CHAPTER 6 CONSEQUENCES

A humanitarian and refugee crisis to rival that of World War II unfolded as Russia waged war on Ukraine from February 24, 2022.

In just three weeks an estimated 2.5 million Ukrainians had fled their homes, many seeing their safety and future more assured in neighboring countries and Europe.

Domestic civilian flights were canceled on the first day of the invasion and people began heading west and south. For those who escaped, Poland was the most popular destination, so much so that Warsaw said after three weeks that it “was full up.”

Romania, Moldova and Hungary also were preferred destinations.

The “safe” corridors supposedly set up by Russia were not so safe at all — mostly they led to Russia and its ally Belarus. At times the corridors came under attack from Russian firepower — ceasefire announcements usually were not backed up by actions.

During a supposed ceasefire on March 9 a Russian air strike severely damaged a children’s and maternity hospital in the southern port city of Mariupol, killing and injuring several people.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) figures showed only just more than 1% of those fleeing from Ukraine headed for Russia.

Poland to the west, sharing a 500 km (310 mi) border with Ukraine, proved to be a good friend to Ukraine, also the conduit for supplies, including weaponry from supporting countries, to the besieged President and his people. Poland’s supply routes into Ukraine were nominated by Russia as a legitimate target, raising fears of a possible direct attack on a NATO member and prompting warnings from the US about any such action.

Russia, aware of the supply routes, attacked a NATO backed military base in Ukraine near the Poland border on March 13, killing more than 30 people.

(Poland became a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member in 1999 with the Czech Republic and Hungary, the first three countries of the former Soviet bloc and first former members of the Warsaw Pact to join the US-backed defense alliance).

The refugees, mostly women and children (Ukrainian men were not allowed to leave as they were legally obliged to help defend the country) were welcomed in Poland but longed to go home again. Some still had family in Ukraine. Fourteen-year-old Dariy Gulyk hadn’t heard from his father for three days and was worried. “In Poland, it’s very cool,” he told a journalist, “but we want to go home — because home is home.”

The UN refugee agency said conditions were bleak in border areas where refugees gathered; temperatures were freezing, and many people spent days on the road waiting to cross.

Polish authorities offered comprehensive help to refugees, including free train travel and access to healthcare. Poland also dropped its requirement to show a negative Covid test.

Hungary opened sections of its border that had been closed to migration. In Moldova, networks of volunteers provided support and hosting families crossing the border.

Germany and Austria offered free train travel.

Meanwhile, the US pledged consequences over the killing of an American journalist in Ukraine who was working on a documentary about refugees.

Filmmaker Brent Renaud, 50, was killed by Russian fire near Irvin, west of Kyiv.

Kyiv region police chief, Andrei Nebitov, said: “The occupiers are cynically killing even journalists of international media who are trying to show the truth about the atrocities of Russian troops in Ukraine.”

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN: “If… an American journalist was killed, it is a shocking and horrifying event. It is one more example of the brutality of Vladimir Putin and his forces as they’ve targeted schools and mosques and hospitals and journalists.

“And it is why we are working so hard to impose severe consequences on him, and to try to help the Ukrainians with every form of military assistance we can muster, to be able to push back against the onslaught of these Russian forces.”

Just days after Renaud’s death, two journalists working for Fox News were killed, according to the US network.

According to Ukrainian parliament’s human rights chief Lyudmyla Denisova at least two Ukrainian journalists had also been killed in the conflict.

Widespread support around the world for President Zelensky by way of aid and sanctions, was reflected in his approval rating at home.

More than 90% of Ukrainians backed their president as Ukraine continued to resist Russia’s invasion, according to a national poll conducted by the Ratings Sociological Group.

Polling in March showed the president’s approval ratings almost tripled since December 2021, when just 31% of Ukrainians supported him.

There was still a long way to go before there would be any kind of resolution in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Russia remained resolute in its demands, even though negotiations were being attempted but not seriously progressed and no common ground established.

Putin appeared to have believed, correctly, the support of NATO, the US and other European governments would not extend to sending troops. Many leaders made reference to starting World War III, preferring instead to impose harsh sanctions.

US President Biden said: “There were two options: start World War III, start a physical war with Russia, or option number two — make a country that acts so contrary to international law pay the price for doing so.”

The unanswered question was: “What if Russia assassinated the elected President of a democratic country?” There were reports of up to a dozen attempts on President Zelensky’s life.

Russia remained insistent that all its demands be met: Ukraine must surrender and cease military action; change its constitution to enshrine neutrality; not join the NATO bloc; acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory (Russia annexed Crimea — previously conquered by the Russian Empire in 1783 but part of Ukraine since 1991 — in 2014); and recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.

From the outset, Ukraine rejected the conditions, drawing support from the West and some neighboring countries.

