‘Putin’s behaviour is explainable, but that doesn’t justify it’: Sherelle Jacobs responds to readers – Telegraph.co.uk

In my column this week, I argued that Putin is even more dangerous than the West can admit.Telegraphreaders were quick to make their thoughts clear. Here, I respond to a few of them.

Anthony Lee counters that Putins hand is weak. All he has achieved is to box himself into a corner. If Putin cannot get Nato to agree that Ukraine will never become a member, he will either have an embarrassing climbdown, or will have to invade.

While I agree that Putin sensing Allied weakness and division has bet the farm on Natoconcessions, I doubt he genuinely believes the West will grant an official moratorium on Nato expansion. What he has said is that any further expansion Eastwards would be unacceptable and he wants security guarantees''. That leaves wiggle room for a de facto moratorium for example on Ukraine-Natomilitary cooperation or Nato bases in Ukraine. There are signs that he may be in with a chance. In a press briefing last night German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stressed that Ukraines NATO membership was not on the agenda, and a political settlement must be found to avert war.

S.S argues that Putin has shown the world that Russia is not to be messed with whilst our weak Western leaders desperately scramble about what to do next. Hell retire back to Russia shortly and has completely humiliated and run rings around us.

This is exactly the kind of narrative that America is determined to avoid, and in my view explains the bizarre nature of its tactics.

Analysts plugged into Washington have entertained various apocalyptic scenarios, with Putin rolling in tanks, cutting power supplies and killing the Ukraine chief of staff. The CIA meanwhile has espoused a nonsensical "frozen ground"theory that Putin will invade when central Ukraine is covered with ice more than a foot deep.We have even been offered specific dates for an invasion ranging from last weekend and 3am this morning to next Monday.

The only logical explanation I can think of: this is a high-stakes way for the West to set up a narrative for victory should Putin fail to invade. Yet, it is telling that at the same time Ukraine apparently faces horrifying imminent carnage, Washington dismantles telephone systems and destroys computer workstations, as it flees its Kyiv embassy. This suggests that the West prioritises winning the infowar over standing by Ukraine.

A striking number of respondents are sympathetic to Putins case against Nato. Peter Hirsch says that to some extent the current situation results from how Gorbachov's Russia was treated after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gene Freeman concurs that Putin has likely been marked by the post-Gorbachev humiliation by a very arrogant west. JP.JP says We promised that Russia wouldnt have Natoon every European border. Putins case against Nato expansionism is sound.

While I agree that Putins behaviour is explainable, that doesnt make it justified. We should not overlook the grotesque irony of the fact that Russia a country isolated from the West since the Cold War because it resents the globalist liberal orders priority of "universal values"over sovereignty will happily threaten the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Nor should we gloss over Russias dangerously inflated sense of importance. It is a dying, de-modernising country - a peripheral, middle-income entity with practically third world life expectancy and a resource-based economy comparable with Brazil. It may now be categorically incapable of producing the kind of responsible wealth creators and dynamic middle class that might drive institutional change.

And yet Putin is absolutely convinced Russia is still an important enough player in the global game to not only challenge but actively reconstitute the liberal order. Hence, instead of diversifying its economy, he splurges on nuclear weapons.

One can both be impressed by his patriotism and dismayed at the implications of such delusions of grandeur both for Ukrainians and Russians.

Sherelle will respond to the best comments and letters from this week's column in our weeklyWrite to Reply series. Leave a commentbelowor emaildtletters@telegraph.co.ukfor the chance to have yours included

See the original post:

'Putin's behaviour is explainable, but that doesn't justify it': Sherelle Jacobs responds to readers - Telegraph.co.uk