Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
PVW said:
We need to walk that line between avoiding the sort of neo-domino theory the justified disasters such as Vietnam while remaining a reliable partner for our democratic allies. I don't think Ukraine should, realistically, ever be part of NATO, but a Russia that feels comfortable overthrowing democratic governments at very borders of the EU is not something we can just ignore.
This seems like as good a plan for threading this needle as any. I really don't know if Putin thinks his manufactured crisis is working to his advantage at this point. Certainly he has the West scrambling, but he has also reminded NATO why it exists.
Russia certainly has understandable concerns about NATO expanding into former USSR territories circa 1937. Beyond that, however, it becomes more complicated.
I do agree with George Kennan's observation that.
“The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other.”
Of course, this can be said of the U.S. in our hemisphere to some degree although we have been better behaved in this regard than we were 50 or 100 years ago.
The other problem with Putin is that like so many national leaders - ours included from time to time - he needs to feed the beast of jingoism to help him maintain his grip on power.
At the end of the day, we need to make sure that any attack on Ukraine is expensive for Russia.
Well, I guess as WW I began by accident, why should we expect WW III to start over anything remotely intelligent? Simply tell Russia Ukraine is a Neutral Zone and be done with this idiocy.
dave said:
Well, I guess as WW I began by accident, why should we expect WW III to start over anything remotely intelligent? Simply tell Russia Ukraine is a Neutral Zone and be done with this idiocy.
Ukraine doesn't seem to have the option to be a true neutral zone. Russia wants Ukraine to be a vassal state like Belarus. The current Ukraine crisis started with the overthrow of the Yanukovych government who was against closer integration with Europe and wanted closer economic ties to Russia instead.
The threat of escalation miscalculation is real and serious, but comparisons to WW I are not completely helpful. I don't think that WW I was exactly accidental. If the Ukraine crisis spins out of control then I would say it is accidental. I don't think we will see crowds of citizens cheering their soldiers as they march of to war this time around.
Germany had plans to go to war. It was an accident that those plans were set in motion by events in the balkans, but the war itself was certainly not accidental.
PVW said:
Germany had plans to go to war. It was an accident that those plans were set in motion by events in the balkans, but the war itself was certainly not accidental.
All the major powers had war plans.
tjohn said:
All the major powers had war plans.
Ergo WWI wasn't an accident, even if the particular trigger was unplanned.
tjohn said:
All the major powers had war plans.
There's a difference between war plans and plans to go to war.
The US had plans for a war with Britain even though it had no plans to go to war with Britain.
This is a pretty grim situation that will be lose-lose unless diplomacy wins the day.
It feels/seems like the U.S./NATO can't let Russia invade Ukraine. But it feels/seems even more like we can't go to war with Russia over friggin Ukraine.
So what to do if Russia invades? Probably the least bad outcome will be Biden putting on some kind of half-arse sanctions or something but not actually striking. He'd look weak, but he'd save some face by taking some action.
The alternative ie war with Russia, strikes me as potentially really really bad. As opposed to just kind of / a little bit bad.
Smedley said:
This is a pretty grim situation that will be lose-lose unless diplomacy wins the day.
It feels/seems like the U.S./NATO can't let Russia invade Ukraine. But it feels/seems even more like we can't go to war with Russia over friggin Ukraine.
So what to do if Russia invades? Probably the least bad outcome will be Biden putting on some kind of half-arse sanctions or something but not actually striking. He'd look weak, but he'd save some face by taking some action.
The alternative ie war with Russia, strikes me as potentially really really bad. As opposed to just kind of / a little bit bad.
Sanctions and a much larger permanent NATO presence in the Baltic States, something along the lines of the US presence in South Korea.
Biden is apparently thinking of deploying troops
That seems like a bad idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/23/us/politics/biden-troops-nato-ukraine.html
NATO isn't going to war over the Ukraine. However, there are sanction options heretofore not used that can cause Russia a lot of pain. Some of the sanctions cut both ways and some of our allies may not be too wild about them.
drummerboy said:
Biden is apparently thinking of deploying troops
That seems like a bad idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/23/us/politics/biden-troops-nato-ukraine.html
agree although these would be to NATO countries, not Ukraine and I think they would be of the tripwire variety meaning that an attack on the Baltics means direct engagement with U.S. forces.
I'm kind of starting to wonder if offensive operations along the lines of the major armored offensives of WW II simply won't work any more against prepared defenses. Offensive options require armor, but anti-armor weapons are so much better than in the past that the cost of offensive operations may be prohibitive.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/30/army-pentagon-nagorno-karabakh-drones/
tjohn said:
agree although these would be to NATO countries, not Ukraine and I think they would be of the tripwire variety meaning that an attack on the Baltics means direct engagement with U.S. forces.
I'm kind of starting to wonder if offensive operations along the lines of the major armored offensives of WW II simply won't work any more against prepared defenses. Offensive options require armor, but anti-armor weapons are so much better than in the past that the cost of offensive operations may be prohibitive.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/30/army-pentagon-nagorno-karabakh-drones/
Has any major power fought against a major military power in the last several decades? I think militaries whose experience has been having air superiority in the Caucuses or the Euphrates against opponents who rely on ambush and IEDs would have a period of costly adjustment against a modern, equipped force. I hope that adjustment period remains far, far into the indefinite future.
"NATO announced Monday that European allies were deploying added ships and fighter jets to Eastern Europe and putting new forces on standby in response to Russia’s continued military mobilization along the Ukrainian border.
“Denmark is sending a frigate to the Baltic Sea and is set to deploy four F-16 fighter jets to Lithuania in support of NATO’s long-standing air-policing mission in the region,” the alliance said in a statement. “Spain is sending ships to join NATO naval forces and is considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria. France has expressed its readiness to send troops to Romania under NATO command.”
The alliance also said that the Netherlands was putting “a ship and land-based units on standby for NATO’s Response Force,” and as of April would send two F-35 fighters to Bulgaria to support the alliance’s air-policing activities in the Black Sea region."
..........
"As part of Russia’s recent ultimatums, the Kremlin has demanded last Friday a raft of security guarantees including the withdrawal of NATO forces from countries that were not members of the alliance prior to 1997 — namely Bulgaria and Romania. The redeployments indicate that NATO is not only rejecting Russia’s request but, in fact, increasing its presence, as it did in 2014 following Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea."
PVW said:
tjohn said:
agree although these would be to NATO countries, not Ukraine and I think they would be of the tripwire variety meaning that an attack on the Baltics means direct engagement with U.S. forces.
I'm kind of starting to wonder if offensive operations along the lines of the major armored offensives of WW II simply won't work any more against prepared defenses. Offensive options require armor, but anti-armor weapons are so much better than in the past that the cost of offensive operations may be prohibitive.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/30/army-pentagon-nagorno-karabakh-drones/
Has any major power fought against a major military power in the last several decades? I think militaries whose experience has been having air superiority in the Caucuses or the Euphrates against opponents who rely on ambush and IEDs would have a period of costly adjustment against a modern, equipped force. I hope that adjustment period remains far, far into the indefinite future.
In 1973, I believe that the IDF (and by extension, the U.S. and NATO and probably the USSR) was shocked by the destructiveness and resource intensiveness of the Yom Kippur War. And the lethality of weapons has only increased since that time.
So, yes, I think there is reason to hope that offensive operations against a prepared opponent will be prohibitively expensive.
tjohn said:
In 1973, I believe that the IDF (and by extension, the U.S. and NATO and probably the USSR) was shocked by the destructiveness and resource intensiveness of the Yom Kippur War. And the lethality of weapons has only increased since that time.
So, yes, I think there is reason to hope that offensive operations against a prepared opponent will be prohibitively expensive.
Who is the "prepared opponent"?
GoSlugs said:
Who is the "prepared opponent"?
Both. Neither NATO nor Russia would enjoy the results.
GoSlugs said:
tjohn said:
In 1973, I believe that the IDF (and by extension, the U.S. and NATO and probably the USSR) was shocked by the destructiveness and resource intensiveness of the Yom Kippur War. And the lethality of weapons has only increased since that time.
So, yes, I think there is reason to hope that offensive operations against a prepared opponent will be prohibitively expensive.
Who is the "prepared opponent"?
I assume that if Russia invades, they will be prepared and will apply a healthy dose of shock and awe. Whether Ukraine is prepared with anti-tank missiles and relatively cheap drones (see Azerbaijan-Armenia battles of last year) remains to be seen.
