David Pratt: Is Europe's next war already brewing in Ukraine?

By then the city had already become the hub of what had been dubbed the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) as ­pro-Russian separatists took over and ­occupied ­government buildings on which they hoisted Soviet-era banners and ­fortified with barricades of tyres, paving stones and razor wire.

“It’s our struggle for towns, cities and freedom,” one young 18-year-old man called Constantine, told me that April ­afternoon as we spoke, the smell from the Molotov cocktail petrol bombs he was making wafting around us.

“We are normal people who ­struggle for our rights – not terrorists as the Kyiv ­government say,” he insisted, as the ­refrain of another “patriotic” Russian song from the speakers almost drowned out his words. But Constantine was ­adamant that his message would be heard that day.

“We will not leave until we have what we want,” he continued, his face ­blackened and grimy from the smoke of the brazier fires the separatists used at night to keep them warm.

Since then, I’ve often wondered what became of Constantine and those like him in Donetsk from those times. If still alive, then no doubt like many, he’s most likely dug in along the frontlines of the war the separatists have been waging with the Ukrainian government ever since.

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky

In the intervening seven years since my encounter with Constantine and his ­fellow separatists, this conflict – largely ­ignored by the world - might well be on the point of fulfilling that Russian ­“patriotic” rallying call of the song on the speakers that day in Donetsk back in 2014.

For with every moment that passes speculation only grows that Russia is about to “come” to Ukraine in the shape of a full-scale invasion in support of the separatists and aimed at taking back a place Russian President Vladimir Putin has always regarded as part of “Mother Russia”.

By any standards such an invasion is a terrifying prospect with potentially ­profound geo-political implications. Even the current tense standoff that might lead to such an invasion was being compared last week by one senior Ukrainian official to the Cuban Missile Crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war back in 1962.

Just last week too, the new head of the UK armed forces Admiral Sir Tony Radakin described the crisis as “deeply worrying” and observed that should ­Russia invade, it “would be on a scale not seen in Europe since World War Two”.

For those unfamiliar with the background to the crisis, suffice to say that Ukraine a country of 44 million people was previously part of the Soviet Union and today both still share cultural and ­linguistic ties, even if some Ukrainians think Putin over plays this part of what he sees as Moscow’s claim on the ­country.

It’s much to Putin’s ongoing ­irritation of course that instead of aligning itself with Russia, Ukraine has tilted toward the West including the toppling of a Putin backed Ukrainian leader, Viktor ­Yanukovich back in 2014 after street ­protests in Kyiv.

Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with those political changes however, giving rise to demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti- government groups in places like Donetsk and Luhansk which ­eventually morphed into an armed pro-Russian ­insurgency, which many observers say has been supported my Moscow, despite Kremlin denials to the contrary.

Since then, things have only deteriorated with Russia, trying to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine, invading annexed Crimea and pro-Russian separatists ­seizing territory in eastern Ukraine. All of which bring us to the current massive Russian troop build-up on the Ukrainian border and the crisis that could be a ­prelude to invasion.

US and NATO officials are the first to admit that they don’t know for ­certain what Putin’s intentions are, but one thing intelligence assessments make clear is that one option Moscow has at its ­disposal would be a multi-front offensive early in 2022 that could involve upwards of 175,000 Russian military personnel.

SUCH is the seriousness of the situation that a virtual summit was held between Putin and US President Joe Biden (below) last week during which the American leader warned his Russian counterpart that there would be “severe consequences” if Russia launches an attack.

But Biden stopped short of ­considering sending US troops to defend Ukraine hoping that by taking that off the table he might improve the chances of “bringing down the temperature along the eastern front”.

No sooner were talks between the two leaders over though, than there were ­reports of Ukraine and Russia blaming each other after a push to agree a new ceasefire in eastern Ukraine broke down late on Thursday. Reuters news agency ­reported that Ukraine said Moscow had rejected a series of its proposals, ­including prisoner swaps, reopening a checkpoint and expanding a joint communications centre.

“Unfortunately, all initiatives of the Ukrainian side were rejected by the ­Russian Federation under contrived pretexts,” a statement by Ukraine’s ­delegation to the Trilateral Contact Group (TCG), which also includes ­Russia and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), said.

Russia in turn responded by saying that that Kyiv had submitted ­“absolutely ­absurd” proposals and accused it of ­imitating negotiations at the talks. The barrage of hostile rhetoric reached a new level too after Putin compared the ­ongoing war in eastern Ukraine to ­“genocide,” his remarks aimed at addressing

alleged ­discrimination against Russian speakers outside of Russia, many of whom live in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

It goes without saying that Putin’s ­remarks did nothing to ease tensions as Moscow now waits to see that what the next moves will be from Washington, its European allies and Kyiv.

So where then does this leave the ­crisis and could Europe really be looking at the outbreak of another war in the weeks ahead?

Then there is that other pressing ­question of what leverage the US and ­Europe can bring to bear on Moscow ­given that Biden has ruled out ­committing American troops while insisting that ­“severe consequences” would prevail were Ukraine attacked?

