Western impotence in front of the dramatic images of Ukraine – Pierre Haski

The survivors of the siege of Mariupol, a large Ukrainian port on the Azov sea, describe their city as “hell on earth”. On the website of the reputable Financial Times, a businessman from Mariupol reported that some inhabitants of the city are forced to kill dogs to feed themselves. Extremely fierce fighting is taking place in this martyred city, as its conquest would mark the first major success for Vladimir Putin’s army.

After nearly a month of war, the level of brutality continues to rise in what promises to be a terrible battle for cities, including the capital Kiev. It is a violence that we observe almost live on our screens, surrounded by the uninterrupted flow of refugees: more than three million people in other European countries and 10 million displaced persons in total. Almost one in four inhabitants.

Faced with this tragedy at the gates of the European Union, the emotional thrust of public opinion becomes a crucial political factor. The argument arouses an inevitable sense of guilt and helplessness: how can this be allowed to happen? Why don’t we do anything to stop the carnage?

Of course, to say that Western countries do “nothing” is incorrect: Westerners send weapons and humanitarian aid, impose severe sanctions on Russia, seize the oligarchs’ yachts and welcome refugees.

But this exceptional mobilization of means is evidently not enough to convince Vladimir Putin to stop his aggression against Ukraine, and it is not even enough to stop the escalation of military means, such as the supersonic missiles used for the first time (with the fear that soon it’s up to chemical weapons).

From this observation arises the legitimate question raised by the images of Mariupol and reiterated with great communication skills by the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyj. Zelenskii embodies the Ukrainian resistance and this allows him to carry his dramatic message in the halls of the parliaments of the United States, Europe or Israel. On 23 March, the Ukrainian president will speak in front of the French parliament. Nobody will be able to say “I did not know”.

In the past there has been no shortage of military interventions on the wave of popular will. The first war in history produced by an opinion campaign was the French expedition to Lebanon, in 1860, recounted by the historian Yann Bouyrat in his book Duty to intervene? (Duty to intervene?).

But not all pressures have been successful. This is the case of the conflict in Ukraine, where the opponent is the Russian nuclear power. Joe Biden has often reiterated this: the hypothesis of unleashing the third world war is not contemplated. But between the current limited support and World War III there is certainly room for maneuver to discourage Putin. Westerners will talk about it on March 24 at an extraordinary NATO summit in the presence of Biden.

The role of emotions in political decisions is not irrelevant in democracy, because no one wants to go down in history as the man or woman who did nothing while the Ukrainians were massacred. But it is equally true that emotions cannot be the only criterion for making a decision. This is the fine line that Western politicians will have to face in the coming days, as calls for help continue to arrive from Ukraine.

(Translation by Andrea Sparacino)