Russia sinking in Ukraine Quagmire
Russia finally got in touch with bitter reality on Ukraine. Since last many years and months, Russia made assertions like Ukraine isn't a real country. Russia carved out Crimea in (almost) bloodless military ops in 2014 followed by a referendum to assimilate it into Russia. The Guerilla warfare dragged on for 8 years in the East Ukraine. This year, Russia decided to make a much bolder move - to take over entire Ukraine. What happened next in last 3 months is well known to us. The massive casualties of Russian military, including the Generals who promised a quick victory in Ukraine. A lot of Russian military hardware (Ships, tanks, trucks, armored vehicles etc) got destroyed in battles. And immense damage to Russian economy with collapsing industry, demographics mayhem, isolation from global markets.
Destroyed Russian Tanks outside Kiev
What went wrong for Russia and Why? Convergence of various factors behind Russia's decision to start Ukraine war
Russia's imminent failure was on the cards and everyone warned about it. There was some opposition about Ukraine operation inside Russian military itself but Kremlin and clique around Putin had different views. It's still a mystery about what motivated Putin to embark on such foolhardy adventure. Putin who was once believed to be cunning, cold and calculating chose to take such a reckless decision that defies logic.
There are various theories about Russia's war on Ukraine. Putin is delusional and cutoff from reality (1, 2, 3). Putin's clique was expecting a quick victory with Russian flag flying over Kiev in matter of weeks. Ukraine military was expected to surrender in a matter of days, followed by a fast coup in Ukraine Govt to overthrow Zelensky. Russia may have planned to install a puppet (someone like Yanukovich) Prime minister who would complete the process of assimilation of Ukraine into Russia. I admit that i was also skeptical about sustainability of Ukraine military against full scale Russian attack. I also suspected that there may be a quick coup once Russia launches full scale assault on Ukraine. But that never materialized. Why?
The situation with Ukraine today is different from 2014. US has been training Ukrainian military since last 8 years and to prepare for possibility of Russian attack. Past Ukraine regimes of Yanukovich and Pro Russian leaders had packed Ukrainian military & administrative position with Pro Russian elements. In last 8 years, Ukraine military has been restructured and rebuilt. It's no secret that all kinds of US PMCs are operational in Ukraine to assist Ukraine forces against Russian aggression. And US and NATO has openly started financial aid and weapon supplies support to Ukraine to sustain against Russian aggression. Everything short of official policy of "boots on the ground" - US has done it all to support Ukraine. While US has been supporting Ukraine with military, financial and other ways, its undeniable that Ukrainian forces are doing a lot to defend against Russian aggression. US training of Ukrainian military in last 8 years paid off.
It is difficult to speculate on why Putin regime embarked on this misadventure given all the odds stacked against them. What was rationale behind their delusional thinking? Among various theories is that Putin had exaggerated beliefs of Russia's strength and diminished view of Ukraine's capability and NATO unity. There may also be some sort of spiritual basis and messianic beliefs in Kremlin elites as they perceive themselves as ideologically superior than "decaying west". There's an interesting overlap of Kremlin elitists thinking with orthodoxy and concept of "Moscow - The third Rome". The narrative is that west has ran astray from conservative values and Russia is the rightful heir to be the hegemonic power. While orthodoxy has been a propaganda tool but its possible that some Kremlin elites do genuinely believe in this non sense. After all, delusional thinking is often backed by some rigid nonsensical belief system.
Another thing worth contemplating is why Putin attacked Ukraine now. Putin, an officer of KGB, is understandably unfavorable to American world order. His upbringing in cold war has naturally shaped his thinking, center to which is restoring Russian sphere of influence. Putin has been in rule for most part of last two decades but he did not launch a frontal military assault as we saw in Ukraine. Some analysts speculate that Putin is not in right frame of mind due to poor health (theories about him having Parkinson's, cancer or other serious illness). Another plausible theory is that Putin got emboldened by recent Trump Presidency. With chaotic Trump regime that paralyzed US Govt in previous 4 years, Putin may have got the confidence that America (decayed west) is sinking in its internal political crisis and thus incapable to deal with war situation in Europe. So there are variety of factors that converged in Putin's decision to start Ukraine war.
