On 24th February 2022 an old friend sent me a Facebook direct message. He apologized to me if he had ever spoken the threat of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia down. This was after years of debating and getting to know each other on the University Model United Nations (MUN) Conference circuit. I had won awards for representing Russia on the MUN Security Council passionately and accurately. The invasion of Ukraine hadn’t begun. It had begun 8 years before.
What followed on 24th February 2022 was not necessarily inevitable, but our country and the West need to face up to the truth that our actions and inactions made it more likely. Simply put, our inadequate responses to Putin’s escalating behaviour over the years led us to this point. For years we postponed the question of standing up to Putin. In return he smelled our fear. The tragic irony is that if we acted then the potential costs would be minimal compared to now. By acting late there are no guaranteed safe ways out of this situation. Thus are the costs of appeasing bullying on an international scale.
Putin’s Russia is conducting a war against liberal values and any semblance of a liberal rules based international order. The United Nations Charter enshrines the right of all countries to determine their own foreign policy. It also recognizes the right of countries to resist invasion from another sovereign state and for allied nations to provide all necessary aid to maintain that resistance.
What should our stance be as a party? In my opinion a Liberal Foreign Policy should not be a pacifist foreign policy when Europe’s liberty is under threat. Our party should be urging our government to convene with Europe to help create a continent wide action plan for every willing European nation to do their best to match, and hopefully exceed Russia’s arms production. Ways to finance such efforts will need to be found. Significant windfall taxes on large and thriving energy companies could help in this. Ukraine should certainly not be begging for anything from us at this stage.
We also have a duty as a party that prides itself on transparency by being frank and honest about the causes of this war. Too many of those who see themselves as progressives are repeating many Kremlin talking points. Some talk of the so-called “encroachment” of NATO towards Russia. This is often cited as a failure of Western policy. Yet the same voices trivialize the insecurity of Eastern European NATO members and ignore Russia’s failure to reassure them. This also ignores the important liberal internationalist value for all nation-states to determine their own foreign policy, which is opposed to Russia’s old power bloc thinking. This line of argument also denies agency in the decision-making processes of the relevant Eastern European countries and Russia. Some commentators cite Western “interference” in Ukraine beforehand ignoring Russia’s extensive and deeper interference during the Yanukovych era. The disturbing truth is that even former Russian President Boris Yeltsin considered Ukraine’s borders open to question just after the fall of the Soviet Union.
It is right to feel some fear in the scenario in which our continent finds itself. But fear can cloud judgement as well as inform it. In turn many have casually talked about peace terms to the point where they have called for President Zelenskyy to consider what land he could trade for peace. However, the uncomfortable truth is that ceding land to Russia in 2014 did not bring peace. How would Ukraine’s allies ensure that such a piece of land was not used as a springboard for a future invasion? The annexations declaration only prove that this emboldened the Russian leadership to gamble harder. We are not faced with a binary decision and a binary consequence; to help Ukraine resist and invite danger or to stay away and invite peace. Leaving Ukraine to Russian Imperialism will be an international green light for nuclear proliferation and opportunist imperialism.
Fascism has returned to Europe and we and our allies have been too slow to wake up to it. We have avoided actions which may lead to escalation and in return we have just allowed escalation from the other side of the table. Putin believes he can win because our liberal values are as weak as our resolve. We should prove to him that they can both be as tough and as lasting as the brave Ukrainian resistance.
* Zachary Barker is a Lib Dem activist in Bristol.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"Malcolm Saville made me an archaeologist"
One million viewings but here comes the competition!
Waiting for the bus
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
'Big demands on our services... less and less money' Watford Mayor Peter Taylor defends local government on GB News
James Fowler
Peter Martin
Peter Hirst
Joe Bourke
17 Comments
“Some commentators cite West “interference” in Ukraine beforehand…”
I assume by this you are referring to the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected, pro-Russian government, in 2014? You may regard this as me mentioning a ‘Kremlin talking point’, but it happens to be the initial incident from which the entire sorry story unfolded.
@Mel Borthwaite
“Overthrow” doesn’t capture the reality of Yanukovych fleeing an impeachment trial for shooting protesters. If Putin hadn’t pressured Yanukovych, into withdrawing from the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, Euromaidan and the revolution of dignity wouldn’t have happened.
Our party should be urging our government to convene with Europe to help create a continent wide action plan for every willing European nation to do their best to match, and hopefully exceed Russia’s arms production.
