Is Russia getting deeper into stupid self-destructive behavior? Or is Russia finally getting hit with the China clue bat? The answer may determine whether there is peace for our time and eventual war across Europe or actual peace.
What are Russia's options in the Ukraine crisis they've started? They have troops massed.
Russia in theory could mount an invasion with 175,000 troops--if American intelligence is to be believed--that seeks to take everything east of the Dniepr River.
Russia could mount a partial invasion to take the Sea of Azov coast and the Black Sea coast.
It could mount a partial invasion to take the Sea of Azov coast.
It could mount a partial invasion to take more of the Donbas, especially Kharkov.*
It could extort a promise from America to rule out NATO membership for Ukraine.
But those are a wide range of possibilities.
The question of course is whether Russia plans to invade Ukraine:
The more interesting question is whether Russian President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as China sees Taiwan and reintegration or unification is now a first order priority.
If so, we know that Russia can't be trusted because three times Russia agreed that Crimea was part of a separate Ukraine. Russia clearly has more territorial ambitions if that is so.
And Lukashenko is helping Russia open a new flank:
Belarus on Monday announced joint military drills with close ally Russia on its southern border with Ukraine and accused the NATO military alliance of building up offensive capabilities near its borders.
If serious, Belarus is the new Austria.
Yet if Russia wants Ukraine, would Russia really invade Ukraine in a major attack that goes all the way to Kiev risking getting embroiled in a major insurgency when China looms more ominously in the east?
I really don't think Russia is planning a broad invasion of Ukraine.
Reports of 100,000 troops "massed" on Ukraine's border isn't as
impressive as that sounds when you consider the size of Ukraine's ground
forces and the amount of territory that Ukraine has. There is no way
Russia plans to conquer Ukraine. Even reports of closer to 175,000 Russian troops would have to include a lot of less capable troops.
And for something just a bit less ambitious, Russia still has problems. Unless Ukraine simply gives up after Russian spearheads advance to the Dnepr River, Russia will be in for a fight--conventional, irregular, and insurgency. And how much more of Russia's military is ready to fight? How much could Russia afford to strip from other parts of Russia? Could the first 100,000 be reinforced with anything but cannon fodder?
If Russia invades, I'd suspect either an effort to expand their Donbas holdings; or an advance to take the Sea of Azov coast and link up with Crimea, with a possible effort to take Odessa included.
Is Russia deluded that it has one last shot to take Ukrainian territory
without a crippling Western reaction, before pivoting to Asia? Or is
Russia acting especially hostile to get a better diplomatic deal with
NATO before it has to deal with the Chinese threat?
The U.S. warns Russia could attack Ukraine on short notice; and warned Russia heavy sanctions would follow. Putin seems to indicate what he doesn't want to invade by demanding no NATO expansion east.
Ruling out NATO membership might demoralize Ukraine. So that's a bad
idea. Would Putin be satisfied with a clear ruling out of sending
American combat units to Ukraine? Although claims by friendly media that Russia's threat is a test for Biden leads me to think the Russians aren't serious about invading.
When asked Wednesday whether NATO was expanding toward Russia's "sphere of influence," Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg gave an impassioned response, pounding his podium and insisting that it's "not acceptable" for the Kremlin to control the actions of its sovereign neighbors.
There is no natural stopping point if you accept Russia's justification for aggression against Ukraine. Russia will renew their advance later if we give them something now.
A fake victory would be a Biden-Putin signed agreement for twenty years not to deploy American combat brigades, air defenses, or surface-to-surface missiles to Ukraine. We don't have the logistics capacity to fight a campaign in Ukraine anyway, so the pledge would be practically meaningless although possibly significant symbolically. And Ukraine could still get our weapons and work toward NATO membership quietly.
And obviously, the pledge would evaporate if Russia attacked.