Rocket rattling and Nuclear threats - Dead man's bluff or real craziness of Russian elites? - Has US recognized the bluff? - Madman doctrine of threatening Nuclear strike
As Russia's military forces are taking the beating, Russia is turning to two things. First is using advanced weapon systems like Hyper-sonic missiles, mindlessly bombing cities to destroy infrastructure and killing civilians. Second thing is issuing Nuclear threats to Europe and America promising to convert everything into radioactive ash. Destruction of Ukrainian cities is a sad reality and Nuclear threats are abhorrent behavior of Kremlin. But underlying these threats is hidden the weakness and defeat of Russia. The use of advanced weapons like hyper-sonic missiles isn't going to change the calculus of Ukraine war as its urban warfare and street fighting where missiles won't give tactical advantage. The basic failure of Russian military is that its hugely under-resourced in terms of manpower to take over a large country like Ukraine. Add to that the failures of Russian logistics, obsolete military hardware, battle readiness, low morale and poor planning.
The initial Russian attempt to take Kiev was a failure and this was followed by counter offensives from Ukrainian forces. At this point, Russia cannot achieve any strategic goals in Ukraine. Nuclear threats are made to cover up for humiliating defeats. Elaborating a little more on Nuclear weapons. US and USSR figured out many decades ago that Nuclear weapons are useful only as a deterrence. Game theory was a strategy used by both powers to maintain a balance of power of MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine. Among other things, a part of this strategy was giving an impression to rival superpower that our leader is a madman who is ready to kill millions in a Nuclear strike. Nuclear threats were (indirectly) made as a bluff to instill fear in rival superpower that you are irrational & unreasonable (inhuman) regime, ready to wipe out the foes if needed.
A scene from Russian film
Dead man's bluff is a Russian dark comedy film about two sadistic killers for hire. They kill without hesitation and when they capture their foes alive, they force them to play Russian Roulette. One of the killer carries a book folder with him who places it on side of his head before pulling the trigger. Later its revealed that the folder has concealed metal plate (you have to see the scene to get it). So the killers act crazy to make their foes play Russian roulette while killers are hedging their safety - it's a bluff which these sadistic killers enjoy as their victims shoot themselves in roulette.
Russia gave Nuclear threats to Europe and US, warning them of unimaginable consequences if anyone intervene in Ukraine. Germany was initially hesitant to intervene when Russia attacked Ukraine. Germany has delayed its decision to cut Russian Gas imports. German Navy chief said that Putin should be respected (he resigned the same day). French President was doing last minute diplomacy to convince Putin to not start the war (ok, diplomacy isn't a bad thing). While European leaders were getting cold feet about coming war, US was composed. The message from Biden administration was that it's ready to address Russia's concerns (about weapons deployment near its border states etc) but it won't sit idle and watch Russia destroy Ukraine. There will be grave consequences for Russia if it starts the war.
The war started and US responded with everything except officially putting boots on the ground or deploying a no fly zone. It was a sound decision to avoid direct military conflict with Russia as Biden warned that this could start 3rd world war. But everything short of direct military conflict with Russia, US did it. Weapon supplies, financial aid, training & assistance to Ukraine forces and also PMCs (Blackwater types) to help Ukraine defend itself. US Intel was also crucial as it helped Ukrainian forces to strike major targets like Russian cruiser ship and assassination of Russian Generals (1, 2). US figured out Russia's bluffs and didn't hesitate to support Ukraine.
Endgame for Conflict - Avoid a perpetual open ended conflict - Need definite goals and objectives to end the Ukraine war
Ukraine, backed by US & EU, has upper hand in conflict and it's clear that Kiev will not fall. But the war rages on in the East as Russia is trying to salvage some pride by taking full control of Donbas - the regions that have been volatile since 2014 with Donetsk and Luhansk that have been recognized as seceded independent states by Russia. This will be a slow and painful battle for Russia with one step forward, one step back. The plan for a quick victory was the best hope for Russia and once it failed, Russia isn't prepared for protracted conflict that drags on for years (recall Afghanistan). The isolation of Russia, tremendous damage to Russian economy and humiliation on military battleground is already taking a heavy toll.
With Ukraine backed by allies having upper hand, it's time to simultaneously work on some final political solution instead of dragging the conflict endlessly (but be prepared if you have to fight a longer war). The conflict while costing tremendously for Russia is also bad for Ukraine & the region as it keeps the region in instability. While Ukraine forces are fighting tooth and nail against Russians, Ukraine is getting destroyed in the process that will leave permanent scars.
