By Noah Rothman
Monday, January 17, 2022
If the Russians are bluffing, they’re good at it.
In late November, Moscow began a costly buildup of about
100,000 troops and support personnel as well as heavy military equipment along
its legitimate and illegitimate borders with Ukraine. Russia’s posture has
grown only more aggressive since then. Russia insists that it needs security
guarantees from the West if it is to deescalate the conflict it threatens to
wage in Europe, but those guarantees—up to and including paring back NATO’s
deployments to exclude former Warsaw Pact nations—are non-starters. Meanwhile,
the Biden White House has alleged that Russia has already introduced saboteurs into Ukraine with the mission of
“fabricating a pretext for invasion,” according to White House Press Sec. Jen
Psaki.
Russia is projecting alarming seriousness about its
designs on Ukraine, but the Biden administration is not responding with similar
resolve. The administration’s on-record accusation that Moscow is “laying the
groundwork” for an invasion suggests a level of certainty that should lead the
White House to pull out all the stops in the effort to deter such an advance.
That initiative would have many features. It might
include diplomatic entreaties, promises of summitry, or even concessions such
as a promise to unilaterally observe defunct treaties like “Open Skies” or the
“Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.” But it must also be accompanied by
a military dimension beyond pledging “military support” for America’s allies. It would involve the
deployment of troops and equipment to the borders of Poland and the Baltic
States, naval assets to the Black Sea, and area-denial munitions and systems
across Central and Eastern Europe. Instead, the administration is seeking to
deter Moscow with the promise of financial and technological sanctions that the Kremlin
has already demonstrated a willingness to absorb. A blistering rebuke of
Vladimir Putin on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly won’t push
back a Russian advance, much less preempt one.
The Biden White House’s response to this looming crisis
is hardly commensurate with the urgency of the threat, which suggests that the
threat has been badly underestimated.
If Biden’s team has already accepted the inevitability of
a second Russian invasion of Ukraine, they will have misjudged the horrors such
a turn of events would produce. American officials privy to the intelligence
already believe that Russia’s capabilities could facilitate a “modern-day blitzkrieg” across Ukraine. If it were so
inclined, Moscow could ground Ukraine’s air force and overwhelm its regular
military within hours of open conflict. The Russian International Affairs Council outlined just
such a scenario, in which a multi-pronged Russian offensive drives to the banks
of the Dnieper River, encircling and eventually taking Kyiv, and carving out a
Vichy “Western Ukraine” that would all but end the country’s 30-year experiment
with independence. But that would only be the beginning.
Ukraine’s forces are better armed, better trained, and
more capable than they were in 2014, when “little green men” descended on
Donbas and the Russian paratroopers took Crimea with little resistance. Also
unlike in 2014, the territories Russia would be fighting over aren’t populated
by Russian-speaking Ukrainians with as much affection for the Motherland as for
the nation that issued their passports. The remnants of a routed Ukrainian
military could mount a protracted campaign of resistance from such positions.
Indeed, that may be Kyiv’s only hope. “One senior Ukrainian military official
who spoke on condition of anonymity said that if all else failed, the military
would simply open its weapons depots and allow the Ukrainian people to take
whatever they need to defend themselves and their families,” the New York Times reported in December.
This is the nightmare scenario; and U.S. officials are
fully aware of it. The Times reported this month that the Pentagon has
warned Russia that an invasion of Ukraine would be followed by a “bloody
insurgency similar to the one that drove the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.”
That is as much a threat to Russia as it is to the Atlantic Alliance. Such a
conflict on NATO’s borders would produce a destabilizing refugee crisis with
millions of displaced Ukrainians all heading West. It would drive investment
away from the Continent, exacerbating European political dysfunction and
producing social malaise. It would likely necessitate the deployment of special
forces into the semi-governed areas of Ukraine along NATO’s borders, increasing
the risk of embroiling the West in a war it hoped to avoid and increasing the
prospect of inadvertent conflict with Moscow.
Even something short of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine
has the potential to destabilize the European Union and pit nations that favor
an accommodationist approach to Russian ambitions against those with bitter
memories of appeasement. If Russia cannot be talked or coaxed into backing
down, it must be compelled to do so by the U.S.’s raising the costs of such a
course of action to unacceptable levels. If that seems like too much of a risk
to the Biden administration, then the Biden administration does not fully
comprehend the consequences associated with a new land war in Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment