Without A Happy Ending
Vladimir Putin’s war is now into its fourth week and the prospects for a quick and satisfying conclusion have all but vanished for all of the countries involved. Even though there have been periodic efforts at peace negotiations the representatives of Russia and Ukraine have been unable to even agree upon temporary cease-fire periods involving specific municipalities, much less an overall suspension of military action or a resolution of the conflict. In addition, Vladimir Putin has expressed his belief that it is currently premature to even discuss a cessation of hostilities. The problem seems to be that neither side is willing to accept what it would consider a defeat. In the case of Ukraine that would be yielding further territory to Russia; and in the case of Russia, it would be withdrawing from the conflict without having wrested additional territory or concessions from Ukraine.
The war seems to be approaching a stalemate with the Russians being unable to capture Ukrainian cities (with the exception of Kherson, which it’s already having trouble holding) and the Ukrainians being unable to drive the Russians out. A stalemate is also evidenced by the fact that the Ukrainians have not only refused Russian demands that they surrender cities under siege, but have caused the Russians to sustain unprecedented losses in equipment and personnel in just the first month of the war. The most recent Ukrainian report (not necessarily accurate) asserts that Russia has lost almost 100 of its fixed wing aircraft, over 404 of its estimated 3,000 tanks, as well as over 1,200 additional armored vehicles. It has also been reported that between 7,000 and 13,500 of Russia’s estimated 150,000 soldiers (including five of its 20 generals) committed to the war have been killed and another 22,000 injured. One military analysts has suggested that the next two weeks could prove critical in determining the outcome of the conflict. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterras has already (but perhaps prematurely) concluded that this war is “unwinable” by either side.
There is little question that Russia possesses the military might to eventually take control of Ukraine although there is still substantial doubt as to whether it will ever do so. Moreover, even if the Russians do prevail, that achievement may prove to be a Pyric victory as the Ukrainians, with weapons supplied by western countries, will undoubtedly continue to resist Russia’s occupation of their country. To date, the unexpected military success of the Ukrainians has been achieved largely through clever implementation of asymmetrical tactics in addition to bad planning on the part of the Russians. For example, Ukraine’s far smaller and technologically less advanced air force has enjoyed great success simply by luring Russian pilots into airspace protected by Ukrainian air defense systems. Similarly, small squads of Ukrainian foot-soldiers armed with light-weight anti-tanks missiles have found long convoys of Russian tanks and armored vehicles confined to paved roads to be easy targets. This certainly does not bode well for Russian occupation of Ukraine.
Having painted himself into this corner, Putin now appears intent on further escalating the conflict in the hope that Ukraine and its western allies will feel compelled to make some concession that will allow him to withdraw and declare a victory. Thomas Friedman has concluded that Putin has adopted a new strategy which he has dubbed “Plan B.” That strategy calls for creating a humanitarian crisis within Ukraine in an effort to cause the Ukrainian government to surrender or at least make significant concessions. This explains why the Russian army has concentrated its firepower on civilian, as opposed to military, targets. This, however, may not work as the Ukrainians, having already lived under Russian rule, have a strong desire not to do so again. They rightly fear that any territorial concession they may now make will only invite later attempts to take over more of their country.
“Plan B” has a second potential avenue for achieving success. If Russia can cause a sufficient number of Ukrainian refugees to flee into the neighboring NATO countries, those countries might pressure the Ukrainian government to accept a settlement on Putin’s terms. That too is problematic as the U.S. and its European allies seem equally adamant in their determination not to allow Putin to profit from his belligerent behavior believing that it will be taken as a green light for Russia and other authoritarian governments to embark on similarly armed seizures of neighboring territories. From Putin’s perspective just causing dissension among the NATO allies might represent a victory he can use as a justification for the war. In any event, the result will be that Ukrainian cities will continue to be pummeled by Russian artillery and aerial attacks until they are totally reduced to rubble.
Putin is undoubtedly mindful that time is not on his side and that he must accelerate the prosecution of the war in an effort to bring it to a close before the Russian people learn what is happening in Ukraine. To buy himself additional time, he is pulling out all of the stops to defer what appears to be an inevitable popular uprising against this war. He has imposed a large panoply of measures to suppress information about the war and to silence his critics. Last Wednesday, he made a long speech attacking the U.S. for its economic sanctions on Russia’s financial system and threatening to “purge” those Russians who oppose the war whom he characterized as “scum” and “traitors.” This was a very angry speech that is undoubtedly reflective of Putin’s current tempestuous state of mind.
Putin is also mounting a vigorous disinformation campaign both to solidify his support by the Russian people and to intimidate the Ukrainians and their allies. He began this over two weeks ago by putting his nuclear weapons forces on elevated alert. This past week he asserted that Ukraine, with the help of the United States, is preparing to utilize chemical and biological weapons. While on its face this appears to simply be intended to bolster support for his war effort, it is also an implied threat to Ukraine and its allies because one of Putin’s favorite tactics is to project onto his enemies what he himself is contemplating. Such implied threats have to be taken seriously as Putin is believed to have used both chemical and biological weapons while assisting the Syrian government in its civil war.
