When Russian forces first rolled into Ukraine, most thought that President Zelensky would have to flee. Boris Johnson said Britain could host a Ukrainian government in exile. The Americans offered to get Zelensky out of Kyiv to protect him from the hit squads that Moscow had sent to kill or capture him. Zelensky, with the courage and flair that has defined his war leadership, replied: ‘I need ammunition, not a ride.’ Well, the Ukrainians now have the ammunition – and three months in, the war looks very different to how on 24 February anyone imagined it would.
Yes, the Russians have taken Mariupol, opening the way for a land corridor from the Donbas to Crimea, which they annexed in 2014. But having won the battle for Kyiv, the Ukrainians are now driving the Russians away from Kharkiv and frustrating Putin’s forces in the east.
With western arms flooding into Ukraine (ten planes bringing military aid arrived in Ukraine at the start of this week), there is now a chance to go on the offensive. There is $40 billion of US aid on the way. That sum alone is more than the entire Australian defence budget. It means that Ukraine can now aim to retake territory rather than just frustrate the Russian advance.
This turn of events raises questions. What should Ukraine’s war aims be? Should they try to push the Russians back to where they were before the invasion – or keep fighting, hold out for Crimea, and attempt to undo all the losses they have suffered since 2014? Should Zelensky be prepared to talk terms with Putin despite the appalling crimes committed by Russian forces? And should Putin be offered some kind of face-saving exit?
Putin’s decision to launch a full-scale invasion and the bravery with which the Ukrainians resisted it has brought the West together.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in