It seems to me that the most relevant battle here would be Battle of Norfolk given the disparity of forces and equipment combined with the likelihood of Russian control of the airspace.
GoSlugs said:
It seems to me that the most relevant battle here would be Battle of Norfolk given the disparity of forces and equipment combined with the likelihood of Russian control of the airspace.
The balance of forces certainly is lopsided but I think Ukraine might have access to some higher quality anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons.
I personally would not like to see Russia roll into Ukraine, nor would my Russian friend or my Ukrainian friends who live in Irvington. We all know if Putin over runs Ukraine his forces will overwhelm the Ukrainian military in short order. But it won’t be the end of it, the Ukrainians will be a determined foe. My friend who returned from Kiev about two months ago says they are already equipping citizens with military gear. They will very well continue the struggle asymmetrically for as long as it takes. Also there will be no shortage of support from their neighbors, in terms of volunteers and arms.
Her son is enlisted in the army since Putin took Crimea, and I’m afraid she’s not going to fare well if war breaks out. She’s worried sick. War is ugly.
Jaytee said:
I personally would not like to see Russia roll into Ukraine, nor would my Russian friend or my Ukrainian friends who live in Irvington. We all know if Putin over runs Ukraine his forces will overwhelm the Ukrainian military in short order. But it won’t be the end of it, the Ukrainians will be a determined foe. My friend who returned from Kiev about two months ago says they are already equipping citizens with military gear. They will very well continue the struggle asymmetrically for as long as it takes. Also there will be no shortage of support from their neighbors, in terms of volunteers and arms.
Her son is enlisted in the army since Putin took Crimea, and I’m afraid she’s not going to fare well if war breaks out. She’s worried sick. War is ugly.
Politically, I think Russia is a bit like us with an internal struggle between nativist fascists and more progressive groups. I don't know how the fascists feel about killing their Ukrainian cousins, but I find credible the articles that say that the average Russian isn't too pleased at the prospect of Russians fighting Ukrainians.
This is all about Vlad trying to grow back the Russian Empire. Ukraine can't join NATO while there are unresolved conflicts (Crimean, secessionist eastern provinces) and Vlad is fully aware of that fact. Vlad needs to beat the nativist drums to secure his power.
tjohn said:
Politically, I think Russia is a bit like us with an internal struggle between nativist fascists and more progressive groups. I don't know how the fascists feel about killing their Ukrainian cousins, but I find credible the articles that say that the average Russian isn't too pleased at the prospect of Russians fighting Ukrainians.
This is all about Vlad trying to grow back the Russian Empire. Ukraine can't join NATO while there are unresolved conflicts (Crimean, secessionist eastern provinces) and Vlad is fully aware of that fact. Vlad needs to beat the nativist drums to secure his power.
you seem to fully understand the dynamics playing out here. You are absolutely correct.
I was responding to tjohn's comment on direct engagement with US/NATO forces. That would be horrendously costly for both Russia and NATO, which is probably why it never happened throughout the entirety of the cold war.
I can't really guess how Ukraine would fare against Russia. I suppose part of it depends on how well supplied by NATO they'll be. For Putin to be seriously contemplating an invasion, he has to be betting that the answer is "not well supplied" or else "not supplied quickly enough," as a drawn out war on the border of the NATO alliance would, at the least, spur the supplying of Ukraine with advanced weaponry.
This is a pretty good piece on the roots of the Ukraine crisis.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-warning-ukraine-decades-west-202059918.html
A BIPARTISAN take on sanctions from The Dispatch today…
Can Sanctions Stop Vladimir Putin?
A Russian buildup of troops on the border of Ukraine has the Biden administration and Congress scrambling on how best to deter a renewed Russian invasion. But for weeks, lawmakers have failed to reach consensus on sanctions or other means of dissuasion, and experts and policymakers are questioning whether traditional diplomatic tools have lost their effectiveness.