President Zelensky appeared to soften his stance on some limited points.

“Regarding NATO, I have cooled down regarding this question long ago after we understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine,” the President told American ABC News.

He added: “The alliance is afraid of controversial things and confrontation with Russia. I never wanted to be a country which is begging something on its knees. We are not going to be that country, and I don’t want to be that president.”

He also said he was open to discussions about the control of Russian-backed separatist regions in eastern Ukraine, which could be an opening for peace talks.

“It is important to me how people who want to be part of Ukraine will live there. I am interested in the opinion of those who see themselves as citizens of the Russian Federation. However, we must discuss this issue,” President Zelensky said.

From Russia’s perspective any hope President Putin may have had for a speedy victory in Ukraine was dashed; there was no quick surrender.

The Russian army changed its strategy, and began shelling densely populated areas, perhaps signaling a switch to the brutal tactics seen in Grozny during the Chechen war. In 2003 the UN declared Grozny to be the most severely destroyed city in the world.

That was something President Zelensky would not want to see repeated in his country as Russian attacks homed in on the outskirts of Kyiv.

President Zelensky also played down the threat of nuclear attack by Russia that had been mooted because of Russia’s expected swift victory not eventuating.

President Putin ordered his nuclear forces on to high alert in response to the wave of sanctions imposed on his country, but President Zelensky dismissed fears Putin would start a nuclear war if the West joined Ukraine’s defense.

“I think that the threat of nuclear war is a bluff,” President Zelensky told German newspaper Die Zeit in a written interview.

But President Zelensky also said the sanctions were not enough to stop Putin.

“If they were, the offensive would have stopped already,” he told Die Zeit. “Russian oil and gas are still being bought. Western companies still operate on the Russian market while hiding behind various excuses.”

The President also sounded the alarm for neighboring countries, including Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltic states, which he said could be next on Russia’s target list, a fear shared by some in the West.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denied Russia posed such a threat.

“We are not planning to attack other countries,” Lavrov told a Turkish reporter. “We didn’t attack Ukraine either,” a demonstrably false statement that would be of little comfort to anyone.

Fears of biological warfare also were raised when Russia alleged the US was operating biowarfare laboratories in Ukraine.

The US and Ukrainian governments have both denied the existence of bioweapons facilities in Ukraine. There are some Ukrainian-run biological threat-analysis and defense labs in Ukraine, but there’s no apparent evidence to suggest that they are working on biological weapons as far-right commentators and the Russian government have claimed.

The allegation was seen as a possible false-flag excuse for Russia to use biological weapons. (False-flag operations are when a political or military act is orchestrated in such a way that it appears to have been carried out by a party that is not in fact responsible.)

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted:

We should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them.

The use of chemical and biological weapons is banned under the 1925 Geneva protocol.

As it was, “conventional warfare was inflicting significant casualties and many Ukrainians did not escape the Russian bombardment.”

The United Nations human rights office said that by March 8 it had verified 1,335 civilian casualties, including 474 killed and 861 injured.

It was noted that the civilian toll was incomplete pending corroboration of reports: “This concerns, for example, the towns of Volnovakha, Mariupol, Izium where there are allegations of hundreds of civilian casualties,” the office said.

Ukraine’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Yevheniia Filipenko, told the Human Rights council: “Not a day has passed without news of dozens of civilian casualties that resulted from indiscriminate bombing and shelling of residential areas of major Ukrainian cities.”

Russia had few direct allies — Belarus was one — but another 35 countries abstained from a United Nations vote condemning the Russian action. Heading those countries were China and India. China’s stance was probably not surprising considering it had vowed to return Taiwan to its communist fold, raising fears of military action to do so. China would no doubt hope to learn lessons from the outcome of Russia’s action.

China, which had refused to condemn Russia’s actions or call them an invasion, repeatedly expressed its opposition to what it described as illegal sanctions on Russia.

It took two weeks for Chinese President Xi Jinping China to use the “war” word. Speaking at a “virtual meeting” with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz he called for “maximum restraint” in Ukraine and said China was “pained to see the flames of war reignited in Europe.” It was his strongest statement thus far on the conflict. He said the three countries (China, France and Germany) should jointly support peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said China “firmly opposed” the sanctions and called them “without any basis” in international law.

“Willfully wielding the stick of sanctions cannot bring peace and security, but will only affect the economy and people’s livelihood, lead to a lose-lose situation and aggravate division and confrontation,” the spokesperson said, adding that China and Russia had good co-operation and would continue to conduct normal trade relations, including on oil and gas in the spirit of “mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit.”

The US warned China against providing military or financial help to Moscow.

According to American officials, Russia had asked for military and economic support from Beijing, which in turn had signaled a willingness to provide aid.

Moscow denied the claim, saying it had enough resources to fulfil its aims. China’s foreign ministry labelled the reports on assistance as “disinformation.”

