Author: davidajepson

by

“Ukraine has not yet perished,…”

The title to this post is the first line of the Ukrainian national anthem and has an incredible resonance with the heroic efforts against overwhelming odds.

The people of Ukraine have not just resisted the unprovoked attack ordered by President Putin, they have fought back. It is difficult to know the truth of the Russian losses but at best they are bad. Nato estimates are between 7,000 and 15,000. Those losses have occurred in the space of one month. It compares with around 15,000 deaths in 10 years of war in Afghanistan.

Body counts in war are logistically difficult and as part of the propaganda campaign subject to significant variation. However, what cannot be gainsaid is that the planned blitzkreig by an overwhelmingly large military force has not turned out as planned. The incredible bravery and determination of the Ukrainians has not just mounted an incredible defence, in many areas they seem to have taken the battle to the enemy.

Incompetent though they have demonstrated themselves to be it is difficult to believe the enormous advantages in terms of resources and manpower they can draw upon will not lead to an ultimate Russian victory. Any views to the contrary depend upon a very difficult transfer of power in Russia which there is little sign of at the moment.

Given this, much weight is being placed on the peace negotiations occurring in several locations and at different levels. It is said real progress is being made, albeit slowly, and both sides are tempering their demands to more realistic levels. Agreement is tantalisingly close, some believe. In parallel some safe passage routes out of cities in the North are enabling citizens to escape the fighting.

Ominously, there is no safe corridor out of Mariupol. The bombardment of that city has been relentless and has effectively raised it to the ground by all accounts. The people trapped inside have no running water, declining food supplies, no heat or light. The conditions can only be imagined.

Mariupol is absolutely vital for both Ukraine and for Putin. For Ukraine it is a critical part of its economic infrastructure providing a route to market for much of the countries exports. For Russia it provides a land corridor to the Crimea seized in President Putin’s last illegal war.

If there is a peace deal I suspect it will only come after Mariupol has been taken which will be a blood bath. President Putin will claim any peace agreement should respect Russian control of Mariupol, and withdrawal of Russian troops will be subject to this. This will provide him with his land corridor to consolidate his earlier invasion and provide a way to strangle Ukraine’s economy in preparation for his next offensive in 5-7 years time.

It is not a peace Ukraine can accept, nor the West.

Political leaders in the West are rightly fixated on avoiding a world war that may go nuclear. My fear is this fixation, and the avoidance of Russian / Nato conflict it entails, may actually result in what they are attempting to avoid. The unbelievable sacrifice of the Ukrainian people will then have been for nothing.

President Zelensky’s calls for a no fly zone have fallen on deaf ears. He has now asked for demonstrations of solidarity in the West. We should paint the nation Blue and Gold.

by

Is Jaw Jaw always better than War War?

For over two weeks now we have seen a completely unprovoked invasion of a European democracy descend into an ever more brutal war of attrition. Where the incompetent application of overwhelming force has resulted in the aggressor having to resort to ever more inhumane tactics to try to terrorise the nation into surrender.

The West’s response has been to provide peans to the brave people of Ukraine, weapons to defend themselves, economic sanctions, more severe than anyone could have imagined possible, and a single red line around the borders of Nato. From the start it has made clear it will not cross that red line with any offensive capacity for fear of starting World War Three and a possible nuclear war.

Such a firm stand against entering into battle against President Putin is understandable. For some, with sons of conscription age, new grandchildren and living in port cities the fear of war creates a depressing background. The everyday, taken for granted, joys of life are suddenly thrown into sharp relief as the TV provides example after example of how that can be taken away in a blinding flash of shells or rockets.

The consensus seems to be this is a war that, ultimately, President Putin cannot win. The incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people, supported with weapons from the West, economic sanctions against Russia, personal sanctions against Putin and the oligarchs he has created, will lead to the ultimate victory of Ukraine. Sadly, the country and its people may be devastated in the meantime.

The optimistic case is that President Putin realises the mistake he has made, or key members of the Russian elite force him to see that error, or the return of body bags cuts through state propaganda and provokes a popular uprising.

In the less optimistic scenario Putin terrorises the Ukraine into surrender. But having “won” he then has to retain control of a country of some 40m people, pretty much all of whom hate him, and, based on evidence to date, will not meekly accept some puppet government. A partisan struggle demanding huge military investment from a country whose economy is being devastated by sanctions may mean increasing numbers of body bags and reducing bread will eventually trigger a change in leadership, negotiations, the withdrawal of Russian troops and free and fair elections.

In both of these scenarios the Ukrainians have to be sacrificed to the greater good of European peace. There is a cruel logic to this which many serious people are expounding at every opportunity. These people rightly condemn the strategically vacuous demand that “something must be done!” and exhort people to adopt a real politik approach characterised by cool heads and clinical thinking.

