The Economist Marking 100 days of war in Ukraine

Hello from London,

I’m not alone in having become a keen reader, in recent months, of various biographies of Vladimir Putin. One point I take from these, which all show how the man has ruthlessly, progressively, tightened his grip on power over 22 years, is that he knows how to play the long game. Perhaps that’s relevant for Ukraine as the war passes the 100-day mark this week. For despite the mostly rotten showing of Russia’s armed forces, so far, he may judge that as the war drags on his country’s advantages could grow.

One reason for that is food. As wheat exports from Ukraine are blocked by Russia, and as the price of energy soars, hunger will spread in countries all over the world this year. Though Russia is to blame for this, some big importers—for example in Asia—may instead condemn America for daring to support Ukraine in its defence against the invader. Within Europe, too, some countries reliant on Russian energy, especially, could lose their resolve to defend Ukraine.

We wrote last week about emerging “peace” and “justice” camps who wish for different outcomes in Ukraine. Those who say peace is the priority point to the growing toll inside Ukraine, and the tens of millions of distant people, the world’s poorest and hungriest, who will soon suffer. Perhaps great flows of desperate migrants will next be displaced, or political upheavals triggered. For the peace camp, granting Mr Putin a reward for his invasion, such as Ukraine ceding lots of territory, is the lesser evil to endure, if the war can end sooner.

I’d put myself, instead, in the rival “justice” camp. This one argues that Mr Putin has put the world at risk of returning to a brutal, Hobbesian period in which powerful countries gain by threatening and bullying weaker neighbours, killing many in the process. Since the second world war, such behaviour has become ever less common, thank goodness. That has helped to make the world a safer place and allowed all sorts of stability and progress. Reward Mr Putin now, and the risk that other autocracies start launching similar invasions of weaker neighbours increases. Better therefore to help Ukraine, a sovereign country, to push back against the bully.

Ukraine has been the subject of several of our By Invitation columns—The Economist’s equivalent of op-eds—of which we publish several each week and which have become increasingly popular in recent months. On Ukraine, I’d point to pieces by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Ingrida Simonyte, Andrey Kortunov and Ian Bremmer for you to read to get a flavour. Other recent themes include International Women’s Day (featuring Malala Yousafzai, among others) and the world’s increasing inflationary troubles. I’d like to hear from you, too, who else you’d like to write such articles. We can’t promise to get Mr Putin or Xi Jinping to file for next week, but we could try.

Talking of Mr Xi, we think he’s having a difficult moment. China’s economy is slowing, and may fail to grow faster than America’s this year. That would be just about the first time in four decades. China has also painted itself into a corner on covid-19. Its failure to dish out effective vaccines, especially to the elderly, and preference for massive and prolonged lockdowns in an effort to bring about “zero covid” (these have confined around 200m people) threaten to slow the economy dramatically. That will weigh on the world economy, too.

The punchiest emails in our inbox this week came from readers with strong views on immigration—notably from people who disagreed with my views. Both Phillip A. Buhler (in Jacksonville, Florida) and Michael Eckstut (in Princeton, New Jersey) suggest that Americans would happily support more legal immigration if only the illegal sort could be more successfully choked off. Others called for ever harsher measures to deter asylum-seekers who don’t apply through embassies in their home countries. Meanwhile Peter Sircom Bromley in Vancouver, Canada, calls for better understanding of what Russia’s legitimate “security concerns” might be in Ukraine. My response, Mr Bromley, is that Russia has no right to invade its neighbour. Full stop. 
 
Please keep writing to me. I’d like to hear if you favour the peace or the justice camps in Ukraine. And I’m especially keen to learn which By Invitations you’d like to read, and why. Contact me at economisttoday@economist.com. And you’re most welcome to follow me on Twitter at @ARobertsjourno.