Some things that are clear
1. NATO alliance is strong and united. The combined economic and military power (hard & soft power) of alliance is immense as it brought Russia to its knees in every way - militarily, economically and geopolitically. Russia is a shell of former Soviet union - a force that was once feared to be capable to rundown Europe in a matter of days. Even without a direct military involvement, NATO's indirect assistance to Ukraine was enough to withstand against Russian frontal attack.
2. With recent turn of events, now interestingly, NATO membership for Ukraine do not matter as much. Why? US & NATO has now proven that it will come to help European state if it comes under any aggression. While NATO collective security arrangement means US will officially put boots on the ground to defend a NATO member. But even without NATO membership, US showed that it is ready to go to great lengths to help a European state to fend off Russian aggression.
3. Putin's threats don't scare US & Europe. Ok, we don't want a Nuclear war but that doesn't mean Putin can blackmail and extort things by giving threats. There's now also a lesson for China to think twice about any military adventure against Taiwan or in SE Asia. Military aggression won't be tolerated and there is terrible cost to bear for dictators who embark on adventures. The myths of strongmen are also busted as regimes of dictators like Putin, Xi Jinping, Erdogan etc which delude themselves to be superior than Democratic systems. Until recently, it was said that Russia-China alliance will have significant clout in multipolar world order. Putin-Xi had a close relationship that will challenge the waning American influence in the world. But Russia's blunder in Ukraine now have dented this alliance as Russia is isolated and sinking into Quagmire.
The future of conflict and taking it to conclusion
1. Recently, US has said that its expanding its role in Ukraine. The stated goal is to significantly weaken Russia so that it cannot embark on any future military adventure. My understanding of it is that US is trying to give Russians their version of Vietnam. That is through protracted conflict that will deplete Russian military while destroying its economy. Last thing Russians want is a Quagmire that sucks them into permanent conflict (they already have seen their own Afghanistan).
While NATO should prepare for long term conflict but dragging a conflict in itself should not be a goal. If there are viable options to shut down this conflict, they should be worked upon. Long term conflict while bad for Russia is also bad for Europe and most of all for Ukraine. Ukraine is getting destroyed in the war and region is becoming unstable as conflict drags on. The impact on global economy, disruption of supply chains, the energy crisis and food scarcity are impacts of Ukraine war that are felt worldwide specially poorer nations that export food grains from this region.
2. One possibility is that Putin can be made to back down. Some concessions can be given to Russia. For example, the NATO membership of Ukraine, Finland etc don't really matter as much because NATO has already proven that it will defend Europe even if victim of Russian aggression is a non-NATO member. This is a very important point. So tell Kremlin that Ukraine isn't joining NATO. Finland has formally applied to join NATO. This is another leverage that can be used. Propose to Russia that NATO will not "expand" IF Russia makes immediate withdrawal from Ukraine (emphasis on conditionality). Again, we now know that NATO will act anyway if Russia initiates aggression against NATO's allies even if they are not members. The NATO or not-NATO tag is irrelevant. Give some incentives for Putin that economic sanctions will gradually ease if Russia concedes and withdraw from Ukraine. Otherwise, the isolation of Russia will continue to implode its economy. Make an offer to Kremlin and see how it responds. Don't fall for any deceptions in negotiating with Kremlin and stand firm on demands - any dialogue with Russia must start with withdrawal from occupied territory.
3. Putin and his corrupted clique is irrational and unreasonable. It's likely that they will not negotiate in good faith and continue their deceiving politics. But there's another way out. The giant blunder by Putin has exposed him as grossly incompetent leader that's taking Russia into abyss of destruction. Anti-Putin sentiments are building up in several Russian elite factions. Think of bureaucrats and senior officers in military & Intelligence who know the downright foolishness of Ukraine war. Also think of Russian Oligarchs who are losing their fortune due to western sanctions. These oligarchs are powerful and many of them don't like Putin's Ukraine war as its destroying their ill-gotten wealth.
Some analysts suggest that there's a possibility of a coup in Kremlin to overthrow Putin. If anti-Putin clique sees a (face saver) offer on the table from the west to settle Ukraine situation, Putin may be ousted and new regime will make a deal with the west. This may sound far fetched but dictators often fall this way. It's said that Putin has coup-proofed his regime but such regimes can become unstable in extraordinary circumstances. If the dictator in chief keeps piling up failures and disasters, there's a possibility that he gets deposed. Instability in Putin regime is already visible as various FSB and military officers are being scapegoated for Ukraine failure.
