The leaders of NATO and member countries get ready for the official photo at the March 24th summit in Brussels (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images) Part of the conventional wisdom on the Russo-Ukraine war is that a crisis that began with Putin looking for ways to weaken NATO and cast doubt on its resolve has ended up strengthening the alliance. The US has shown leadership and kept the alliance together. Countries that have lagged behind on their defence spending are urgently reviewing their budgets. Additional forces are being deployed to the front-line states bordering Russia. Finland and Sweden are now seriously considering joining the alliance. While Ukraine has been made painfully aware that it would have been better off if it had been a member of NATO, as it would then have got the benefit of more direct military intervention, at least the alliance refused to countenance Russian demands that the door be closed on membership forever. After a slow start vital military assistance is now flowing into Ukraine.
Thank you for these posts, which continue to shed welcome light on the geopolitical and military ins and outs of a complex and evolving situation.
A question: is it possible that Russia's humiliation on the battlefield could prompt Putin and his cadre to invest money and effort in revitalising the country's armed forces, so that NATO could in fact be left facing the prospect of a strengthened Russian military in the medium term?
"The alliance had a near-death experience when Donald Trump was President. Trump disliked alliances in general and NATO in particular" - This fails to understand Trump and his art of the deal style. He suggested he would walk away from NATO because Germany and many other countries were taking USA, UK & the Baltics for a ride by not spending the 2% agreed. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k&t=5s & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eupg0-vjdHQ) Trump wasn't intending doing this he just wanted to jolt the Germans et al into action. Trump has been proved so right about this and Merkel & Schroeder's disastrous legacy lives on. " If NATO members had listened to Trump instead of their smug indifference then Putin would not have invaded. On Trump's relationship with Russia, the lies from the Clinton false files basically stifled his dealing with Russia and for that she and many others should go to prison.
I would have thought an indefinite conclusion and a "messy ceasefire" was not merely possible but by far the most likely. The Russians have temporarily given up trying to take Kyiv and it's by no means clear it has the resources and competence to pull off a successful offensive in the Donbass. An anti-Russian regime in Kyiv is a certainty in the foreseeable future so Putin and the Russians certainly haven't won. Even if given heavy weapons it's not clear the Ukrainians could expel Russia to its Jan 2022 borders. A fraction of the firepower left to the Russians would inflict heavy casualties and men with low morale may not feel like attacking but they probably feel like shooting back at attackers if it seems the best way of staying alive. Ukraine can't absorb heavy casualties as easily as Russia can. I'd suggest the best plan for Ukraine to win is to set about making the occupation of any conquered section of Ukraine too expensive and painful for the Russians to want to remain. Putin won't be in power forever.
One understanding of Russia (or Soviet Union as it was then), that I took away years ago from a university political science course was that Russia over the centuries had a pattern of coming close to Western Europe and then inevitably pull away. I don't recall what the professor of the class or the author of the book concluded from that observation other than it has lead to war on the continent and terror inside Russia.
Over the past 10 years or so Russia has been a feature in the news from the Syrian war, election interference to troll farms directing social media discourse. The Russian regime was rejecting the Western welcome mat while opening their bank accounts for Western money to pour in. The West thought it was winning. The reality is that the West is more vulnerable to the lure of strong men and kleptocracy than Russia (and other authoritarian countries) is to our open societies and pretty transparent institutions where deep states do not thrive.
Can Russia and the West ever truly be united. The US and Europe seem more likely to let Russia continue to chip away at its sovereignty than the West is likely to change Russia. NATO may make Europe feel safe, but Russia has already penetrated its borders. Can the West take control of the anti-democratic forces fed by Russian propaganda and pro-Russian operatives without sacrificing democracy. Ukraine is a wake up call for the West to see reality and to admit that shopping is not the antidote to totalitarianism. Fight now or fight later but a fight there is going to be.
As NATO countries wish to send weapons to Ukraine, one concern was raised was the risk of a full embarrassing defeat causes Putin to reach for his nuclear or chemical and biological weapons. One way to avoid this would be by managing the flow of weapons and slowing down if necessary. This would cause more civil deaths amongst other consequences. So would this be any significant part of NATO or the UK, decisions as to when to supply arms?
I can’t help but feel that the foundations for the current situation in Ukraine were laid down during the 1990’s with the fall of the Soviet Union and the series of somewhat dubious responses from the West (mainly U.S. driven policy).
Although the James Baker / Mikhail Gorbachev negotiations of 1990 did not expressly promise NATO non-expansion (as Gorbachev has admitted) the 1993 NATO expansion discussions for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were unnecessarily provocative and, as Gorbachev stated, ‘definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990’.
If this was not enough, the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 made clear the Russian mindset and the dangers of NATO expansion - probably why Mrs Merkel blocked the U.S. proposal for Ukrainian membership, as you mention above.
