One of the most well-known journalistic clichés to amplify the magnitude of a reported event is the use of the word "history" or "historic" in a headline. But although oftentimes such headlines are exaggerated, that was not the case in 2022.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Just look at Britain: In September, Queen Elizabeth II – the longest-reigning monarch in British history – passed away after almost 71 years on the throne, leaving behind a country in the midst of a political scandal that has seen three prime ministers in under a year. In Italy, Georgia Meloni, who heads the Brothers of Italy faction that has fascist roots, was voted into power, at the same time becoming the first woman to ever become the country's prime minister.
In the United States, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights, further deepening the divide in the US. The year 2022 has also seen a record number of headlines on climate change: The Northern Hemisphere experienced the most extreme and persistent heat waves; Europe went through the hottest summer recorded in 500 years; Pakistan was hit by floods that claimed the lives of 1,200 people and left millions without a roof over their heads, and the US has just gone through an unprecedented storm.
The same is true for sports: 2022 saw the first ever World Cup held in a Muslim, Arab, and Middle Eastern country, and was held in the fall for the first time. In addition, Morocco became the first Muslim national team to make it into the quarterfinals and, of course, Lionel Messi led Argentina to victory. Meanwhile, Iran saw an unprecedented wave of riots following the death of Mahsa Amini in the custody of the country's so-called "morality police". Thousands filled the streets protesting against the regime, with some paying for their defiance with their lives.
In China, authorities are struggling to keep the spread of the coronavirus under control, with experts estimating as many as 9,000 people die of the contagion in the country every day. And yet, as historic as these events are, they still pale in comparison to the most major event of 2022: the outbreak of the Ukraine war on Feb. 24.
Just a few weeks ago, I saw an elderly woman – perhaps originally from Ukraine – at the supermarket in Israel examining the label of a jar, and returning it to the shelf, explaining to her friend that she "will never buy a product from Russia as long as Vladimir Putin is alive."
Perhaps, this story illustrates how the Russian invasion has impacted the lives of millions outside of Ukraine. The Sunday Times reported recently that the war brought back fears of a nuclear war, contributed to the rise in global inflation, completely isolated Russia from the West, led to increased strikes in Britain, and in the first few months, raised fears of famine and hunger in third world countries dependent on Ukrainian grain, which feeds 400 million mouths worldwide.
The West also closed off its skies to Russian flights, with Moscow retaliating with the same move. As such, flying from London to Tokyo now takes two hours longer, and from Copenhagen to Singapore 1.5 hours longer. But perhaps the biggest fear revolves around geopolitical ramifications the likes of which Europe has not seen since World War II.
Russia is the first country to have launched a total war and invaded the sovereign territory of another European country since 1945. Its troops crossed into Ukraine at 04:00 a.m. on Feb. 24, with President Vladimir Putin announcing in a broadcast the launch of a "special military operation" to "de-Nazify" Ukraine. Since that fateful morning, over 7,000 Ukrainians have been killed, including 4,000 children, and millions have fled.
Before the invasion began, Washington and Moscow were sure of one thing: Ukraine would not last for more than three days. Russia originally planned to overtake Ukraine in ten days, with the troops that invaded the country having even packed uniforms for a planned victory parade in Kyiv. But both Washington and Moscow were wrong: not only was attacking Kyiv a strategic mistake on behalf of Putin, but its consequences extend beyond his military involvement in Ukraine.
Firstly, it exposed Russia's weakness to the world and the lack of preparedness on behalf of its troops. The military, which before the invasion was considered the second-best, now looked clumsy, incompetent, and possessing out-of-date weapons.
Secondly, the events brought about a shift in Russia itself. Since the invasion, and especially since Putin declared a partial mobilization on Sept. 21, over a million citizens, have left the country, especially those working in technology and science. And keep in mind that Russia has not had a significant diaspora population since 1917.
Thirdly, after the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Kyiv region and the discovery of signs of torture and mass killings in Bucha and Irpin, Russia became not only the first country to violate peace in Europe, but also demonstrated that it had no red lines when it comes to hurting the civilian population.
The second most surprising development – after Putin's resounding military failure – was the Western response to the invasion and the horrors of the war.
Shortly after the invasion, the US, European Union, Britain, Canada, and other countries imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, the most crippling of which was, perhaps, freezing the $300 billion of international reserves held by the Russian Central Bank. The sanctions kept piling up, revealing Russia's technological dependence on the West and inability to self-sustain. A whopping 1,200 companies withdrew from Russia at the beginning of the war, turning Putin and his country into a leper in the eyes of the West. This includes McDonald's, which when it first opened in the then-Soviet Union in January 1990, had a line of 38,000 (!) customers waiting outside.
