In the opening months of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces laid siege to the city of Mariupol. Faced with fierce resistance from the Ukrainian fighters, Moscow’s troops spent several weeks firing bombs and shells at the city to wear it down. Everything was fair game – schools, homes, hospitals, even a theatre. An estimated 90% of residential buildings were damaged or destroyed. Likely thousands of civilians were killed as part of a deliberate campaign to flatten what was Ukraine’s 10th largest city. Today it is little more than a charred skeleton.
Now Russia is turning its attention to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second biggest city and historically an alternative power centre to Kyiv. Had Russian forces not been repelled by the locals at the time, Kharkiv would doubtless have been made the heart of the territories occupied in 2014.
Mariupol and Aleppo, two of Moscow’s previous victims [source].
In the last couple weeks, Moscow has significantly stepped up its attacks on the city and the surrounding region. Bombing has become an increasingly regular, almost daily affair. Some residents have felt compelled to leave, especially those with young children, fearing for their safety. While there is no official evacuation order, around 6000 people have already left to get away from the border areas where fighting is fiercest and Russian troops are moving in.
The words of a top NATO official appear to provide some comfort. He notes that Russia does not have sufficient forces and equipment to capitalise on its attacks and will not be able to push directly into the city itself. Most military analysts seem to agree.
Yet the reassurances may prove hollow for the Ukrainians still living there. History has shown that when Putin is denied his prize, he simply burns it instead.
This is the most immediate danger. Not that Russia will send in convoys of men through the streets of Kharkiv city but that glide bombs, drones and artillery will be used to cause destruction on a massive scale. Indeed, the more successful the Ukrainians are in holding the frontline, the more likely Russia will reach for its preferred method of warfare.
More than two years into the war, how can it be that one of Ukraine’s most important, populous and also vulnerable cities is so exposed to this brutality?
The reason is that the West, including many of those notionally in favour of supporting Ukraine, still does not take this war seriously.
For months, the US was stuck in internal deadlock, preventing the passage of a law to unlock more arms supply to Ukraine. Some of this is forgivable. There are elements of the Republican party that are evidently penetrated by Russian disinformation and pro-Moscow actors. They are a problem, but one that is genuinely difficult to solve.
What is less easy to excuse is the way that aid to Ukraine was repeatedly linked to other issues; in the first instance, America’s southern border and, later, aid to Israel and Taiwan. This messy welding of different policies to one another only made the debates more convoluted, more partisan and, fundamentally, less about the suffering of Ukraine. That a majority was finally found on support for Ukraine and that key Republican figures did in fact come round to that position, only underlines how unnecessary and senseless the preceding months of delay truly were. Where decisive leadership and emergency action was required, the major war on European soil was treated as merely another agenda point, slightly above AOB.
Europe hasn’t been much better. For all that European politicians in the main are vocally supportive of Ukraine, most have struggled to follow through on that rhetoric with actions. While Ukraine’s people and leaders cry out for more air defence, fully functioning systems and missiles sit idle in warehouses across Europe, the remote ‘what if’ scenarios of an attack on Greece or Spain prioritised above the real lives of Ukrainians being lost to Russian bombs every day.
At the same time production of new equipment for Ukraine has been slow to get going. Europe’s military industry says it is ready to ramp up, yet they lack the funding and big orders from national governments. For all that many of our leaders proclaim their profound conviction that Ukraine must win, real money for major defence production to actually arm the Ukrainians is not there. Where some leaders are trying to build momentum for an EU fund that could step into the void left by national budgets, others refuse to discuss the idea, kicking it till after the European Parliament elections.
Is it any wonder that a goal to supply a million rounds of ammunition to Ukraine by March was missed by a long way and that a separate initiative to source ammunition from elsewhere is only just getting close to its first deliveries?
With neither the US nor Europe taking the war in Ukraine seriously over the last 12 months, Kyiv has been left with a serious equipment shortage that has forced it to give ground and endure a new wave of civilian casualties.
However, in the eyes of some Western leaders, even this is not a sufficient handicap for Kyiv. Not enough that Ukrainian forces are underequipped, they must also be limited in how they can use the equipment they do have.
Here the blame lies squarely with the Americans, whose leaders in Washington have been the most paranoid about escalation. Successful victims of Russia’s propaganda, they believe that even the slightest indication of Western involvement would quickly ratchet up to nuclear war. This has led them to declare that Ukraine must not use American weapons to strike Russian territory.
What on the surface may seem like a somewhat reasonable request, quickly falls apart in the face of the situation in the real world. Ukraine borders Russia. Russia borders Ukraine. It feels like stating the obvious, yet apparently decision-makers in Washington have not fully grasped what this means. For territories like Kharkiv, the restriction on Ukraine’s forces mean they are forced to watch helplessly as Russians amass soldiers and artillery about 50km from their second biggest city, just across the line that divides one country from the other.
Up against the common sense requests from Ukrainians sheltering from Russian attacks, Washington’s demands of Kyiv resemble some kind of insanity; a proposition that can only be sustained in a constructed world of theory, an insistence that can only be defended as long as White House officials choose to look away from what is actually happening on the ground.
The war is well into its third year and yet the West’s leaders still have not got to grips with its scale or significance. Now Kharkiv and the Ukrainian civilians living there are paying the price. It is time for Europe and America to recognise our responsibility and stop holding back the support Ukraine needs for a swift victory.