Even allowing for Albo’s “hot” new look being plastered across the pages of the Womens Weekly, there’s really only one story this week. Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine has the same ominous feeling as 9/11 – it’s one of those moments that will change the world forever. While commentators and politicians have been saying it could never happen, Putin has played everyone for fools. We should have taken a lesson from the movies. If a gun is shown in a film, that gun will be used. So when there are more than 100,000 troops, plus missiles and tanks massed at separate locations on the Ukraine border, it’s highly unlikely they’ll go home without firing a shot.
The roots of this brazen aggression go back to 2014 when Putin was allowed to annex the Crimea and shoot down a Malaysian Airlines jet with no more pushback than a round of sanctions and a banning from the G8. This didn’t seem to worry him too much, and besides, it allowed him to escape wearing a silly shirt at the obligatory team photo.
In the years that followed, Putin has been able to squirrel funds away, to reduce Russia’s financial and trade dependence on the west, and get Germany hooked up to his gas pipeline, like an addict hooked on heroin. He has been preparing to march into the Ukraine for at least a decade, perhaps from the time he became President in 2000. It advances his megalomaniac fantasy of restoring the lost territories of the former Soviet Union, and kills the disturbing example of a successful democracy on his doorstep. This is what he means by “defending Russia’s security” – ie. making sure that nothing challenges his authoritarian rule, even by example.
Four years of Donald Trump were like catnip to Putin, who saw his orange-faced buddy undermine NATO and transform the United States into a radically divided nation. It’s still going on, and Trump is still singing Putin’s praises. The crowning glory was Joe Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, in contradiction of all the expert advice. This hasty, half-baked human tragedy left the United States’ reputation in tatters, and showed up the weakness of Biden’s foreign policy.
At the age of 69, feeling a little impatient with the slow progress of his sneaky insurgency efforts in the western Ukraine, Putin decided to go for broke. He knew western nations didn’t want a war – or rather their voting populations didn’t want one. He presumed that no-one would give two hoots about Ukraine if it meant compromising ther own comfort and security. He timed his run to take advantage of upcoming elections such as Macron’s bid for another term, and the October mid-terms the Democrats can’t afford to lose.
Who, after all, would be willing to stand in Putin’s way? Who would send in troops to support the Ukraine if it meant putting themselves in the firing line for Russian missiles? Who would trust this sociopath not to use his nuclear arsenal, even if it brought widespread destruction down on his own people? Putin has gambled on a conventional military assault that will cripple the Ukraine, and bring at least the western part under Russian domination. To preserve the ludicrous fiction that he was acting on behalf of Russian “security”, he may stop at this point. If he’s feeling bolder, there’s no guessing what he’ll do. One can hardly imagine him attacking NATO members such as the Baltic states, but he delights in confounding expectations.
So many years after the Second World War we have a world leader who is emulating Hitler’s playbook in launching an unprovoked assault in a soveriegn state. Appeasement proved to be a disaster in 1939, and it’s not looking any more promising today. But then, Hitler never had atomic missiles at his disposal.
We’ve seen how vulnerable US democracy is when a sitting President simply decides to throw away the rule book and Congress puts political gain before law and moral decency. Now we’re seeing the fragility of world peace in the face of an all-out assault by a gangster who believes he has the power to hold everyone to ransom. As yet, there’s no indication that he’s got it wrong.
In Australia, Scummo and the Boiled Egg have been quick to rattle sabres in a desperate attempt to seize on this overpowering new distraction. Alas, this time they’re right to ask why China hasn’t intervened with its good buddy, Putin. One only hopes this new conflict doesn’t add retrospective dignity to last week’s repulsive scare campaign or allow voters to forget about the bushfires, the pork-barrelling, and the botched vaccine rollout. We’re a long way from the Ukraine, but the entire world will be feeling the shock waves for weeks to come.
This week’s art column dives a couple of thousand years into the past, to the wartorn times of the Ancient Greeks, currently the subject of a fascinating show at the National Museum of Australia. The exhibition has been drawn from the holdings of the British Museum, and tells us pretty much everything we need to know about the Greeks – looking at everyday life, their pursuits as warriors and athletes. There’s an emphasis on competition, which was intended to coincide with the Beijing Olympics, but there’s also plenty of material relating to war.
The movie being reviewed is King Richard, which continues a countdown to the Academy Awards, in which I’ve been asked by the AFR to review all the candidates for Best Picture. This means that some features I thought had got away, are back in the frame. I was surprised by King Richard, which tells the story of Richard Williams, who brought up his daughters, Venus and Serena, to be tennis champions. It’s a much better film than I’d expected, although it still flirts with feelgood stereotypes.
Finally, I’m adding a blog which looks briefly at a lecture given by Rupert Myer at the NMA last week, and a bequest by Michael Blanche. It’s no more than a glance at two massive issues: cultural policy and philanthropy. There are substantial essays waiting to be written on both topics, but when there’s a war in progress it feels almost callous to be preoccupied with the arts.