Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Since then, Russia has launched 4 nice offensives. Three had been navy; the fourth was financial. And when you don’t hear a lot about that final offensive, its failure gives some crucial classes.
Everybody is aware of concerning the first navy offensive: the tried blitzkrieg that was speculated to seize Kyiv and different main Ukrainian cities in a matter of days. Many observers — particularly, however not solely, Western right-wingers who fetishized the perceived prowess of Russia’s un-woke navy — anticipated this blitzkrieg to succeed. As a substitute, it became an epic defeat: Stalled by a dogged Ukrainian protection, the Russians ultimately retreated after struggling big losses.
The second offensive was extra restricted in scope: a spring assault on jap Ukraine. Right here once more, many observers anticipated a decisive Russian victory, maybe the encirclement of a lot of Ukraine’s military. And the Russians did make some advances due to overwhelming artillery superiority. However this offensive stalled as soon as Ukraine acquired Western precision weapons, particularly the now well-known HIMARS, which wreaked havoc on Russian rear areas. And Ukraine was ultimately in a position to launch counterattacks that regained vital floor, notably retaking Kherson.
The third Russian offensive, a winter assault within the Donbas area, remains to be underway, and it’s doable that Ukraine might select to tug out of the embattled metropolis of Bakhmut, a spot of little strategic significance that has nonetheless grow to be the scene of extremely bloody combating. However most observers I learn view the enterprise as a complete as yet one more strategic failure.
In some methods, although, Russia’s most vital defeat has come not on the battlefield however on the financial entrance. I mentioned that Russia has launched 4 nice offensives; the fourth was the try and blackmail European democracies into dropping their help for Ukraine by chopping off their provides of pure fuel.
There have been causes to be involved about this try and weaponize vitality provides. Whereas the Russian invasion of Ukraine initially disrupted markets for a number of commodities — Russia is a serious oil producer, and each Russia and Ukraine had been main agricultural exporters earlier than the conflict — pure fuel appeared like an particularly critical stress level. Why? As a result of it isn’t actually traded on a world market. The most affordable solution to ship fuel is by way of pipelines, and it wasn’t apparent how Europe would exchange Russian fuel if the provision had been reduce off.
So many individuals, myself included, anxious concerning the results of a de facto Russian fuel embargo. Wouldn’t it trigger a European recession? Would exhausting instances in Europe undermine willingness to maintain aiding Ukraine?
Effectively, the large story — a narrative that hasn’t acquired a lot play within the information media, as a result of it’s exhausting to report on issues that didn’t occur — is that Europe has weathered the lack of Russian provides remarkably nicely. Euro space unemployment hasn’t gone up in any respect; inflation did surge, however European governments have managed, via a mix of value controls and monetary assist, to restrict (however not remove) the quantity of non-public hardship created by excessive fuel costs.
And Europe has managed to maintain functioning regardless of the cutoff of most Russian fuel. Partly this displays a flip to different sources of fuel, together with liquefied pure fuel shipped from the USA; partly it displays conservation efforts which have lowered demand. A few of it displays a short lived return to coal-fired electrical energy technology; a lot of it displays the truth that Europe already will get a big share of its vitality from renewables.
And sure, it was an unusually heat winter, which additionally helped. However the backside line, as a report from the European Council on Overseas Relations places it, is that “Moscow failed in its effort to blackmail E.U. member states via withholding fuel.” Certainly, Europe has stepped up its navy assist to Ukraine, notably by sending primary battle tanks which will assist the approaching Ukrainian counteroffensive.
So what can we study from the failure of Russia’s vitality offensive?
First, Russia seems to be greater than ever like a Potemkin superpower, with little behind its spectacular facade. Its a lot vaunted navy is much much less efficient than marketed; now its position as an vitality provider is proving a lot more durable to weaponize than many imagined.
Second, democracies are displaying, as they’ve many instances up to now, that they’re much more durable, a lot more durable to intimidate, than they appear.
Lastly, fashionable economies are way more versatile, way more ready to deal with change, than some vested pursuits would have us imagine.
For so long as I can bear in mind, fossil-fuel lobbyists and their political supporters have insisted that any try to scale back greenhouse fuel emissions could be disastrous for jobs and financial progress. However what we’re seeing now’s Europe making an vitality transition underneath the worst doable circumstances — sudden, surprising and drastic — and dealing with it fairly nicely. This implies {that a} gradual, deliberate inexperienced vitality transition could be far simpler than pessimists think about.
The Instances is dedicated to publishing a variety of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you concentrate on this or any of our articles. Listed here are some suggestions. And right here’s our electronic mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Observe The New York Instances Opinion part on Fb, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