Invading Ukraine even a little doesn't seem like a good idea:
Putin may be angry, and he may live in a bubble of skewed information. But is he stupid? Unlike 2014, there can be no plausible deniability about “little green men” (the euphemism Ukrainians gave to Russian soldiers masquerading as domestic pop-up militiamen in Crimea) being responsible for hostilities once Russian bombers enter Ukrainian airspace. Starting a massive land war in Europe in the dead of winter against a neighbor that has spent the past seven years amassing international sympathy, diplomatic capital, and vastly improving its own war machine seems like the height of folly. Then there is the KGB case officer’s appraisal of the one man he can’t afford to misread.
That's it, isn't it. Putin's rational isn't our rational. We can't afford to mirror-image him.
I wouldn't advise America go to war with Russia if Putin invades Ukraine. But I hope we don't throw Ukraine under the bus. Yet I worry that there is added danger in the aftermath of our Afghanistan skedaddle debacle that we will risk war. Does Putin appreciate that?
Biden and Putin will speak about the crisis Tuesday night. Lord knows what the result will be.
If Russia attacks, I would give Ukraine whatever it needs to kill Russians, whether that is weapons or intelligence. And unleash the sanctions, although they won't hurt Russia as much as we hope.
UPDATE: The last time Russia massed troops--over 50 battalions--they eventually settled for a subliminal invasion of the Donbas. That is, Russia denied invading. And still deny it.
Is Russia planning a punitive mission to inflict pain on Ukraine?
The plan, the officials and analysts believe, could be to force Ukrainian troops to fight on multiple fronts, seeking not so much territory but rather a capitulation by Kyiv and its Western backers that results in the security guarantees Putin wants.
That's a more risky version of the extortion option. We'll see who experiences more pain, I suppose, if Russia attacks. And it would be hard to deny. Western anger and sanctions would follow.
As always, #WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings
UPDATE: Europeans don't see a big threat:
Privately, some NATO allies have expressed skepticism about Washington’s warnings of a imminent Russian invasion. They allies don’t dispute U.S. intelligence, including satellite images, showing a big mobilization of Russian forces and weapons along the border, but they question the likelihood Putin wants to start another war.
An internal analysis prepared for European Commission officials and diplomats, and seen by POLITICO, noted the high level of alarm being conveyed by Washington to allies, but concluded Russia was unlikely to launch an attack as it does not have the logistical capabilities to support a sustained, large-scale invasion of Ukraine.
If the Biden administration says this is big, I suspect that the administration thinks the threat is small so Biden can wave a sheet of paper and claim he preserved the peace in Europe with his steely nerve and Smart Diplomacy.®
But Putin may not want to go along with that political framing.
UPDATE: This is insanely wrong: "Putin needs a real casus belli to invade Ukraine[.]" Oh please. Russia knows how to engineer a "provocation." Russia could be doing that already.
And Russia could make up a provocation and dare anyone to call them liars. Russia denies invading Ukraine at all. Heck, Russia denies invading Poland in 1939!
And don't forget Russia has a lost-and-found bin to parade before the cameras. Russia's decision to invade or not will not hinge on Ukraine's actions.
UPDATE: Is the Russian threat to invade hollow because of the risk? Or does Putin believe a new direct pipeline to Germany means Russia can launch a winter war while freezing Ukrainians, and frighten the Europeans into compliance?
Although an attack along much of the border by 50 battalion tactical groups seems to lack a main effort or two that war plans usually include. Can a "main effort" of confusing and scaring the Ukrainians work? Or would that offensive peter out and grind to a halt on a long front?
UPDATE: This article article looking at possible invasion objectives includes a new one to me: stoking unrest in Ukraine's Budjak region west of Odessa. But could Russia stoke a sustained conflict there without a land border to bolster whoever creates unrest?
UPDATE: Is Biden getting ready to throw our eastern NATO members under the bus for "peace for our time"?
*I was surprised that Russia didn't capture Kharkiv in the summer of 2014.
