Global response

Avoiding a wider war that could involve nuclear weapons, no country (so far) has sent its military forces to Ukraine to stop the Russian invasion.

But the response of the global community to the invasion should give our policy makers an idea of what alliances can do in upholding a rules-based international order in the face of external aggression.

Admittedly, the response is also showing the limitations of global response. We’re still waiting, for example, for the reaction to the Russian attack on a nuclear plant.

Most states, with reciprocity in mind, adhere to a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of others. So it’s interesting that several countries known for their neutrality in international armed conflict are now amending or dropping that neutral stance.

War is fought by thousands of troops, but upon the direction of only a handful of individuals. So the countries working to stop Russia have targeted President Vladimir Putin himself, his closest advisers and oligarch cronies. They are being hit where it is believed they will hurt most (short of assassination, of course) – in their pocketbooks.

In a rare move, neutral Switzerland has adopted all the sanctions imposed by the European Union on Russia. These include freezing the bank accounts of Putin, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, 367 other individuals and four entities including Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Russian Development Investment Fund.

The RDIF, considered by the US treasury department as a slush fund for Putin, incidentally is behind the development of the Sputnik V COVID vaccine being used in our country.

Meanwhile, Mastercard and Visa have also suspended their operations in Russia.

*      *      *

“We stand on the side of Western values,” Swiss President and Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis explained last week. “We are in an extraordinary situation where extraordinary measures could be decided.”

The Swiss also joined several other states in closing their airspace to flights from Russia, and cutting off several Russian banks from the global SWIFT financial messaging service.

Germany, in a historic shift from its post-war avoidance of the use of military force, is sending anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles to Ukraine. The Russian invasion, according to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, created “a new reality” that “demands a clear answer.” By most accounts, Germans have welcomed the shift.

In another first, Finland is sending weapons and combat ration packages to Ukraine while Norway is increasing its military support particularly of light anti-tank weapons. Sweden also broke its neutral stance and committed anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.

Other states that have committed weapons and protective equipment so far are Belgium, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia.

France, which is sending defense equipment and fuel support, is targeting the assets of Russian oligarchs on the blacklist. The French have so far seized the $120-million superyacht of Russian oil magnate Igor Sechin and is tracing other assets.

The EU as a bloc is financing an arms delivery worth 450 million euros (about $492 million) to Ukraine. Australia, responding to a request from Kyiv, has committed $70 million worth of missiles, weapons and non-lethal military equipment and medical supplies.

*      *      *

Ukrainians need all the military help they can get, since the conflict is clearly lopsided. With 900,000 active duty military personnel and two million reservists, nuclear power Russia has the world’s fifth largest army (after China, India, the US and North Korea).

Compare this to Ukraine’s 196,600 active duty military personnel and 900,000 trained reservists. Its nuclear weapons, which it housed when it was part of the Soviet Union, were repatriated to Russia.

President Volodymyr Zelensky has lamented that Ukraine has been all alone in fending off the Russians. But the Ukrainian forces’ unusually strong resistance can be attributed to assistance provided by sympathetic countries. Filipinos, constantly warned about the possibility of facing the world’s largest army in war, should take inspiration from those courageous Ukrainians.

The world’s military powers have learned from bitter experience that even states that are far outgunned by foreign invaders or interlopers can wage asymmetrical warfare… and win.

We saw this several times in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Non-military tactics were also employed against European colonizers. Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent campaign of civil disobedience ended the British Raj in India.

North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh memorably told French colonial rulers: “You can kill 10 of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win.”

The Viet Cong’s military commander who defeated the Americans, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, also said, “Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat.” Within global military circles, Asia’s Red Napoleon is one of the most highly admired.

*      *      *

Russia, however, has a long history of military conquest and annexation to expand its territory and geopolitical influence. Its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 has not been rolled back. The Russian Empire even annexed part of Chinese territory in the 19th century.

Putin is carrying on this long tradition, and there are analysts who believe the intensifying international support for Ukraine could goad him to do his worst first before backing down, if ever.

The worst-case scenario is that we’re seeing the beginnings of World War III, even before we can exit from the COVID pandemic.

There have been protests against the invasion within Russia itself; naturally, its citizens are affected by the economic sanctions. Moscow has responded by arresting the protesters.

Putin has said the sanctions are tantamount to war. Can he wage war on multiple fronts, especially with the Ukrainians showing strong military resistance? Over the weekend, Russia observed a brief ceasefire to make way for a “humanitarian corridor” for civilian evacuees.

How this conflict plays out will define the world order and the strength of international rules.