Should NATO be afraid that Russia will attack it to punish NATO for aiding Ukraine, which Russia is still trying to conquer? History says rational rulers should refrain from doing that.
The war goes on. Ukraine is seemingly more successful in some local counter-attacks even as Russia continues its grinding offensive. It seems like the war is preparing to get ... different. With an interesting and unexpectedly different angle brought up:
US President Donald Trump expressed confidence in Ukraine’s ability to fully liberate all of its internationally recognized territory that Russia currently occupies, following a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA).
Huh:
The Kremlin said Wednesday it would press on with its military offensive in Ukraine and rejected US President Donald Trump's claim that Kyiv's army could retake territory it had seized.
Moscow also pushed back on Trump's characterisation of Russia as a "paper tiger", a day after the US president dismissed Russia's army and said he could see Ukraine winning back every inch of land captured by Russia's forces.
Is Trump--with Zelensky's approval--baiting a weakened Russia into launching an offensive Ukraine is ready to resist?
The Russian probe has put NATO on alert. War may not be imminent, but Russia has attacked a NATO country. The Kremlin claims it was an accident. The Kremlin wants to bait, probe, act invincible and claim NATO is a paper tiger. But words and attitude don't erase obvious mistake: Russia has attacked a NATO country. One U.S. congressman has already said Ukraine must have long-range weapons to strike at Russian drone and missile systems -- and the attack on Poland proves Ukraine must have that capability.
Even aside from NATO's calculation that Russia lightly attacked NATO, this seems deliberate. My impression is that most (possibly none) of the drones had warheads. That, the history of Russian threats to escalate, and the scale of the specific incursion suggests this was deliberate.
Adding to the general worry is Russia's creation of a reserve army using new recruits excess to its casualty replacement needs:
The reported decision to create a strategic reserve and not deploy all new recruits to the frontline indicates that Putin and the Russian military command are content with the current rate of advance, even though Russian forces continue to only advance at a foot pace. The reported creation of a strategic reserve suggests that Russia plans to escalate offensive operations in Ukraine in the near-to-medium term rather than end the war. Russia may also be building out its strategic reserve as part of wider Kremlin preparations for a possible Russia-NATO conflict in the future, particularly as Russia intensifies its youth military-patriotic programs that aim to recruit Russian youth into the military in the years to come. [emphasis in original]
Should NATO worry Russia will pounce on still-vulnerable eastern NATO states? Especially the small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania?
I don't know if the reserve is for launching a Big Push to win the Winter War of 2022 or for attacking NATO in the belief that NATO is the source of Russia's problems. Indeed, I wonder if that reserve is for deterring China. If Russia truly is content with the current pace of their offensive, Russia doesn't need to mount a Big Push or expand the war to NATO.
But let's leave out the China option for now and ponder expansion of the war to NATO.
America didn't expand the Korean War to include either the USSR that aided North Korea or Communist China which actually sent a large army that it denied was China's--the People's Volunteer Army--the largest "little green men" invasion in history.
America didn't expand the Vietnam War to include key backers and covert participants the USSR and China.
And the USSR didn't expand their Afghanistan War by attacking America because America supported the resistance.
More recently, America didn't expand the Iraq or Afghanistan campaigns by attacking Iran or Syria over their intervention in the former or attack Pakistan over the latter (Pakistan was both vital for waging war there and an obstacle to winning by effectively hosting the Taliban).
The Sicilian Expedition by Athens (leading the Delian League) that turned the trading partners of its enemy Sparta that indirectly helped Sparta's war effort into active belligerents against Athens in the war was a strong lesson. Athens couldn't beat Sparta alone, dispatched a large force to Sicily to end that support, and lost their army and navy expedition for their trouble.
So I strongly suspect that Putin now understands that his military is not up to taking on NATO even if the Winter War of 2022 suddenly ended and freed up the Russian military. He must certainly know that taking on an expanded and rearming NATO while he still wages war on Ukraine would be folly.
But he can hope demonstrations below the level of open attack eventually frighten NATO states into halting, limiting, or reducing military support for Ukraine. Or maybe the test was directed at the United States alone.
Or Putin could learn from ancient Athens that as foolish as the decision to launch the Sicilian Expedition was, it actually could have worked if the commanders had been more aggressive to take advantage of their initial advantage. But surely Putin doesn't have that much confidence in his military and senior military leadership, does he? Will he be grilling his leadership about whether Trump is right?
Interesting times.
NOTE: ISW updates continue here. Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump.
NOTE: You may also read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.
NOTE: Map from http://navalhistorypodcast.com/.
