Russians talk big. Don't let them scare NATO into letting Russia snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat in Ukraine. That's what Russia is counting on.
I don't think NATO is drifting into war against Russia:
The United States and its NATO allies are slowly drifting into a war against Russia. The Biden administration and some of our NATO allies, while feigning caution and prudence, have gradually increased their involvement in Ukraine’s war effort. Some Western strategists talk of defeating Russia and forcing Vladimir Putin from power, even trying him as a war criminal. Victory, they say, is just around the corner as along as we continue to arm Ukraine.
Are some strategists talking about extreme defeats for Russia? Sure. Just as some strategists--like the author and those he mentions in the article--talk about how we should negotiate to let Russia win in Ukraine.
That talk doesn't make it the Western strategy, either.
But back to the drift. First, notice how the accusation is that NATO--which is defending a member state of the UN against unjustified and illegal aggression--is drifting into war with Russia. If there is drifting, shouldn't the charge be that the invader Russia is drifting into that war by continuing its illegal and frankly paranoid aggression?
Second, the gradually increasing NATO commitment that the author says is evidence of a drift to war is at least in part intended to avoid war. Sending everything we've sent in the first month might very well have overloaded Russia's paranoia and sense. But the increments have made a Russian decision to escalate harder to justify on the individual weapon merits as well as from more Russian losses over time. That gradualism may hinder Ukraine's ability to win, but it does address the author's concern,
Third, none of the author's numerous historical
examples to support "letting the Wookie win" are remotely relevant for the Ukraine case. I suspect the fact that so many are cited is intended to dense pack the irrelevance. Surely, a reader may think, all that historical smoke means historical fire, right? Yeah, no.
Fourth, I studied--and actually remember--the Cold War. America and the USSR supported the other side's enemies all the time without drifting into direct war. Hell, Russians operated some of the weapons used against us. NATO isn't likely to intervene in Ukraine. And Russia would have to show zero sense to expand a war against Ukraine it isn't winning into a war against NATO it can't possibly win.
Further, Russia needs to keep NATO from intervening to have a chance at defeating Ukraine. And if Russia doesn't win, Russia will need NATO to throttle aid to Ukraine to slow them down and get a ceasefire. Needlessly making NATO an active enemy would be an incredibly stupid policy.
Finally on this fourth issue, Ukraine is hardly about to attack into Russia proper and spark a war that provokes Russia into going to war with NATO. And no, I don't count Crimea as part of Russia notwithstanding Russia's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Claiming Crimea is part of Russia is no more legal than Russia's claim to all of Ukraine. If you think I'm a warmonger eager to go toe to toe with the Russkies, and want some nuance on Crimea instead, I'll give you a nuanced option.
And fifth, Russia counts on sounding scary with all that nuke talk to conceal weakness. That's what they do. And if counting on the West to save Russia from Putin's folly works, Putin salvages his cratering reputation for brilliance.
But no, I don't see NATO drifting into war with Russia over Ukraine. If the Russians are determined to be a super power again, they know the rules of the game. And contra the author's charge, I don't think we're searching for monsters. The monsters created themselves and are coming for us.
Indeed, I think hardheaded American geopolitics actually supports helping Ukraine win.
Hell, I even think hardheaded American geopolitics requires Russia to survive this beating with the clue bat so it can pivot to Asia where the real threats to Russia grow even as Russia screams "NATO! NATO! NATO!!"
UPDATE: Defining victory in this war for Putin.
I've discussed the time element. And unintended consequences are part of the reality that solving one crisis is no silver bullet. Success just punches your ticket for the next one--nothing is permanent.
And of course, if Putin claims he won his people may believe him--or be too scared to object. Many of our enemies have claimed victory because they survive a pummeling by us.
I don't care if Putin claims he won as long
as he actually loses. Hell, if that's the situation Russia is less
likely to fracture in defeat. So the West can pursue victory over Russia
in Ukraine without worrying Russia will fragment or escalate the war. Fighting NATO or using nukes might interfere with claiming victory over Ukraine even after defeat.
NOTE: Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
