The event threatens the catastrophe. What happens to the world if Putin wins in Ukraine

If Russia eventually annex Ukrainian lands, loses not only the West - loses the entire international order after 1945, warns by politician and publicist David Hannan. That is why it is so important not to despair right now, at this turning point. We need to talk about Ukraine. While the attention of the world was focused on the war between Israel and Hamas, the gloomy shocks shook this rich black earth soil.

The counter -offensive of Ukraine failed - or, according to Vladimir Zelensky, "does not achieve the desired results. " As the exhausted Ukrainians retreat from Russian shafts and minefields, the initiative goes to the invaders. Russia moves through the ruins of what was once a Marinka, a city near Donetsk, which may have a psychological value than strategic importance. The rockets are beaten again in Kiev.

The first lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska appealed to the BBC to warn that her country is in "deadly danger". Now the turn of the Ukrainians to dig, try to keep what they have. As in 1914, a fortified line runs along the entire length of the front from the Dnieper Delta to the border with Russia. And, as then, military technologies contribute to those who defend, so tiny benefits are a terrible price. The First World War ended partially because the Allies had more living power.

They were able, especially after America was completely mobilized by the beginning of 1918, to throw more people at the forefront than the central powers. This time, demographic advantage is in Russia, whose population is three times the population of Ukraine.

Russia has switched a third of its pre -war civilian production to weapons and ammunition and has now received an advantage when it comes to drones - this modern equivalent of barbed wire and machine guns that gave the defense party such a deadly advantage in the war. The long -term costs of transition to the economy of wartime for the Russian people are terrible. Volodymyr Putin Privyk of his long -suffering men for years of poverty and famine. But now it worked.

Russia survived the winter without a Ukrainian breakthrough. We are all prone to a retrospective view, and there will undoubtedly be articles that it has always been difficult to push the defenders who have dug. But this deadlock was far from the predictable when a counter -offensive began in June. I was one of those who expected Ukraine to break through to the Azov Sea, and this step could have put an end to the war.

In 2022, Ukraine demonstrated that Russia could not replenish the Crimea through the Kerch Strait. The rupture of the land bridge would leave the Russian garrison on the peninsula. Ukraine could turn off electricity and food, and would open space for negotiations. Why did I make a mistake? I talked not only with Ukrainians, but also with British military observers who directly know the battlefield.

They observed the extraordinary success of Ukraine in Kharkiv and Kherson in 2022 - successes that prompted the event to offer those types of military equipment, from which they were previously maintained so that it did not fall into the hands of the enemy. Now Ukraine had long -range missiles, mine kits and modern tanks. At the same time, Prigogine's rebellion showed how soft Russia was behind the hard shell of its front line. But the invaders made conclusions from their former mistakes.

While last spring, Ukraine rushed to teach its people the use of new weapons, Russia laid a mile for mile mines, built fortifications, trenches and accumulated drones. Putin only needs to last for another 12 months. Even if Donald Trump is not chosen (the former president does not hide his admiration with Russian tyrant, once he said that Putin trusts more than the US security services), the Republican Congressmen opposed the war.

Last week, they blocked a package of assistance to Ukraine worth £ 88 billion provided by President Biden. Their anxiety is probably a financial, but more serious motive may be their party dislike for Baiden, the same shameful impulse that prompted the previous generation of republican congressmen opposed Harry Truman's war in Korea. The Maga wings also maintains dissatisfaction with the episodic role that Ukraine has played in the drama about Trump's impeachment.

For a long time, Putin was afraid to leave the boundaries of Russia. In addition to the international arrest warrant, he had a well -founded fears of being killed. His only foreign projects were related to the former Soviet states and two friendly dictatorships: Iran and China. But this week he visited two neutral dictatorships - the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The footage shows that it was undoubtedly a despot himself, not his double.

What gave him confidence in traveling to places that have a security with the West? Is it possible that any previous consent was achieved? Perhaps the Saudi were asked to listen to his opinion as a possible prelude to peace talks? If so, we run the risk of Suez -level catastrophe for Western democracies.

Any agreement that rewards Russian aggression will be a signal of the rest of the world that NATO with all its collective wealth and weapons could not achieve the minimum purpose of salvation of the country, which two of its most powerful members, the United States and the United Kingdom, have decided to defend. The arguments in favor of intervention in the defense of Ukraine are not that it is a liberal democracy.

Of course, it is much more liberal than Russia, but it does not meet our standards. Russophilic parties have been banned, and there are fears that repression can spread to pro -Western opposition politicians. This week I was at a meeting of the world centering parties, where former President Petro Poroshenko was to speak.

In the last minute, he and his two deputies were banned from leaving Ukraine - and although Poroshenko was patriotically refused to raise the noise, it made me think, and not for the first time why Zelensky refuses to involve other parties in a coalition of wartime. Again, in 1939, Poland was governed by the authoritarian government.

This did not change the fact that she was attacked without provocation after we guaranteed her independence - just as we guaranteed Ukraine's independence in 1994, when she surrendered her nuclear arsenal.

Although this time we are not in a state of war, but we are so passionate about the Ukrainian business that the victory of Russia - and the absorption of the conquered territories is the victory of Russia, call it as you want - will mean a catastrophic loss of prestige for the West and related ideas. : personal freedom, democracy and human rights. Conflicts will spread as regimes that have never been cared for liberal values ​​are aware that there is no police officer at the corner.

The outrageous claims of Venezuela to the Gayana Community - this is only the beginning. "The West has won the world not because of the superiority of their ideas, values ​​or religion . . . but rather, thanks to its advantage in the use of organized violence," Samuel Huntington wrote. "The event's residents often forget this fact; But this is not the end. Ukraine has displaced Russia from the western Black Sea, which is re -opened for international navigation.

We should be alert against the trend that George Orwell saw during the Second World War, when intellectuals are over -interpreting every new military turn - a trend, in his opinion, which is not shared by ordinary people. Just as there was excessive pessimism immediately after the Russian invasion, and then excessive euphoria, when Kherson was conquered, we should not do too much of this failure. Still, it is possible to imagine a peace agreement that would not reward aggression openly.

The eastern regions may have been able to get autonomy under the free Ukrainian suzerainty; Perhaps a referendum under international control can be conducted in demilitarized Crimea. But if Russia ultimately anexes the earth by force, not only the West loses; Loses the entire international order after 1945. The world is getting colder. The nights are approaching. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.