Day: March 21, 2022
Letting Russia know the score, better late than never
President Biden has said many times that the US (and by implication NATO) will not intervene in Russia’s war against Ukraine. But what if Russia uses chemical weapons? What if Russia attacks Poland, on grounds it is helping the Ukrainians to kill Russians? If Kyiv looks as if it will fall and mass murder will ensue? What if Putin unleashes against Ukrainians the Stalinist violence he has promised against dissenters in his own population?
There are circumstances under which NATO would find it difficult to stay aloof. What kind of intervention would be appropriate?
Limited interventions have limited effectiveness
The inclination will be to limited intervention calculated to send a stern message. If chemical weapons are used, expect the US to target the launch site with cruise missiles. The Russians know that is what they should expect, so no one will be on duty at that launch site when the time comes. The same will be likely for a limited attack on a Polish facility. NATO will respond to the miscreant, hoping that a broader war can be avoided.
NATO may not respond at all if Kyiv is about to fall or repression becomes draconian, but if it does the approach will be the same. It will likely be enough to punish the perpetrators but not so much as to cause a wider war.
Putin knows this. He will be tempted to push the envelop as far as NATO allows. The Russian army is pulverizing Mariupol and Kharkiv because the response so far has been negligible. Limited interventions will have limited effectiveness.
NATO could take a different approach
The Alliance doesn’t have to behave that way. A wider war would be catastrophic for Putin too. He can barely sustain the effort in Ukraine. The Russians are shipping heavy armor from Siberia, 3000 miles away, to a war they expected would be over two weeks ago. Opening another front would strain the Russian army to the breaking point.
One NATO option is a massive air intervention calculated to destroy as much of the Russian attacking force in Ukraine as possible. The Alliance has the resources needed to secure the air space and bombard the Russian forces while the Ukrainians act in concert on the ground. Such an attack would likely require destruction of air defenses and combat aircraft inside Russia and Belarus. Hence a wider war. But it would inflict a devastating defeat on Moscow, even as it continues to deal with the consequences of Western sanctions.
A precedent we should not want to set
Russia knows NATO could do this. It is unconcerned because of the frequent declarations the Alliance won’t intervene unless one of its members is attacked. Those declarations aim to avoid escalation and the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Russia is getting a pass because it has nuclear weapons.
This is a precedent we should not want to set. Giving a pass for aggression because a state has nuclear weapons is an enormous incentive to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran won’t fail to notice. Nor will North Korea.
Pyongyang has already benefitted from the deterrence its nuclear weapons afford, even though it has not yet indulged in aggression. Why else does the world tolerate its threats against its neighbors and persistent violation of restrictions on its missile program? That tolerance also helps to keep Kim Jong-un in power. Not only Iran but also Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other countries will have noticed that.
Send a different signal
This week’s NATO Summit is an opportunity to send a different signal, without committing the Alliance to war. The Russians have been floating negotiating proposals that amount to Ukrainian defeat. The Alliance could make clear that it will not accept as permanent any outcome in Ukraine that leaves Russian troops within its internationally recognized territory. Or any outcome that permanently prevents Ukraine from aligning as it wants.
It also could amp up its message about Alliance capabilities, as Eliot Cohen has suggested:
They [American officials] need to say, and say repeatedly, that a Russian war with NATO would only consummate the destruction that the Russian military is suffering at this very moment.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/ukraine-united-states-nato/627052/
Last week the Americans decided to send an additional $1 billion in military assistance to Ukraine. Better late than never. The same applies to making the Russians think about whether they might trigger a war with NATO that they are bound to lose. Let them know the score.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, March 21
– AP quotes Indo-Pacific commander, saying China has militarized at least 3 islands in SCS.
– WSJ says US sending Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia.
– FT says Russian tactics look like war in Finland in 1940.
– FT explains South African silence on Ukraine.
-WSJ sees Russia shifting to new war plan.
– CFR analysts see China helping Russia hide money.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