The UK government has been coordinating supplies from the start…
‘Ukraine: UK holds military aid conference’ [February 2022]:
https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2022/02/26/ukraine-uk-holds-military-aid-conference/
NATO members and allies can comfortably outproduce Russia…
‘US factories ramping up weapons production to meet Ukraine demand’ [February 2023]:
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/02/us-factories-ramping-up-weapons-production-to-meet-ukraine-demand/
There’s an informative sales video at the end of this article…
‘Saab Doubles NLAW Production For the Second Time, Will Make 400,000 Weapons Yearly’ [February 2023]:
https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/saab_doubles_nlaw_production_for_the_second_time_will_make_400000_weapons_yearly-5714.html
@William Francis
It is difficult to sum up the complexity of the sequence events in simple statements without missing vital context. So, for example, while it is true to say “If Putin hadn’t pressurised Yanukovych…” – true to the extent that Russia applied trade sanctions on Ukraine – it misses out the fact that Russia also offered better loan terms (and cheap gas) than was being offered by the IMF and the EU, but without the onerous conditions. Anyway, the key issue is that after the democratically elected President made a decision he was entitled to make, increasingly violent street protest was organised that culminated in a revolution that forced the democratically elected leader to flee the country. I always find it a little strange that Liberal Democrats – people who, first and foremost believe in democracy – were willing to support a revolution to remove a democratically elected president.
Mel Borthwaite 25th Feb ’23 – 8:34am:
I always find it a little strange that Liberal Democrats – people who, first and foremost believe in democracy – were willing to support a revolution to remove a democratically elected president.
Liberal Democrats supporting a democratic vote being revoked because it wasn’t the result they wanted. Surely not.
I might be wrong in this, but wasn’t our approach at the start to try and avoid getting involved in armed conflict, to try and dissuade or disarm Putin through financial sanctions against Russia and try to persuade those close to Putin to challenge his decision?
This article doesn’t speak about non military-based response (trying to persuade ‘non-western’ nations to join in with financial sanctions on Russia etc.) and instead supports windfall tax on energy companies in order to flood the area with weapons. Where do those weapons go as each town is won or lost?
It doesn’t really recognise UK (it was nicknamed Londongrad for a reason) or international organisations (hello FIFA) role in emboldening Putin over past decade.
Putin must fail. It’s possible that UK showing that we’ll support Ukraine until Putin fails increases the likelihood of him wanting to negotiate, but a seemingly endless and unrestricted military response (even via proxy) rarely works out well longer term.
Mel,
you write “It is difficult to sum up the complexity of the sequence events in simple statements without missing vital context.” How about this.
Viktor Yanukovych was a small-time crook from Donestk who served two jail sentences for robbery and assault. After prison he got work with the trucking division of a coal mining company in Donestk and rose up the ranks to hold various managerial positions in transport companies. In 1996, he secured a position as a Vice-Head of Donetsk Oblast Administration becoming governor of the region in 1997. He was appointed to the post of Prime Minister in 2002 and in 2004 Yanukovych was selected as the candidate for President by the party of regions.
The 2004 run-off election that saw Yanukovych defeat opposition leader Viktor Yuschenko was marred by electoral fraud. The resulting widespread protests became known as the Orange Revolution. The election was re-run and despite a team from the Kremlin being sent to Kiev to secure Yanukovych’s election (including the poisoning of Yuschenko) and several visits by Putin, Yanukovych was defeated. Following his electoral defeat in 2004, Yanukovych led the main opposition party.
In 2005, the Party of Regions signed a collaboration agreement with the Russian political party United Russia. In 2008, Yanukovych spoke at a congress of the United Russia party. and In 2010 Yanukovych’s did secure election as President. His stated policy was to pursue EU integration while steering clear of defense alliances with either Nato or Russia. Soon after his election he extended the Russian lease on the Naval base at Sevastopol and in 2013 pulled out of the Eu association agreement that had been negotiated over a period of 7 years, sparking the Maidan protests. After ordering his security services to fire on demonstrators in Kiev he had a revolution on his hands
It is not so difficult to sum up the sequence of events. It is an old tale of ambition, power and corruption that leads men like Putin and Yanukovych to commit egregious crimes for the sake of their own personal wealth and aggrandisement.
Jo Bourke: Thanks for your summary of the recent history of Ukrainian politics! A real lesson on how power in the wrong hands can lead to the human misery we are all witnessing at present.
The UN general assembly passed a resolution this week (supported by 141 nations with 7 against) calling on Russia to “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine.
Earlier this month, Macron said a peace conference, based on the peace formula proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is needed to resolve the war in Ukraine Zelenskiy’s 10-point peace plan?
This week China also released a 12 point proposal China’s position
At the UN assembly debate, Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock asked countries that claim “that by arming Ukraine, we are pouring oil into the fire” why Western nations would do that.
“The West didn’t want or choose the war and would rather focus all its energy and money on fixing schools, fighting the climate crisis or strengthening social justice,” she told the assembly. “But the truth is: If Russia stops fighting, this war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends.”
The General Assembly has become the most important UN body dealing with Ukraine because the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining international peace and security, is paralyzed by Russia’s veto power.
The path to a UN sponsored peace agreement is clear. Firstly, unconditional compliance with the UN resolution for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.