And although some moves by Russia to save its economy have been successful, its efforts to use gas as leverage backfired. For years, the EU was dependent on Russia for 40% of its energy. Germany, which famously relied on Russian gas for its automobile industry, was the first to launch efforts to reduce this dependence, with the rest of Europe to follow suit.
Russia, in turn, was left with billions worth of natural gas it could not sell to China – both because building a pipe would take time and because Beijing didn't need that amount – being left with no choice, but to burn it off. "This winter we are safe," President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen said recently, but the bigger challenge will be next winter when Europe will be required to refill its gas reservoirs without Russia's help. Most likely, the continent will largely focus on renewable energy instead.
The West might not have adopted such an effective front were it not for the hawkish position taken by the US. After the presidency of Donald Trump, which was characterized by polarization, President Joe Biden already in his inaugural address declared that America was back, pledging to "repair … alliances and engage with the world once again."
True, the Biden administration could not afford another failure after the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the US might have taken the same approach regardless due to its status as a superpower, and because a Russian victory would set a precedent for territorial invasion, annexation, and the killing of thousands of civilians without repercussions.
And although at the beginning of the war, Washington refrained from supplying Ukraine with heavy weaponry, just last week it approved the transfer of missiles to the war-stricken country, a move that was rejected outright back in February. In other words, as the war progressed, the US' approach also changed. So far, Washington has invested around $50 billion in military aid to Ukraine, with the same amount expected to be allocated in the next budget.
The Ukraine war led to a change in the security considerations of many nations. Sweden, for example, which has been a neutral nation since 1834 (!) and has only had a small military, has decided to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, along with Finland, which has maintained a neutral status since World War II.
And so ironically, Putin, who set out to take over Ukraine "because of the NATO threat," has received two more neighbors wishing to join the alliance instead. And as soon as Turkey approves Sweden and Finland joining, Russia will border 1,300 kilometers more of NATO territory.
Germany too is strengthening its military power and is even seeking the procurement of Israel's Arrow 3 missile defense system. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also pledged to spend 2% of the country's GDP on its military next year and purchase F-35 jets from the US.
Japan was not spared the effects of the war either. Like Germany, its ally during World War II, it had a strong pacifist sentiment prior to the outbreak of the Ukraine war too. In its constitution, written post-WWII, mostly by Americans – it even renounced "war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes."
Like Germany, Japan too established an armed force, but it is not even referred to as a military and is largely dependent on the US in terms of security guarantees. But the growing threat from North Korea and China's growing assertiveness in relation to Taiwan – Japan's ally – have all contributed to the slow change in Japan's position on its defense as well.
Such a development did not bode well with the Russians, who accused Japan of becoming a puppet of the US, in a rhetoric remarkably similar to that about Ukraine. China was not thrilled with the development either and a mere week after the Japanese announcement conducted a joint exercise with the Russian military in the East China Sea, the third such drill in the fall alone. In other words, Beijing and Moscow are bolstering military cooperation, at least at a tactical level. And yet, for the time being, China has refrained from assisting Russia militarily.
But one country is assisting Russia in such a manner: Iran. And this is where Israel comes in. Ties between Moscow and Tehran have strengthened significantly since the summer, with Iran sending Russia drones that were used in fighting in Ukraine. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp even sent commanders to Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia to train the Russian military. In return, Moscow transferred advanced technology to Tehran, possibly even nuclear-related, and most recently was even reported to have sent Iran some fighter jets.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
The two countries also seem to seek to expand trade through the Caspian Sea, in what the parties call an "international route" that will be protected from external attacks. Such a rapport must worry Israel, which has refrained so far – at least officially – from supplying Ukraine with defense technology, with Mossad Director David Barnea recently warning of Iran's plans to supply Russia with advanced weapons.
If nothing of surprise occurs, such as Putin's descent from the stage of history, the war in Ukraine is expected to continue at least until the summer as there is no basis for negotiations between the two parties. As far as Kyiv is concerned, Russia must withdraw from all occupied and annexed territories, pay reparations, and prosecute war criminals – conditions that Putin views as equivalent to ending his regime, which was built on imperial ambitions.
Ukraine, which made significant military gains in counterattacks against Russia in the fall and nearly liberated half of the occupied territories, could have continued the momentum had Moscow not declared a mass mobilization and had its allies – mainly the US – provided the required weapons in time.
Interestingly, the West is delaying the weapon transfer partly due to the fear that a swift Ukrainian victory would lead to the very collapse of Russia. The decision-makers in the US and Europe don't seem to have a clear script yet as to how to deal with such a potential scenario – for example, if the defeat leads to a power struggle within Russia or loss of control over nuclear weapons, and, of course, a wave of refugees fleeing the fighting.
In the absence of a clear exit model, it seems the war will continue in 2023 and will affect the world, which will have to adapt.
