The true meaning of ’emergency’

Much attention has been paid to how Vladimir Putin has learnt from western weakness over his earlier invasions, including into parts of Ukraine; less to what he has learnt from Syria. He discovered that the West did not have the stomach for intervention there, and found that his own country did. He re-established Russian power in the region, including the power to influence both sides. He seems also to have learnt from his success in backing Assad that extreme brutality is effective. After much initial outrage, the West forgot about its indignation, handing victory to the Assad regime. Putin probably believes the same will happen over Ukraine. Although western anguish in this case surely runs deeper than it did over Syria, Putin might be right. His nuclear threats help compel acceptance of his totally unjustified claim that he is entitled to invade Ukraine, whereas any western military response is an act of war. We hold back, he advances. He may believe fully in the terrorist mentality: he may simply feel that if he kills far more people, we will flinch and he will win.

Meanwhile, China picks its words very carefully. China Daily describes the United States and Nato as ‘the instigators and fuellers of the crisis’ but says nothing warm about Russia. It even hints at reproof by complaining of nuclear weapons being ‘bandied about’ and professing to be ‘extremely concerned’ about civilian casualties. The foreign minister, Wang Yi, says that ‘Ukraine should function as a bridge between the East and the West’. The EU (which China carefully treats more sympathetically than it does the US) should have an ‘equal-footed dialogue’ with Russia. China is trying to place itself as the honest broker on behalf of ‘the international community’ (a phrase it uses a lot), although the actual policies it supports would benefit Putin’s Russia, damage the West and humiliate Ukraine.