The UK’s position on this was articulated last week by the Armed Forces Minister James Heappey on the Radio 4 Today programme. He was being asked about what should happen if President Putin did adopt the use of chemical weapons. He responded that “President Putin needs to be clear” that use of such weapons is the “most despicable thing anyone can ever imagine”.

I fear the Minister underestimates the capacity of President Putin’s imagination. He must also have forgotten the President’s support for President Assad when he used barrel bombs of chlorine gas against women and children. Finally, one suspects the only thing President Putin is clear about is the effectiveness of such tactics in terrorising people into surrender.

The Minister was then pressed whether such action would constitute a red line? His response was he did not think it helpful to get into where red lines sit right now. So Putin just has to guess. From the very clear statements made by leaders of all the leading countries he may be forgiven for thinking “the” red line remains around Nato.

In summary then, the consensus view of serious people seems to be: President Putin must not be provoked into a wider European conflict; he must be provided with a face saving way out; a negotiated settlement is the only way forward; a negotiation which gives Putin something eg. the Crimea or the Donbas or a guarantee of no Nato membership for Ukraine, or all of the above. Max Hastings, a highly respected military historian was arguing this case on the BBC’s PM programme, advocating the realistic way in which President JF Kennedy compromised with the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev through the Cuban missile crisis as a model.

Whilst all this passes the cold and rational test, is it right?

If we start by considering the chances of a negotiated settlement, things do not look good. Firstly, each time representatives of Ukraine or the West have met with Russia the compromise proposed is unconditional surrender. Secondly, what they say does not correspond with what they do.

This has two manifestations. One is classic double speak like the comments of Foreign Minister Lavrov last week who said, in clear terms, Russia “has not attacked Ukraine”. It is difficult to imagine how much worse it would be if they did. The other is agreeing one thing and doing another. For example agreeing ceasefires to allow civilians to leave cities under attack, only to break them within hours. One might almost think this was a conscious tactic to raise and then dash hopes in order to further undermine the morale of the Ukraines.

The proposal that an agreement be negotiated as Kennedy did with Krushchev looks difficult. Firstly, Krushchev is a very different character to Putin and crudely he did not have the despotic authority based on terror his predecessor Stalin or his successor Putin had and have respectively.

Second, the deal that Kennedy proposed was a secret deal to withdraw US missiles from Turkey. Those missiles were not moved for the best part of a year after the Soviet capitulation. What’s more the secret was kept by both sides for 20 years.

A secret deal is no good for President Putin, he has painted himself into the victory-at-all-costs corner. It is an irony of history that the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was the beginning of the end for Napoleon, for Putin the retreat to Moscow would be the same for him.

President Putin has to win and given the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people the only way he can achieve this is by by relentless shelling, the threat or use of chemical weapons, the importation of a ruthless mercenary army and hand to hand fighting street by street with massive military casualties on both side and huge numbers of Ukrainian civilian casualties. This is a price he is more than willing to pay

But what if the price was higher? Suppose the West said the breaches of the wars of law are such that fellow democracies must intervene and create a no fly zone for foreign aircraft over the Ukraine. What would Putin do?

We know President Putin is a ruthless tyrant who brooks no opposition at home. Controls the media and the internal narrative. Lies with no conscience abroad. Uses ruthless terror tactics against civilian populations to win wars. Murders or has locked up any that oppose his rule. And that he has a fine line in threatening rhetoric against Nato. However, he is not mad?

For the past ten years he has prodded and poked the West with cyber attacks, election interference, assassinations, false flag provocations and outright invasions. Whilst these have been increasingly outrageous they have always been finely calibrated to avoid a Western response which would threaten his position. Until now.

President Putin must know that he has crossed a line. He may feel his best hope is bring back to the people of Russia a territorial victory. Then close the shop and try to ride out the sanctions. He may judge time to be on his side if he could do this as the unity of the West would no longer have the nightly reinforcement of a terror war on TV.

The West has always been on the back foot responding to President Putins actions. The same is happening now in the war in Ukraine as its conduct has degenerated over time. Now it is plainly and simply about terrorising the civilian population in the hope they will eventually put pressure on President Zelensky to surrender and stop the pain.

The threat of a no fly zone would change the shape of the game for Putin. If implemented it would massively undermine his war effort, at the very least extending the period. Time would then become Putin’s enemy. More body bags, more time for sanctions to hurt. The possibility domestic restiveness becomes louder and braver and ultimately beyond the control of even the Russian state. There may even be cross overs into other states. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan have had to take ruthless steps to quell protests recently.

All this might make President Putin feel that the best option is actually to negotiate a face saving settlement. A real one which does not start with unconditional surrender. Which, in return for a withdrawal to pre-2014 borders would secure: a guarantee about Nato military deployments away from the Russian border areas; joint pre-notification of military exercises; agreement around missile locations in Europe; and a, say 5 year, freeze on Ukraine’s Nato membership negotiations.