In recent weeks, Russia has stationed qR73rO82xNCK3Zt3ojHSHVdfgTVwMl7gfUoPxE7QI0saTkdJMhpCopNfA-_P0QG7PZxoXsa7ELFt7tmjePnLr_7DDheMCEDC1pqbRADZ8Zl6Lvgba_fimsI-LFum0hbSpTytr83JpQVJuODmy5wd0F8ElXLGP1WwkuXyMEPXmwD7H8gP8wHBeo0upC7KizwoJRTPtB0IHIB1BFynohOcYE1bl2r11BlWN13v8Do9-YWw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">up to 100,000 troops along its border, sparking global concerns that it plans to invade neighboring Ukraine. The Biden administration is braced for what may come next: In a press conference Wednesday, President Joe Biden said of Russian leader Vladimir Putin that, “my guess is he will move in.” He added though, that Putin has “never seen sanctions like the ones I’ve promised will be imposed if he moves.”
Since the turn of the century, sanctions have become a go-to weapon when the United States has sought to quell bad actors on the geopolitical stage. But experts and lawmakers alike warn that sanctions alone may fall short of de-escalating this situation. And threats of economic punishment thus far haven’t been enough to get Putin to stand down.
“It’s very hard to put the burden of preventing an invasion from Russia all on the back of sanctions,” Juan Zarate, a senior advisor at the bipartisan think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Dispatch. “We’ve seen in the context of Crimea, at least, that sanctions alone can’t stop Russian tanks. We should certainly use them or threaten to use them. We should think about what our escalatory strategy is. We should be doing a whole host of things to impose costs on Russia.”
For that reason, the Pentagon has placed 8,500 troops on heightened alert that they may be sent to Europe to assist in defending North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. Officials stress they’ve not decided to deploy troops to Eastern Europe yet, and Biden has ruled out direct engagement to defend Ukraine from Russia. But the administration is contemplating more powerful deterrence options since diplomatic talks have produced no results.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are building support for a package of sanctions that would hit Russia in the event that Putin green-lights another invasion.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, the United States expanded and formalized economic tools as a way to pressure terrorist groups and other bad actors. First introduced in a limited fashion, the use of such sanctions has expanded as they have become a recognized and respected tool of financial warfare.
The United States’ use of sanctions has grown by over 900 percent since 2000, according to the Treasury Department.
“The way I thought about it when I was at Treasury was you’re not going to be able to stop all commerce, all financing, every last dollar that a bad guy gets access to or has at his command,” Zarate said. “But you can make it harder, costlier, and riskier for America’s enemies to raise and move money around the world.”
Zarate authored a book, Treasury’s War, based on his time working on sanctions policy in the George W. Bush administration. While he called sanctions “incredibly powerful tools,” Zarate emphasized that their effectiveness depends on their implementation.
His warning to policymakers: Authoritarian states, especially those engaging in high profile geopolitical maneuvers tied to national identity or other deep interests, are likely willing to bear the cost of financial punishments from the United States, Europe, and other major economies. That dynamic is coming into starker relief, as Russia threatens Ukraine, and China has become more aggressive toward Taiwan in recent months.
“What policymakers have to consider is: What’s the cost-benefit analysis that the Russians or any other target is taking into account, and can sanctions help with that calculus? It’s likely, but can it do that alone?” Zarate said.
He listed a range of both positive and punitive measures that U.S. lawmakers can pair with sanctions, such as using export controls, stiffening enforcement of anti-money laundering measures, rules of disclosure in capital markets, and working with the private sector and global allies.
Administration officials are indeed considering hitting Russia with a slew of export controls if it invades Ukraine, the Washington Post reported Monday. The controls would affect Russia’s major banks and strategic industries such as its aerospace, maritime, and technology sectors. The controls in question would specifically apply to semiconductors, which most modern technology depends on, from cars to smartphones to video game consoles. The United States would also ask other countries and companies to stop exporting such goods to Russia.
The Treasury Department examined its own uses of sanctions in an October report, which focuses on modernizing the Treasury’s use of sanctions to tighten effectiveness going forward.
The report highlighted emerging challenges that could undermine sanctions’ efficiency. Among them: adversaries seeking to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar, cybercrime, digital currencies, and alternative payment platforms. “These technologies offer malign actors opportunities to hold and transfer funds outside the traditional dollar-based financial system,” the report reads.
The report recommended tailoring sanctions to make sure they are linked “to a clear policy objective.” To be most effective, sanctions should be easily understood, clearly communicated, enforceable, and reversible in response to changing behavior. Where possible, sanctions should be coordinated with allies to “magnify economic and political impact.”
Earlier this month, the Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan think tank, said that the Biden administration has carved out a “more cautious approach toward leading foreign policy strategy with the use of sanctions.”
Most notably, Biden chose not to impose sanctions on entities involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, frustrating lawmakers of both parties last year. As we previously covered in Uphill, both Republicans and Democrats have skewered the 750-mile natural gas conduit, which connects Russia to Germany by way of the Baltic Sea. They fear it will heighten Germany’s reliance on Russian energy and make Europe more vulnerable to Russian political ploys. (Read this morning’s excellent TMD about Germany’s place in all of this here.)
Biden said he waived the sanctions because German leaders wanted the pipeline and he was attempting to boost the U.S.-German relationship.
Last week, Senate Democrats blocked a bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican from Texas, that would have imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Instead, the Biden administration and leading Democratic lawmakers have been rallying behind a bill spearheaded by Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez.
The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022 would impose a punishing round of sanctions on key areas of Russia’s economy, particularly its banking and financial sector. The legislation also calls for the administration to review the sanctions it has waived on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. But the bill is contingent on an invasion and direct escalation of hostilities on Moscow’s part, and enforcing the sanctions would require a declaration from the president.
Some Republican lawmakers have argued that the United States shouldn’t wait for an invasion to move forward with punitive measures. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has proposed legislation that would directly sanction high-ranking Russian officials, including Putin, and prominent Russian companies. A group of GOP lawmakers has also brought forward a bill that would declare Russia a state sponsor of terrorism if it invades.
With the situation worsening, lawmakers may be more eager to find a path forward. According to Politico’s Andrew Desiderio, Menendez plans to use the recess week to work toward consensus on the legislation.
A delegation of seven U.S. senators visited Kyiv last week in an effort to show America’s solidarity with the country during the tense situation. According to Ukraine’s government, President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed to the lawmakers a need for “a preventive package of sanctions against Russia to counter aggression.”
Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi who was on the trip, told The Dispatch that Putin’s aggression “has to be met with a forceful response or it will invite the same questioning of U.S. credibility that followed his attack on Crimea.”
“We should look for creative ways to arm our Ukrainian friends to the teeth and consider forward positioning NATO forces to deter Russia. The world is watching this test of our resolve,” he said.
Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who also went on the trip, agrees. He told Desiderio the United States should conduct a “massive airlift” of lethal weapons to Ukraine, and “we should impose those sanctions sooner rather than later, not wait for the invasion to start.”
Another bipartisan group of lawmakers has departed on another trip to Brussels and Kyiv this week, where they will meet with officials from NATO and European Union member states to discuss European security.
Moscow has denied nefarious intent toward its neighbor, even as trains hauling tanks and missiles steam toward Ukraine’s border, something diplomatic talks have not halted. Putin has also issued a list of demands to forestall further escalation. Among its core conditions, Moscow wants NATO to agree not to offer membership to Ukraine and Georgia, two former Soviet-era republics. It also wants NATO to scale back its military posture in Central and Eastern Europe to be further away from Russia’s border. NATO has called these conditions non-starters.
The situation is familiar: When Biden was vice president in 2014, Russia seized Crimea and backed a separatist effort in two Ukrainian provinces and fighting estimated to have caused over 13,000 deaths.
“No one wants war with Russia. But there have to be serious consequences if one nation plans to invade another,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, after attending a Defense Department briefing last week on the situation. “The costs must include stinging sanctions against Putin and his closest cronies, but that’s not enough.”
mtierney said:
A BIPARTISAN take on sanctions from The Dispatch today…
That sure makes the situation sound complicated, but I have faith that you can already see what’s best and will point out Biden’s faults no matter the outcome.
DS, I really do not have to point out Biden’s faults — he does an excellent job on that score himself.
A link would have sufficed. Nothing much new in that article.
The threat of sanctions will unlucky deter Putin. I believe his main goal will be to flood the area with enough propaganda to help justify the actions.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
We need to walk that line between avoiding the sort of neo-domino theory the justified disasters such as Vietnam while remaining a reliable partner for our democratic allies. I don't think Ukraine should, realistically, ever be part of NATO, but a Russia that feels comfortable overthrowing democratic governments at very borders of the EU is not something we can just ignore.