Secondly, acceptance of the points of agreement between Ukraine’s proposal and those of China.
Thirdly, binding security guarantees for Ukraine that prevent the resumption of hostilities.
@Joe Bourke…
“The West didn’t want or choose the war and would rather focus all its energy and money on fixing schools, fighting the climate crisis or strengthening social justice”
Makes you wonder what they were doing prior to the conflict itself ….
Martin,
No man is an island and there can be no individual liberty without individual responsibility. They are two sides of the same coin. The West is all of us living here that subscribe to the values of liberal democracy. I would think the great majority of us would much rather focus our energy and money on fixing schools, fighting the climate crisis or strengthening social justice rather than fighting wars.
Perhaps we should ponder the words of the Russian monk Father Zosima in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov “…in truth we are each responsible to all for all, it’s only that men don’t know this. If they knew it, the world would be a paradise at once.”
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton are both cited as paraphrasing the French philosopher Joseph de Maistre , when they pronounced “The government you elect is the government you deserve.”
Ergo, how we live our lives and interact with our communities, ultimately determines the kind of society we have and who gets to govern. It may sound a little deep, but then your question becomes not “what they were doing prior to the conflict” but what were we all collectively doing that brought us to this state of affairs?
@Joe Bourke…
I was pointing out Joe that for many in the West – they could be forgiven for wondering what exactly is this ‘strengthening social justice’….
For many it’s been stagnant & poverty pay , dominated by zhc insecure mw work , poor quality & insecure housing . These have been the norm in too many communities, Ukraine conflict or not – they’ve seen little as regards the definition of it itself ..
“justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.”
@Joe Bourke
Thanks for the summary of the rise of Yanukovych – there is no doubt he was an ambitious crook. However, despite this, he was then democratically elected to the position of President of Ukraine. You then state “After ordering his security services to shoot demonstrators…” – I assume by ‘demonstrators’ you are referring to protestors throwing petrol bombs at police. (As I recall, the British army in Northern Ireland also had a policy of shooting petrol bombers.)
Mel,
the Ukrainian parliament had approved the signing of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in February of 2013 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6963. When Yanukovych, advised the EU in November 2013 that he would not proceed, the Maidan protests began. These were peaceful student protests opposed to what they saw as widespread government corruption and abuse of power, the influence of oligarchs, police brutality, and human rights violations.
In the ensuing weeks the police response became increasingly violent with baton charges on the demonstrators and male students doing their best to shield the female students from the clubbing. As the repression grew the fathers, brothers and supporters of the students began to join the demonstrations to offer some protection against the police brutality. Barricades were erected and makeshift shields and helmets were used for protection against stun grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas cannisters.
In January 2014, Yanukovych passed repressive laws intended to quash the protest. By this time the protests had swelled by ten of thousands with many joining from cities outside Kiev. For several days in January, the more radical protesters began to hurl firebombs and stones at police. As protestors tried to reach the Parliament building they were fired upon by police snipers with dozens being killed. The violence brought armed insurgents onto the streets to do battle with Yanukovych’s armed police units.
On 21 February, Yanukovych and the parliamentary opposition signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government, constitutional reforms and early elections. Police abandoned central Kyiv that afternoon and the protesters took control. Yanukovych fled the city that evening, eventually arriving in Russia with his stolen loot and leaving the Ukrainian people to face a Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas.
Surely the global community can agree on what behaviour is necessary to remaining part of it. Without such an agreement tryanny is always going to have this weapon. When most countries will not countenance a specific action and there are penalties for acting with a total disregard of human life it will be more difficult for any to act in such a way.
“I might be wrong in this, but wasn’t our approach at the start to try and avoid getting involved in armed conflict, to try and dissuade or disarm Putin through financial sanctions against Russia and try to persuade those close to Putin to challenge his decision?
This article doesn’t speak about non military-based response (trying to persuade ‘non-western’ nations to join in with financial sanctions on Russia etc.) and instead supports windfall tax on energy companies in order to flood the area with weapons. Where do those weapons go as each town is won or lost?”
With respect, the entire point of my article was to articulate that our non-military response has been inadequate and not a deterrent to Putin. If it was, he would never have gambled with invading Ukraine in the first place.
As long as we advertise our anxiety about moving to stronger methods, Putin will know he can ultimately intimidate us to inaction or sanctions he can get around. Both of which only embolden him. Hence we are where we are.
It would seem that those weapons would largely end up in the hands of the Ukrainian Military. And many Russian ones too given their penchant for retreating without them.
@zackary – let us hope that Rishi and Macron really do have a good relationship. I suggest a major part of our lacklustre response to Piton has been due to decades of Tory Eurospectic politicians; our security and Europe’s basically rests on o the shoulders of the two who actually have maintained a military; the UK and France. Perhaps in the coming months we will see a joint anglofrench force in Ukraine…