The Guardian Opinion on Putin’s Siege Tactics in Ukraine: War Crimes Cloaked in Strategy

The encroachment of Russian forces onto Ukrainian soil paints a grim picture for the nation’s future. Reports indicate that Kherson, situated along the southern banks of the Dnieper River, fell under Russian control after enduring a relentless siege, leaving in its wake a city scarred and its citizens ravaged by the ferocity of Russian bombardment. Echoing tactics reminiscent of Russia’s involvement in the 2017 Aleppo conflict, Vladimir Putin’s strategies now verge on blatant violations of international law.

Russian troops, brandishing threats of annihilation, are using coercion to subjugate Ukrainian cities into submission. The mayor of Mariupol, located on the shores of the Black Sea, revealed that Putin’s forces are systematically severing vital lifelines such as rail connections and road links, while simultaneously depriving civilians of essential utilities like water and electricity. Putin’s audacious plan to encircle Kyiv with overwhelming force, reducing it to rubble, underscores the perilous path he treads towards outright criminality. It’s a spectacle of wanton destruction with no conceivable justification, a madness that must be brought to justice.

The enormity of Putin’s transgressions cannot be overstated. His belligerence has plunged Ukraine into a maelstrom of death and despair, demonstrating a callous disregard for innocent lives. Barely a week into the conflict, Russian forces have unleashed a barrage of cluster munitions upon residential areas, with reports emerging of airstrikes targeting schools and civilian residences in Chernihiv. French President’s cautionary words, hinting at darker days ahead for Ukraine, ring ominously true. Even within Putin’s own ranks, dissent brews, with some soldiers expressing reluctance to partake in a campaign that, according to Moscow’s narrative, is about safeguarding Russia’s strategic interests. Compelling young men into combat for an illegal cause warrants yet another charge against Putin’s regime.

The groundswell of outrage in the West leaves little room for ambivalence among European and American leaders. While arms shipments to Ukraine’s defense forces have commenced, the reluctance to provide additional fighter aircraft signals a delicate balancing act in the face of escalating tensions. Any notion of NATO intervention in Ukrainian airspace must be weighed against the risk of escalating the conflict further.

With over a million individuals displaced by the violence, the imperative to establish humanitarian corridors for civilian evacuation is paramount. Encouragingly, peace talks between Russia and Ukraine offer a glimmer of hope for such initiatives to materialize.

Reflecting on Joseph de Maistre’s observations, one cannot help but ponder the role of public sentiment in shaping the course of governance. As the specter of war looms large, support for Putin may wane in the face of mounting sanctions and domestic unrest. The Kremlin’s efforts to quell dissent, coupled with reports of casualties among Russian troops, hint at a populace bracing itself for turbulent times ahead.

In the crucible of conflict, the choices made by nations define their destinies. As Ukraine grapples with the specter of war, the world watches, bearing witness to a nation’s resilience in the face of adversity.