Certainly, the view in some ­Western quarters at the outset of this crisis which held that Putin’s threats were little more than a bluff now appear to have been ­dismissed, replaced by the stark ­realisation that the Russian leader might just take the gamble.

Seen from the Kremlin’s perspective the US right now is a country that while still possessing the world’s strongest ­military and largest economy, is still a ­nation that has just come out of two largely failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Putin then may just see this as an ­opportune moment to move on Ukraine not least with an American president in the White House whose only real ­deterrent short of military action ­appears to be threatening the extension of ­sanctions.

From a purely domestic perspective too Putin, under pressure from ­political ­opposition groups and economic woes, has never hesitated to try and rally ­nationalistic support by highlighting what he perceives as foreign aggression in the shape of Nato’s expansion and Kyiv’s ­cosying up to the West.

There’s little doubt that Putin holds several playable cards of which outright invasion of Ukraine is unlikely to be his first choice. He could for example order a partial intervention aimed solely at taking control of the “land bridge” connecting the Donbas to Crimea which is already under Russian control. Some observers also belief that the Russian troop build has more to do with holding Nato’s feet to the fire.

PAUL Roderick Gregory is a Russia ­expert and research fellow at the German Institute for Economic Research. Writing recently in the Washington based online political paper The Hill, Gregory sees Putin’s move as aimed at instilling “a sense of doom and caution in a Europe inclined to appease rather than confront Russian aggression”.

He is also of the view that if Putin really wanted to “destroy” Ukraine he might be more inclined to do so from within.

“A more attractive way to gain ­territory without military conflict would be a reprise of the takeover of Crimea and Donetsk-Luhansk,” he argues.

“Putin could send in ‘volunteer’ ­political operatives to organise protests in Odessa, Mariupol, Dnepropetrovsk, and other Ukrainian cities and towns. The protesters would demand an end to the ‘puppet rule’ of Kyiv and President Zelensky, who they’ll cast as a ‘puppet’ of Nato and the United States, and to ­return southern Ukraine to its ‘true home’, Mother Russia.”

While the game of trying to second guess Putin’s next move goes on, attention has also focused on what leverage Biden and his European allies might adopt to stymie any potential Moscow land grab.

According to a report in the Financial Times the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany “was top of the list when US ­officials brainstormed potential sanctions that western countries could threaten against Russia to show … that any ­invasion of Ukraine would come at a heavy cost”.

The Nord Stream 2 pipeline owned and built under the Baltic Sea by Kremlin controlled Gazprom is one of Europe’s most politically divisive infrastructure projects.

Nord Stream 2 is important both for ­Putin, as a route to sell more gas into Europe, and for Germany, which relies on supplies from Russia. The long-running pipeline project has been a periodic source of tension between the US and Germany, with the administration of Chancellor Angela Merkel (below) unwilling to use it as a political tool with Putin.

As part of an agreement signed with Biden in July, Merkel’s government ­committed to taking action if ­Russia deploys energy as a weapon or acts ­aggressively toward Ukraine. In ­exchange, Biden backed off imposing new measures on German entities connected to the ­project’s construction.

WITH Merkel having just been replaced by Germany’s new chancellor Olaf Scholz, the pressure is now on him to consider halting Nord Stream 2, as part of a package of sanctions imposed on Moscow if Russia invaded Ukraine.

While Scholz, like Merkel is broadly ­supportive of the ­project and will face some domestic pressure not to ­acquiesce to ­Washington’s use of the pipeline as ­leverage, the ­German chancellor is ­expected to adhere to the original terms of the agreement between Berlin and Washington ­giving Biden some of the clout he needs in ­tacking the Ukraine crisis.

While construction of Nord Stream 2 is now complete the pipeline has not yet started pumping gas. It is currently being certified by Germany’s energy regulator, although it announced last month that it had “temporarily suspended” the process.

Speaking a few days ago US national ­security adviser Jake Sullivan said the fact that gas was not yet flowing through Nord Stream 2 – created leverage for the West over Putin (below).

“If Vladimir Putin wants to see gas flow through that pipeline, he may not want to take the risk of invading Ukraine,” Sullivan told reporters at the White House.

With Europe depending on imported gas and 40% of that coming from Russia, there’s a lot at stake and Ukraine right now sits at the epicentre of what may or may not happen in the coming weeks.

The bottom line here is that the Biden administration is looking for a sanctions package that is comprehensive, quick to implement and economically painful enough that it serves as a true deterrent. Nord Stream 2 along with measures taken against Russian banks and exports of the country’s commodities are crucial to that.

All of this when viewed from the ­perspective of Ukrainian ­president ­Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his ­administration in Kyiv, must however only provide a modicum of reassurance. Ukraine is still not a member of Nato and not fully accepted into the European ­embrace and Putin perhaps senses this is the moment to exploit that vulnerability.

“Russia come to us!” was the plea ­delivered in that song I heard in Donetsk back in 2014. Whether Vladimir Putin ­responds to that call in the coming weeks remains anybody’s guess. Europe has not yet seen all-out war over Ukraine. For the sake of countless lives and stability of the continent and the wider world, we must only hope it stays that way.