Let us also not overlook the geography of the region. NATO, although greatly expanded is still largely to the west of the Carpathians, a natural obstacle to invasion, natural defence giving strategic advantage and allowing concentration of forces to possible aggression. Barring the pocket of the Pripyat marshes on the Belarusian/Ukrainian border, and crossing the Dnipr river the rest is surely a largely open front?
Beyond this, let us look at what the West was offering Russia as a lesson in trust…. We have the 1991 UNSC Resolution 713 arms embargo on the former Yugoslav Republic. A resolution that France and the Clinton administration broke fairly clearly. The United States was actively involved in the preparation, monitoring and initiation of Operation Storm: the green light from President Clinton was passed on by the US military attache in Zagreb, and the operations were transmitted in real time to the Pentagon. An operation dependent on the U.S. Administration, with U.S. ‘operators’ on the ground in Croatian army uniform, that led to the ethnic cleansing of approx. 200,000 Serbs and the subsequent deaths of an estimated 20,000 Serbs (there has been much rotten about this episode from individual’s opinion the ground, EU monitors (that’s another story of duplicity), Human Rights Watch etc)- one of the first of a ghastly series of major atrocities in the Western Balkans by all sides. The U.N., widely seen as a vehicle for the U.S., took no action and the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia appears a whitewash.
Let us now also consider the background picture to this - the widely published/reported Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992). Why on earth would Russia have trust in the West?
Now just so people don’t assume I’m a Russia apologist, let us also not forget the Budapest Memorandum (1994). Even if, and I say ‘if’, the West drove the spirit of discussions on NATO expansion - an oft’ used trope used in Russia’s aggressive rhetoric - let us not equally forget Russia’s blatant and clear breach of the Budapest Memoradum guaranteeing Ukriane’s security, borders and Sovereignty in the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
The situation is now a grisly semi-proxy war between NATO and Russia, with the Ukrainians yet again, in a historical meat grinder due too Russia’s abhorrent total warfare doctrine. It is difficult to predict where this might end… One must assume (at this time) that Russia will want to drive a solid and robust land corridor from Kharkiv through Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol to the Crimean peninsula. Hold this land either by negotiated settlement or force. The devastated Ukraine little able to offer economic threat thereafter. A messy, occupied, but not controlled, area would not suit Russia or it’s purse, so I would suspect more major atrocities inflicted on the local population - ethnic cleansing.
The difficulty is predicting it’s outcome is driven by the political landscape - what’s is really going on in Russia politically? The Biden administration has handled this better that the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but still appears somewhat slow and unsteady. The EU is still riven with splits, political infighting, looming elections to name a few.
So after all this, looking forward I struggle to see where this might end, except in yet more dire human tragedy and horror. Looking back I still cant lose sight of the poor decisions of the 1990’s.
Thank you for your insights, very much appreciated.
Thank you for these posts, which continue to shed welcome light on the geopolitical and military ins and outs of a complex and evolving situation.
A question: is it possible that Russia's humiliation on the battlefield could prompt Putin and his cadre to invest money and effort in revitalising the country's armed forces, so that NATO could in fact be left facing the prospect of a strengthened Russian military in the medium term?
"The alliance had a near-death experience when Donald Trump was President. Trump disliked alliances in general and NATO in particular" - This fails to understand Trump and his art of the deal style. He suggested he would walk away from NATO because Germany and many other countries were taking USA, UK & the Baltics for a ride by not spending the 2% agreed. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k&t=5s & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eupg0-vjdHQ) Trump wasn't intending doing this he just wanted to jolt the Germans et al into action. Trump has been proved so right about this and Merkel & Schroeder's disastrous legacy lives on. " If NATO members had listened to Trump instead of their smug indifference then Putin would not have invaded. On Trump's relationship with Russia, the lies from the Clinton false files basically stifled his dealing with Russia and for that she and many others should go to prison.
I would have thought an indefinite conclusion and a "messy ceasefire" was not merely possible but by far the most likely. The Russians have temporarily given up trying to take Kyiv and it's by no means clear it has the resources and competence to pull off a successful offensive in the Donbass. An anti-Russian regime in Kyiv is a certainty in the foreseeable future so Putin and the Russians certainly haven't won. Even if given heavy weapons it's not clear the Ukrainians could expel Russia to its Jan 2022 borders. A fraction of the firepower left to the Russians would inflict heavy casualties and men with low morale may not feel like attacking but they probably feel like shooting back at attackers if it seems the best way of staying alive. Ukraine can't absorb heavy casualties as easily as Russia can. I'd suggest the best plan for Ukraine to win is to set about making the occupation of any conquered section of Ukraine too expensive and painful for the Russians to want to remain. Putin won't be in power forever.
At this point, what are your definitions of "victory" and "defeat"?
One understanding of Russia (or Soviet Union as it was then), that I took away years ago from a university political science course was that Russia over the centuries had a pattern of coming close to Western Europe and then inevitably pull away. I don't recall what the professor of the class or the author of the book concluded from that observation other than it has lead to war on the continent and terror inside Russia.
