Inside Geneva: two years of war in Ukraine

It’s been an incredible two years since we woke to the news that Russia had launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, towns in eastern Ukraine have been reduced to rubble, and millions of Ukrainians have become refugees. 

On our Inside Geneva podcast this week, Jussi Hanhimaki, professor of international history at the Geneva’s Graduate Institute, Swedish journalist Gunilla von Hall, and analyst Daniel Warner join me to discuss where the conflict is now, and whether, as both sides seem as determined as ever to achieve total victory, there is any chance for peace. 

Ukraine, with every justification, continues to demand the withdrawal of all Russian troops from its entire territory. Russia’s war aims seem more opaque. The fantasy of taking Kyiv appeared to stall in the mud two years ago, but, in recent days, Russian troops have retaken the town of Avdiivka. 

But at what cost? It’s a small town with the misfortune to find itself on the frontline. Now Avdiivka is a smoking ruin. As Gunilla von Hall tells Inside Geneva, “isn’t there a limit when there’s so many civilian deaths, so you as a state have a responsibility to stop?” 

What does victory look like? 

Which state, though? Russia may be running out of young men to throw into what has been termed “the meat grinder” of its war against Ukraine, but Ukraine is running out of weapons. While in some conflicts, this might be the point where warring parties decide to discuss terms for peace, or at least a ceasefire, Jussi Hanhimaki isn’t optimistic that this could happen here.  

‘“With this particular cast of characters, it’s not going to happen. With Putin on the one side and Zelensky and his entourage. They’re committed to victory, whatever that is.” 

And Russia, as Daniel Warner points out, “is basically independent as far as acting in this war, whereas Ukraine is dependent. And I think of the question of Western fatigue, and the radar now is on the Middle East.” 

This is certainly a factor in Moscow’s thinking. Cracks are appearing in the West’s determination to support Ukraine. A new, brutal and volatile conflict has begun, and the West’s top diplomats, like the United States (US) secretary of state Antony Blinken, are exhausting themselves shuttling around the Middle East. 

Is the US wavering? 

Further US support for Ukraine is running up against opposition among Republican lawmakers, and there is the spectre of Donald Trump (who claims he can end the war in 24 hours by “doing a deal” with Putin) back in the White House. 

Could Ukraine be left to fend for itself? On Inside Geneva, Daniel Warner and Jussi Hanhimaki suggest it may not come to that. The US Congress, Warner believes, will not allow an incoming Trump to withdraw support, and Hanhimaki is convinced Europe’s backing for Ukraine will remain firm. 

However, there is weariness. The sanctions introduced with such rigour and speed two years ago have not had the desired effect. Russia is happily selling its oil and gas to India and China, its economic growth is the envy of Germany or the United Kingdom. A colleague who recently managed to get a visa for a reporting trip to Moscow found expensive restaurants with full tables, offering decadent delicacies such as cured Siberian bear meat, and Negronis flavoured with “tincture of Kamchatka crab”. 

The events of the past week, however, are likely to be a signal to many Western governments that even if they are flagging, they must not give up. The timing of the news of Alexei Navalny’s death, just as Western leaders were gathering at the Munich security confidence, was hardly a coincidence.  

Putin is keen to show the West that he can do what he likes. In his Russia, the brutal and systematic oppression of any and all opposition continues. You can be arrested for holding a sign with nothing on it. Or arrested for holding a sign with one innocent word or symbol. You can be sentenced to years, even decades, for the most minor protests, real or imagined. 

We know there are many Russians who oppose the war and dream of a peaceful, democratic future, but the hope many of us had two years ago that they might rise up and get rid of their tyrannous government has been extinguished. Each new repressive law, banning this or that human rights group, each violent suppression of an anti-war protest, each punitive jail term for a protestor, and finally, last week, the death in an Arctic prison camp of Alexei Navalny, should convince the doubters that Putin is not someone to do business with. 

And although the oligarchs in Moscow may be living the highlife, let’s not forget Putin started this war in part because, he said, he was unhappy about NATO expansion. Two years on, the home countries of Gunilla von Hall and Jussi Hanhimaki, Sweden and Finland respectively, are NATO members. Ukrainian refugees have been given a warm welcome in Europe, and the United Nations (UN) – yes we discuss its role in this conflict too on Inside Geneva –  continues to support, as best it can, civilians. And, quietly, and carefully, European human rights groups are helping their brave colleagues in Russia. 

It may take longer than we all hoped, but there are more ways to win a war than the battlefield.