Ukraine conflict - A Goldilocks war

Ukraine conflict is like a Goldilocks war. A conflict that, so far, is managed to be kept at a temperature that is neither too hot nor too cold. The NATO countries response to support Ukraine is to demonstrate that they will not tolerate aggression for reshaping of territorial boundaries in Europe by Russia. So NATO states have provided a lot of military and financial aid to Ukraine to fight Russia. At the same time, the intensity of conflict is managed to keep it below the Nuclear threshold, the risk of broader war.

The conflict has evolved in a Game theory fashion with Ukraine, backed by NATO states, is symmetrically responding to various acts of aggression by Russia. Russia attacked Ukraine with advanced Missiles. NATO states provided Ukraine with Missiles (Storm Shadow etc) and authorized them to attack Russia in a limited way which allowed Ukraine to attack Russian infrastructure and naval assets in Crimea (Kerch bridge etc). Russia destroyed Ukraine's infrastructure, power grids, dams, grain ports etc. Ukraine destroyed Russia's oil refineries and energy infrastructure (including Nordstream pipeline). Ukraine demanded NATO to enforce 'no fly zone' over Ukraine. US decided that this escalation will go too far and hence refused. 

Key Russian targets in striking distance for Ukraine if missile ban is lifted

The red lines of conflict also keeps shifting, parties of war continue to probe each other's red lines and continue to measure threats and bluffs. Ukraine has demanded authorization from US & NATO to strike deep into Russian state with long range missiles. US & NATO earlier refused to authorize Ukraine to use their Missiles outside theater of war (Ukraine battle zone) but now US & NATO states tend to agree to allow use of long range weapons to strike inside Russia. Earlier, US restricted Ukraine in using its weapons for carrying out military operations across Russian territory but now Ukraine has launched military ops in Russia's Kursk region with help of western armored equipment and occupied a small Russian territory. The temperature of conflict is rising. How much is 'too hot'? When will 'red lines' be crossed? Several of the Russia's red lines turn out to be bluff so far. 

The western pundits and analysts say that risk of Nuclear confrontation is zero and US should not fall for Putin's bluff. They also say that answer to Putin's aggression is resounding victory of Ukraine, nothing else and no compromise. American General MacArthur, who was tasked to lead Korean campaign, said that there's no substitute for victory. This he stated after the Chinese intervention in Korean conflict as he demanded US to broaden the war effort to target China and expanding US Nuclear umbrella to the region. Truman realized the danger of broader war, he fired General MacArthur. 

American (indirect) participation in Ukraine war is unlike the infamous direct military interventions of past like Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc which were needless wars of aggression on part of US. The aggressor in present case is undoubtedly Putin and American proxy intervention is necessary for security of Europe this time. However, once the war gets going the original motives and reasons dissipate away. American Neocons see Ukraine war as an opportunity for permanently crippling Russia's capabilities. It's true that the Ukraine war has turned out to be a humiliation for Russia as it's exposed as a paper tiger (or paper bear), a shell of it's former Soviet self which was feared to have strength to overrun Europe up to the English channel within days. Russian military turn out to be weak both in terms of quality of men and military hardware, it's intelligence and strategic vision turn out to be surreal & ludicrous, and it's leadership turn out to be grossly incompetent. Attack on Ukraine turned out to be worse than a crime, it was a blunder.

The subject of red lines is a peculiar matter in current crisis. Yes, the Nukes appear to be useless assets as the bloody conventional and hybrid battles continue to play out so far. But where do red lines lie or do they even exist anymore? The risk today is that red lines may do exist and the parties don't really know where they are. The bluffs and saber-rattling have obscured the red lines but they may be suddenly realized only when a party crosses overs it. And by then, it may be too late. 

True, that there's no easy solution to Ukraine conflict once it got going. US & NATO only hopes that by keeping the war at Goldilocks temperature - neither too cold nor too hot, it can enormously increase the cost of war to Russia to such a level where it will have no option but to back off and withdraw. At the same time, the war also comes at terrible costs to Ukraine and infrastructure of both nations is shattered tremendously, human resources are depleted and financial costs continue to pile up.  

From a broader perspective, Ukraine conflict is result of failed global vision of post cold war, with seeds of conflict thus sowed three decades ago. Vladislav Zubok (author of book 'Collapse - The fall of the soviet union') makes this point well. With end of cold war and dissolution of soviet union, US had a great opportunity to integrate Russia in common security architecture of Europe. Independent Ukraine and Russia would be able to peacefully co-exist in this environment and Russia also could've possibly been integrated in common European economic community. But this did not happen.

After the failed August 1991 coup, the Democratic forces in Russia were fully inclined towards integration with western world. After the end of World War 2, the US rebuilt Germany and Japan, the once great foes of US, and integrated them into global economic system within few years. But US had no such vision for rehabilitation of Russia after end of cold war. There were thinkers in America who understood this opportunity but little they could do on actual policy decisions. This lack of vision or perhaps intentional failure was due to two reasons. First, a common European security architecture with integration of post soviet nations including Russia would've undermined the global geopolitical supremacy of US. 

US always wanted Europe to lean on it. If a secure Europe emerges, the European nations will wean off from US support, which US did not want. Hence, after the end of cold war, US had a security vision that only included eastern European pro western post soviet nations (Baltic states etc) into NATO apparatus. But post soviet Russia which was also inclined for same relationship with west at that time was left out of US designs. 

Secondly, the collapse of Soviet Union came at a time of rising tide of Neoliberal age. An age where finance capitalism, Washington consensus and laissez faire ruled the world. Rehabilitating Russia and its economy required major government to government financial assistance from the west (something like Marshall Plan). But in Neoliberal age of austerity, this was frowned upon by American economic pundits who strongly influenced US government at that time. There was also little interest about sustenance of Russia's democracy and so Russia's democratic forces were abandoned by west in this crucial period. These forces soon folded and a strongman Putin picked up the political reins of Russia who crushed political opposition and established Gangster capitalism.    

Fast forward to today, Putin's foolish invasion of Ukraine has locked the horns of nations into such a quagmire that it's extremely difficult to untangle them. There was some hope of ending the war. With a self destructive war started by Putin, there may be factions in Russia that may use the opportunity to overthrow the bungler Putin and thus presenting a window for winding down the conflict. There was Prigozhin's coup which however failed. Of course, Putin always has the option to withdraw from this conflict but after he crushed Prigozhin's mutiny, he doubled down on the conflict. We can now only hope that war will remain at Goldilocks temperature as long as it goes on and Russia eventually abandons it's foolish projects.