Is Russia's open invasion of Ukraine, which has already become the destruction of that country, just such a decisive impulse?
At the beginning of the invasion, it seemed that an irrevocable, tectonic break had taken place, both in Western societies and at the political top. The debate on whether to impose only personal sanctions on the regime or sectoral sanctions aimed at stifling and destroying the entire economy, from which society as a whole would also suffer, was over in an instant. It has been openly stated that the ultimate goal must be the complete isolation of Russia in order to provoke the collapse of the regime from within.
However, this breakthrough only came after it became clear that not only was Ukraine not going to disintegrate and be occupied in two or three days, but, on the contrary, Russia's own army was beginning to drown in its own bloodbath.
But now, as the war reaches the end of its first month, there are growing signs that the rift is probably not as deep as it seemed.
Voices have again been raised in both the mainstream 'old' and 'new' West that the West itself, with its reckless expansion of NATO, is partly responsible for this war, that the key now is to 'give the Kremlin a way out' by avoiding further escalation, and that Putin alone is to blame for the whole affair, and that the Russian society that has raised and largely continues to raise Putin is not to blame.
It is the same opera as the revived cries that dependence on Russian oil and gas is simply an inevitable reality. There is also the fear of saying bluntly that Ukraine may become a member of the European Union at some point, even decades from now.
One symptom of the naive belief that the moment of truth has not yet arrived is the internal conflicts over whether the West and NATO should close the skies over Ukraine.
The West is accused of complicity with a regime that is killing civilians because NATO aviation and air defences do not immediately go to war with Russian forces and start a nuclear poker game.
These accusations and the apocalyptic predictions that NATO will also betray the Baltic States if Russia attacks them are made in spite of the massive military aid, both visible and non-visible, flowing from the West to Ukraine.
However, it is fair to accept that the grotesque trampling over warplanes or even air defence systems is an expression of strategic disruption and a signal to the Russian and Belarusian regimes. It may indeed encourage these regimes to launch some kind of 'hybrid' terrorist provocation against a NATO country in order to test the boundaries or simply to take revenge.
Especially since a direct military clash of any scale between the West and Russia is unlikely to be avoided sooner or later. Simply because the Kremlin regime sees escalation as the only path it will pursue.
At this point, it is safe to assume that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has reached a relative tactical pause.
Moscow's main objective, which it is desperately pursuing these very days, is the occupation of the Donbas port city of Mariupol.
This first major victory, albeit with enormous sacrifices, seems likely to be achieved by the Kremlin and will be celebrated with even more demonstrative massacres than hitherto. This may be followed by an attempt to encircle the Ukrainian military group in the Donbas and the restoration of the entire eastern edge of the country. And then a temporary respite in preparation for the storming of Kyiv and other major cities and the simulation of negotiations.
It is true that negotiations, even if Kyiv were to promise to give up its NATO aspirations, cannot succeed in principle, because Moscow's aim is not to negotiate but to wage war.
Therefore, this war, which has brought Europe back not only to the Iron Curtain but also to the days of the Cold War, will last as long as the Kremlin regime. After all, when it is unable to continue the war, it will mean the end of the regime itself.
