s cities or resupplying Russian forces. NATO ships would operate from international waters, issuing any approaching ships a ‘notice to mariners’ that NATO forces are active in the area and warning not to enter.”
Mr. Zakaria’s position reflects the emerging consensus that Russia cannot be allowed to declare victory on May 9.