4. Eastern Ukraine is a point of contention which is controlled by Pro Russian separatists (Russia also recognized their independence referendum). There are two ways of looking at this problem. First is that the battle will continue in these areas and Ukraine military might win them over eventually. I doubt it but it's possible. Some analysts also believe that Crimea can be taken back. This is more wishful thinking. There's another way of looking at problem of Donetsk, Luhansk etc.
Lets look at situation which is slightly different. Kashmir is a volatile region between India and Pakistan and both sides claim it entirely while occupying it partially. There has been a long history of secessionist movements in Kashmir backed by Pakistan. After a major war between India and Pakistan in 1971, India gave a decisive defeat to Pakistan. After Pakistan's defeat, the secessionist movements in Kashmir died down (though our foreign & domestic policy failures reignited these movements 2 decades later). After India's victory in 1971, the Indian Govt had tremendous power to dictate Kashmir situation. But Indian Govt played it smartly instead of using brute force against secessionists. A deal was made with key leaders of Secessionist movement. Secessionist leaders were reasonable enough so they realized that it's in their best interest to work with Indian Govt and were given autonomy to govern the state.
Kiev has the upper hand right now and things bend towards the winning
side. Try to negotiate with Eastern regions for a political settlement.
Give them full autonomy while remaining inside Ukrainian state. The
regimes of these areas are between a rock and a hard place. While Kiev
has pushed them away until recently, Russians have also used them as
geopolitical tool. A compromise on autonomy and power sharing might be possible with these Pro-Russian rebels as Russia gets militarily defeated.
5. Be ready to find political solution while prepared for a long term war. Keep the conflict at low intensity threshold and localized. The spillover effects into border states and the refugee crisis is affecting entire Europe and this should be well managed and minimized. Full humanitarian assistance should be given to resettle refugees and rebuilding Ukrainian infrastructure. Assistance and training to Ukrainian military should continue to sustain for protracted conflict if conflict drags on. Europe should also take steps to restructure its economy and moving away from Russian energy imports in long run. In short run, appropriate subsidies should be provided by the Govt for consumers to ease their burden of energy bills. Also expand in goodwill diplomacy by helping poor countries which are suffering from food scarcity as imports from region are getting disrupted.
What can go wrong?
I don't think there is an immediate risk of turn of tide in Ukraine war in favor of Russia. But there are some other risks that are indirectly linked to NATO's security and defense of America. A risk i see is if US war lobby (lobby of Neocons, Military industrial complex and elites with imperial policy mindset) start steering US foreign policy. These foolish people created War on terror, Iraq & Afghan war, Libyan war, the instability in Middle east - Perpetual conflicts that burned Trillions of $$$, wasted tons of resources on senseless conflicts. Imagine if all those resources spent in these endless wars were utilized in constructive ways. America and world would have been a better place. The war lobby has influence over both political parties and they want another long term conflict that can fill their pockets for coming years. In past years, the war lobby filled their pockets with Trillions of $$$ as US fought senseless wars in Middle East. Now US has fortunately realized the blunders of these conflicts and closed that chapter. But the war lobby's business model is conflict and they want new conflict to maintain their profits.
Another risk is Republican party winning America's November elections and taking control of Congress. It may sound strange as what does US elections has to do with NATO security. But it does. In US, the GOP is in thrall of Trumpism movement - a movement that is Kryptonite to American Democracy. NATO is nothing without US and if Trumpian forces take over US Govt, this will be a grave threat for NATO. It's well known that Trump and many Republican politicians are assets of Russia, Turkey, Saudis etc. Trumpist movement and ultra right wing politics is actually pushed by Russia to subvert American Democracy.
If Republicans wins November elections and take over legislative branch, they will paralyze the executive completely. The Supreme court which is packed by reactionary judges is already favorable to GOP agendas. An instability in domestic politics of America will have strong ripple effects in its foreign policy as well (just think of US foreign policy chaos under Trump). So it's necessary that US remain politically stable under competent leadership in these complicated times.
Talking some other stuff.
Eric Boehlert passed away last month. He was a writer with firm grasp on issues of American politics and American news media culture. I followed articles on his blog - Press Run. His articles often concluded with a short fun stuff section where he used to post some off topic content like his favorite music. In that tradition. Something from my playlist.
Comments
Post a Comment