State Department spokesperson Ned Price said after US national security adviser Jake Sullivan met China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi in Rome.

“We will not allow any country to compensate Russia for its losses. We have communicated very clearly to Beijing that we won’t stand by.”

The sanctions had many consequences for Russia.

Fitch Ratings (a credit ratings agency) downgraded its view of the Russia’s government debt, warning a default was “imminent.” The ratings cut — from B to C — was the second time in a fortnight Fitch downgraded its view of Russia’s ability to pay its debts.

Rival ratings agencies Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings also slashed their assessments of Russian sovereign debt.

Moscow had already said its bond payments might be affected by sanctions.

Several of Russia’s richest businessmen called for peace. One of them, Andrei Melnichenko, known as Russia’s coal and fertilizer king, said the war in Ukraine was a tragedy that must be stopped or there would be a global food crisis.

Fertilizer prices worldwide already were too high for many farmers, he said.

“The events in Ukraine are truly tragic. We urgently need peace,” Melnichenko, 50, who is Russian but was born in Belarus and has a Ukrainian mother, told Reuters in a statement emailed by his spokesperson.

“As a Russian by nationality, a Belarusian by birth, and a Ukrainian by blood, I feel great pain and disbelief witnessing brotherly peoples fighting and dying.”

Melnichenko founded Uralchem, Russia’s largest ammonium nitrate producer which is based in Zug, Switzerland, and SUEK, Russia’s top coal producer.

“It has already led to soaring prices in fertilizers which are no longer affordable to farmers,” he said.

Melnichenko said a supply chain already disrupted by Covid was now even more distressed: “Now it will lead to even higher food inflation in Europe and likely food shortages in the world’s poorest countries.”

The effects of sanctions and embargoes were not just felt by Russia. The rest of the world saw an almost immediate rise in the cost of oil. The fallout grew daily as countries sympathetic to Ukraine and companies that did business with Russia fell into line with actions designed to support Ukraine and promote disquiet within Russia itself.

Russia was the target of protests around the world, even within Russia, a sign that President Putin might not enjoy the populist support he hoped for.

A new censorship law in Russia threatened prison for anyone calling his invasion a “war” rather than a “special military operation.”

Despite such legislation, social media remained active with alternative viewpoints to that of state-controlled media. Troy Hunt, a cybersecurity specialist based in Australia told Israeli media: “It’s never going to be like what it was in the Cold War, in terms of being able to chop off information coming from the West. Obviously it has a big impact. But you’ve got so many people who have access to technology that can easily circumvent these controls.”

President Zelensky has more than 5.1 million followers on Twitter, so his message had far greater reach than perhaps Russia understood.

President Zelensky used speeches and tweets to call for greater action from the West, including a total embargo on Russian oil. Such action was not included in a raft of initial sanctions imposed on Russia, but soon gained traction.

In a plea for greater military help — including planes and a no-fly zone in the region — President Zelensky told US senators, “Don’t allow brave and strong people who share your values to be exterminated.”

Calls for a no-fly zone remained contentious. President Putin said such an action would constitute a declaration of war, putting NATO and the West on notice.

President Zelensky continued to lambast the West for not taking action and his call for an oil embargo got a positive response days after the first time he addressed more than 300 members of the US Congress.

The meeting, via Zoom, was the first time President Zelensky had addressed both houses of Congress since the invasion. He was to continue to contact with foreign governments over several weeks, reporting on the horrors being inflicted on his people and pleading for support. A second address to Congress a week later elicited a further aid response from the US.

President Biden said in a White House announcement on March 8: “I’m announcing the United States is targeting the main artery of Russia’s economy. We’re banning all imports of Russian oil and gas and energy. That means Russian oil will no longer be acceptable at US ports and the American people will deal another powerful blow to Putin’s war machine.”

Europe, much more dependent on Russian oil than the US, had until then remained hesitant to take such action.

But almost simultaneously with the Biden announcement, the UK said it would phase out imports of Russian oil by the end of 2022, the timing deigned to allow negotiation of replacement supply.

On March 16, President Biden signed off on an extra $US 800 million military aid package for Ukraine. The previous day, the US President signed a bill to give $US 13.6 billion for emergency aid to Ukraine.

The EU also announced plans to phase out its reliance on Russia for energy needs “as soon as possible.”

At last, the West was heeding Zelensky’s pleas.

The Ukrainian President had another problem. His military hardware was no match for the might of the Russian war machine.

Back in December 2021, as the country marked its national army day with a display of US armored vehicles and patrol boats, President Zelensky said his armed forces could fight off any Russian attack.

“The servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine continue to fulfil their most important mission — to defend the freedom and sovereignty of the state from the Russian aggressor,” he said.

Two months later, he pleaded for more fighter planes.