Putin also appears to be willing to gamble that the U.S. and its NATO allies will not respond if he carries out his threats of using weapons of mass destruction. That’s because President Biden, rightly or wrongly, has stated that the U.S. (and NATO by inference) is not going to become actively engaged in Ukraine’s efforts to oust the Russians from their territory. Ostensibly, this pronouncement was intended to prevent the conflict from escalating into a nuclear war which would put all life on earth at risk. Not unexpectedly, President Biden has been criticized for removing this option and thereby conceivably encouraging more brutal tactics by the Russian army. In reality, however, it is only stating the obvious; namely, that the use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable. In a sense, what started out as a simple “land grab” now seems to have morphed into a resumption of the “Cold War” and a high stakes game of “Chicken.”
Unfortunately, the U.S. and its NATO allies cannot rule out the possibility that Putin will employ weapons of mass destruction (a phrase not used since the early days of the Iraq War) even if they refrain from active participation in the war. The conventional wisdom is that Putin does not harbor suicidal tendencies but simply likes to use the threat of mutual destruction as a means of intimidating his enemies. Still, the possibility exists that a “desperate” Vladimir Putin facing a humiliating defeat might be tempted to employ the most deadly weapons in Russia’s arsenal. This possibility is supported by the fact that he’s a cold-blooded killer who in the first four weeks of this war has already demonstrated that he has no hesitancy in ordering the deaths of thousands, if not scores of thousands, of innocent people (including many of his own countrymen). Those actions have already led to calls that he and his military leaders be charged with “war crimes.” Therefore, any proposed resolution of the war that does not entail a pardon for his transgressions would place his life in danger and keep alive the threat of his using WMDs.
There are two important aspects of the war that are strangely missing. The first is that the Russians have only made limited attacks on Ukraine’s industrial facilities and power generating facilities. This is a common feature in modern warfare as it enables attacking forces to cripple the economy of the enemy and thereby diminish the enemy’s ability to defend itself. That strategy was heavily used by the allied forces in World War II. Instead, the Russians have been attacking residential complexes, schools, hospitals, and food markets. This is more akin to the war plan followed by the ancient Romans which consisted of surrounding their enemies’ cities, cutting them off from food, water, and munitions, and bombarding them until the people trapped within surrendered. This raises the possibility that a secondary objective of this invasion is to commandeer Ukraine’s industrial capacity. This is consistent with the fact that Russia has badly neglected to upgrade its own industrial capacity to the point that its manufactured goods can no longer compete in world markets.
Another seemingly missing element in this war is cyber-attacks. Russia’s conventional weaponry is generally inferior to that developed by the U.S. and its allies which in part explains why Russia’s progress in subduing the Ukrainians has been so slow. By contrast, Russia is credited with having the world’s most advanced cyber-warfare capability which it has yet to deploy. This has prompted President Biden to warn U.S. companies to get prepared for cyber-attacks. The current absence of such attacks might be explained by a desire on the part of Putin not to prompt the NATO countries to take a more active role in the war until after Russia has actually secured some meaningful concessions from the Ukrainians. Thus, Putin’s strategy may be to hold off employing Russia’s cyber-warfare capabilities until he conquers Ukraine and then use those capabilities to cause the U.S. and its allies to abandon (or at least relax) their economic sanctions. While such a strategy seems logical, it ignores the fact that the primary objective of the western allies is to prevent Putin (and other authoritarian leaders) from profiting from their bad behavior. The result might be that the suffering of the Russian people would continue and the havoc would spread to Europeans and Americans.
An important wild card in this conflict is China. U.S. government sources have reported that Putin has sought military aid from China as well as economic aid. The Chinese, while generally supportive of Russia, nevertheless appear unwilling to become actively involved in the conflict and reluctant to supply weaponry to the Russians. Even economic aid would be very helpful to Russia as it would buy Putin more time to achieve some form of victory. Without China’s help, Putin could be forced to abandon his misadventure in Ukraine before achieving even a modest victory. This raises the question of whether China would be willing to use its leverage over Russia to pressure Putin to negotiate a settlement of the conflict on the best available terms. China is heavily dependent on its trade with the U.S. and European countries which means that it cannot be happy with the possibility of the war spreading to its trading partners. So far, however, Xi Jinping has shown no signs that he is prepared to play the role of peace-maker.
As things now stand, several Ukrainian cities are in the process of being destroyed and 3.4 million Ukrainians have fled to other countries. Another 6.5 million have left their homes and are living in shelters located throughout their country. Russians are starting to be pressed economically by the west’s economic sanctions and as well as the withdrawal of dozens of U.S. companies from Russia. This and the Russian government’s crackdown on protests has prompted tens of thousands of Russians to flee to neighboring countries like Armenia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. The war has also disrupted the distribution of oil and gas and sent prices of foods and fossil fuels skyward in all corners of the earth. What is particularly troubling is that the worst undoubtedly lies ahead. Of course, none of this had to happen; it’s simply a bi-product of authoritarianism that can enable a single unfettered despotic individual to start a war with far-reaching effects.