Over the past 10 years or so Russia has been a feature in the news from the Syrian war, election interference to troll farms directing social media discourse. The Russian regime was rejecting the Western welcome mat while opening their bank accounts for Western money to pour in. The West thought it was winning. The reality is that the West is more vulnerable to the lure of strong men and kleptocracy than Russia (and other authoritarian countries) is to our open societies and pretty transparent institutions where deep states do not thrive.
Can Russia and the West ever truly be united. The US and Europe seem more likely to let Russia continue to chip away at its sovereignty than the West is likely to change Russia. NATO may make Europe feel safe, but Russia has already penetrated its borders. Can the West take control of the anti-democratic forces fed by Russian propaganda and pro-Russian operatives without sacrificing democracy. Ukraine is a wake up call for the West to see reality and to admit that shopping is not the antidote to totalitarianism. Fight now or fight later but a fight there is going to be.
As NATO countries wish to send weapons to Ukraine, one concern was raised was the risk of a full embarrassing defeat causes Putin to reach for his nuclear or chemical and biological weapons. One way to avoid this would be by managing the flow of weapons and slowing down if necessary. This would cause more civil deaths amongst other consequences. So would this be any significant part of NATO or the UK, decisions as to when to supply arms?
I can’t help but feel that the foundations for the current situation in Ukraine were laid down during the 1990’s with the fall of the Soviet Union and the series of somewhat dubious responses from the West (mainly U.S. driven policy).
Although the James Baker / Mikhail Gorbachev negotiations of 1990 did not expressly promise NATO non-expansion (as Gorbachev has admitted) the 1993 NATO expansion discussions for Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were unnecessarily provocative and, as Gorbachev stated, ‘definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990’.
If this was not enough, the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 made clear the Russian mindset and the dangers of NATO expansion - probably why Mrs Merkel blocked the U.S. proposal for Ukrainian membership, as you mention above.
Let us also not overlook the geography of the region. NATO, although greatly expanded is still largely to the west of the Carpathians, a natural obstacle to invasion, natural defence giving strategic advantage and allowing concentration of forces to possible aggression. Barring the pocket of the Pripyat marshes on the Belarusian/Ukrainian border, and crossing the Dnipr river the rest is surely a largely open front?
Beyond this, let us look at what the West was offering Russia as a lesson in trust…. We have the 1991 UNSC Resolution 713 arms embargo on the former Yugoslav Republic. A resolution that France and the Clinton administration broke fairly clearly. The United States was actively involved in the preparation, monitoring and initiation of Operation Storm: the green light from President Clinton was passed on by the US military attache in Zagreb, and the operations were transmitted in real time to the Pentagon. An operation dependent on the U.S. Administration, with U.S. ‘operators’ on the ground in Croatian army uniform, that led to the ethnic cleansing of approx. 200,000 Serbs and the subsequent deaths of an estimated 20,000 Serbs (there has been much rotten about this episode from individual’s opinion the ground, EU monitors (that’s another story of duplicity), Human Rights Watch etc)- one of the first of a ghastly series of major atrocities in the Western Balkans by all sides. The U.N., widely seen as a vehicle for the U.S., took no action and the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia appears a whitewash.
Let us now also consider the background picture to this - the widely published/reported Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992). Why on earth would Russia have trust in the West?
Now just so people don’t assume I’m a Russia apologist, let us also not forget the Budapest Memorandum (1994). Even if, and I say ‘if’, the West drove the spirit of discussions on NATO expansion - an oft’ used trope used in Russia’s aggressive rhetoric - let us not equally forget Russia’s blatant and clear breach of the Budapest Memoradum guaranteeing Ukriane’s security, borders and Sovereignty in the 2014 annexation of Crimea.
The situation is now a grisly semi-proxy war between NATO and Russia, with the Ukrainians yet again, in a historical meat grinder due too Russia’s abhorrent total warfare doctrine. It is difficult to predict where this might end… One must assume (at this time) that Russia will want to drive a solid and robust land corridor from Kharkiv through Luhansk, Donetsk, Mariupol to the Crimean peninsula. Hold this land either by negotiated settlement or force. The devastated Ukraine little able to offer economic threat thereafter. A messy, occupied, but not controlled, area would not suit Russia or it’s purse, so I would suspect more major atrocities inflicted on the local population - ethnic cleansing.
The difficulty is predicting it’s outcome is driven by the political landscape - what’s is really going on in Russia politically? The Biden administration has handled this better that the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but still appears somewhat slow and unsteady. The EU is still riven with splits, political infighting, looming elections to name a few.
So after all this, looking forward I struggle to see where this might end, except in yet more dire human tragedy and horror. Looking back I still cant lose sight of the poor decisions of the 1990’s.
Thank you for your insights, very much appreciated.
Cordially,
C