The most likely supplier, the US, was not willing to send fighter planes into the conflict for fear of creating a wider war with Russia.

In a surprise move, Poland offered to provide its 28 MiG-29 fighter jets for use by Ukraine. The Pentagon rejected the plan.

The US had been looking at a proposal under which Poland would supply Ukraine with the Mig-29s and in turn receive American F-16s to make up for their loss. Ukrainian pilots were trained to fly the Soviet-era fighter jets.

President Zelensky’s plea for military aid did not fall on completely deaf ears.

President Biden ordered the US State Department to release up to an extra $US 350 million worth of weapons from US stocks to Ukraine. That was on top of the $US 1 billion in security assistance to Ukraine over the previous 12 months.

For the first time in its history, the EU financed the purchase and delivery of arms after leaders agreed to send weapons worth ˆ450 million ($US 502 million) to Kyiv. Some countries had agreed to provide fighter jets, but details were not given.

The UK decided in January to supply Ukraine with “light anti-armor defensive weapon systems.” The aid was upgraded in February to include “lethal aid in the form of defensive weapons and non-lethal aid,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced.

News agencies reported that a wide range of more help was on the way to Ukraine:

France agreed to send more military equipment as well as fuel. It had already acceded to earlier Ukrainian requests for defensive anti-aircraft and digital weapons.

The Netherlands agreed to supply air defense rockets and anti-tank systems and was considering sending a Patriot air defense system, in conjunction with Germany, to a NATO battle group in Slovakia, it said.

Germany pledged 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger surface-to-air missiles, a major shift from Berlin’s longstanding policy of banning weapons exports to a conflict zone.

Canada sent lethal military weaponry and agreed to lend Kyiv half a billion Canadian dollars ($US 394 million) for self-defense.

Even non-aligned Sweden contributed to the supply chain to Ukraine, sending 5,000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, with Denmark contributing a further 2,700. Norway sent helmets and body armor and up to 2,000 M72 anti-tank weapons.

Finland, also neutral, agreed to supply weapons: 1,500 rocket launchers, 2,500 assault rifles, 150,000 rounds of ammunition, and 70,000 servings of field rations.

Belgium said it would supply Ukraine with 3,000 more automatic rifles and 200 anti-tank weapons, as well as 3,800 tons of fuel.

Portugal provided night-vision goggles, bulletproof vests, helmets, grenades, ammunition and automatic G3 rifles.

Greece offered “defense equipment” and humanitarian aid.

Romania — which shares a border with Ukraine — offered to treat wounded people in its 11 military hospitals as well as sending fuel, bulletproof vests, helmets and other “military material” worth $US3.3 million.

Spain offered 1,370 grenade launchers, 700,000 rounds of munitions and light automatic weapons.

The Czech Republic said it would provide 4,000 mortars, an arsenal of 30,000 pistols, 7,000 assault rifles, 3,000 machine guns, many sniper rifles and a million bullets.

Croatia provided ˆ16 million of small arms and body armor.

All this aid was seen as ringing endorsement for President Zelensky’s vow to his people: “We are defending our independence, our state, and it will remain so.”

Unless Russia opted for a short sharp “scorched earth” campaign, the war was going to be a long haul for both countries.

What was the end game?

The best hope for the people of Ukraine would be a negotiated settlement, but what would their President have to concede?

Certainly he wanted to avoid what happened in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine where President Putin had already recognized two separatist territories as independent states, ordering the deployment of Russian troops in defiance of international law.

For almost eight years the breakaway enclaves were the site of a low-intensity war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian forces that left more than 14,000 people dead.

The Russian annexation of Crimea (Ukrainian territory) in 2014 also served as a reminder of what could happen.

About 4.20 a.m. at the end of February in 2014, 120 people in full combat gear and automatic weapons took over the buildings of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. They looked like soldiers, but they did not have any insignia on their uniforms.

They were the first of the so-called “little green men” who appeared on the streets of the capital. Russian flags were hung and barricades were built in front of the doors of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It looked like a special forces operation. Later, these events were referred to as “the Moscow landing.” The same people appeared in Donbas two months later.

Against that background, it was clear President Putin was not going to withdraw without making some sort of gain.

He appeared to be chasing a bigger prize this time, the rest of Ukraine.

But this time, such was the devastation being inflicted by his soldiers on a neighbor that the Russian people, once the truth became obvious, might even hold the answer by ousting Putin, one way or another.

That would take a popular uprising from within Russia or some other incentive.

A remote possibility was that someone would take the $US 1 million bounty offered by a former Russian businessman for the arrest of Putin. The offer was made by Alex Konanykhin, who left Russia in 1992 and seven years later became the first Russian citizen to be granted political asylum in the United States from post-Soviet Russia.

World War III was an option no one wanted. Not even Russia.