Obviously, this would be a massive defeat for President Putin, and it would weaken him. However, it can be spun internally as about securing Russia’s borders without having to kill any more of their brothers in the Ukraine and it buys him time.

Of course serious people will say, but if he is cornered he will lash out and may use nuclear weapons. That is true and it would be an absolute catastrophe. The only thing that would be worse is, if the view of those serious people about the long term victory of the Ukraine, or rather the West, is correct, President Putin will at some point have his back to the wall and he will lash out then. Then we would have stood by allowing the people of Ukraine, not just to fight for democracy, but to die for it. And we would still have a nuclear conflagration.

The West’s position is based on a strict utilitarian ethic with a single red line. It is logical and unimpeachably rational. But if feels wrong. Heartbreakingly wrong morally.

by

Shame

Rhetoric underpinned by action can be a powerful tool in War. It boosts morale and can weaken that of the enemy. Rhetoric unsupported by actions does the reverse.

We are constantly told that Britain is leading the world in sanctions against Russian oligarchs and in accepting refugees. However, the reality is a pathetic, weak, slow and incompetent response on both fronts.

It seems incredible that action on sanctions is being delayed because of government’s desire to ensure that what it does cannot be subject to legal challenge. This is a government whose leader is currently under investigation for breaking the law. It has picked an awful time to be scrupulous about legal matters.

What we should have done is take a precautionary approach and put all of the oligarchs named by the EU and the US on to our list and frozen their assets in this country and in all our dependancies. We should then have established an appeal system to enable those who have been dealt with unfairly to recover control of their assets.

However, we should have put Priti Patel in charge of setting up the appeal system. That way the need for the sanctions would probably have long passed by the time anyone secured a decision.

When we see what Poland and other front line countries are doing it makes you ashamed to be British.

by

A Night at the Ballet

On Friday night, 4 March 2022, Matthew Bourne’s take on the Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker was performed at the Liverpool Empire. The audience slowly filled the auditorium, greeting friends as they came in with smiles and hugs. Some having taken their seats were waving to catch the attention of friends they saw in the distance. The atmosphere was relaxed and congenial. The hum of voices relaxed and reassuring. The only warning being about the need to take your seats when the programme was “about to start in 2 minutes”.

The lights dimmed, the ballet began. Stunning dancing, breath taking sets and sumptuous music combined to meet all expectations. At the interval the arm of young girl in front of me described an elegant arc, clearly emulating that of the ballerinas she dreamt of becoming.

The second half built on the solid foundations of the first sweeping the emotions of the audience from climax to climax finally resolving in the triumph of true love. The curtain call delivered a much-deserved standing ovation. As the lights rose there was a feeling of happy contentment, of an evening well spent. People began to drift away, praising the wonderful show they had seen as they headed home through the familiar, bright streets of Liverpool. Just as many audiences had done since the theatre opened in the 1920’s.

As we departed just over 1,000 miles to the East thousands of women and children were settling down to a night in cold and crowded underground carparks or cellars. Mothers singing lullabies to distract their babies and children from rumbling and crashing sounds. In Kharkiv and Mariupol a continuous bombardment was reducing the cities above them, that had previously been just as solid as Liverpool, to little more than rubble.

In the blink of an eye someone’s home was torn apart transforming its occupant into a displaced person whose future was no longer that of a teacher, motor mechanic, civil servant or restaurant owner. Rather, a refugee with all their possessions in a single suitcase and whatever else they could carry.

A life, which a fortnight earlier had seemed as solid as the ancient buildings and modern homes of any European city, was changed forever. Whatever their prospects had been, the elegant arc of a rocket had delivered instant equality of misery.

In Liverpool, whilst a theatre full of people were enjoying the exquisite product of Russian high culture in a relaxed and taken for granted atmosphere of peace and stability. A short flight away, with barbaric savagery contemporary Russians were attempting to exterminate a nation.

Whilst in Liverpool the future seemed so solid and certain in Ukraine at the exact same instant the solid and certain was being dissolved in a ballistic instant. Killing and maiming many, terrorising and maiming many, many more.

Arriving home, the News at Ten, heralded by the reassuring chimes of Big Ben remained grim. But one item particularly caught the eye. A small but significant act of resistance. The whole of the staff of the Russian TV channel, TV Rain, resigned on air following the Russian authorities’ suspension of its operations because of its coverage of the Ukraine war. As they all left, one of its founders spoke to camera and said, “no to war”.

Their final act was to broadcast a black and white film of the Swan Lake ballet which had been shown on state run TV when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

A night at the ballet generating a kaleidoscope of emotions, uplifting, sobering, frightening and hopeful. We can only pray that, as in the Nutcracker, against all odds, true love will triumph. The resolute optimism of the Ukrainians is clearly infectious.