Month: April 2022
Stevenson’s army, April 26
– Gen Milley says time is not on Ukraine’s side.
– US will re-fill allies who ship to Ukraine.
– Reuters reports Finland and Sweden will seek to join NATO next month.
– Axios has Big Facts on defense spending worldwide.
– WSJ says Russia is hiding economic data.
– Yes, Macron won but big test in June in parliamentary elections.
– Also good news in Slovenia.
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).
Clarified aims betoken longer war
Secretary of Defense Austin clarified US war aims yesterday:
We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/25/russia-weakened-lloyd-austin-ukraine-visit/
Meanwhile, the Russians have clarified theirs. They want control not only of all of Donbas in eastern Ukraine but also the southern coast. That would allow them to link up with their long-standing military presence in the Transnistria region of Moldova. The pretext for the Moldova campaign is already in the works.
Ukrainian war aims have long been clear. Kyiv wants to roll the Russians back at least to their pre-February 24 control of Crimea and part of Luhansk and Donetsk. President Zelensky would no doubt like to rid Ukraine altogether of Russian troops.
These different war aims are strangely compatible. Stretched thin already, the Russians have set themselves goals that will be difficult to achieve and will attrite their remaining forces. The Americans and NATO allies are pouring supplies into the Ukrainian army in an effort to give it the resources needed to withstand the Russian offensive and to push back when the time comes.
A longer war
The result will be a longer war than Russia anticipated or Ukraine wants. The Russian army has stalled in its western push from Kherson for the better part of two months. Resistance at Mykolaiv has been stalwart. The Ukrainians have retaken most of the now ruined areas north of Kyiv that the Russians had occupied earlier in the war. In Mariupol, vital to Russian consolidation of control along the Sea of Azov, Ukrainian fighters are still making their last stand. Agreements to allow the evacuation of civilians are breaking down faster than they can be negotiated.
The question now is whether the Ukrainian army can begin to retake some areas, or at least destabilize Russian control in the south. The Russians have lost a lot of men and armor, but they remain far stronger in artillery and airpower. The Ukrainians have acquired some armor but their air defenses and artillery still remain relatively weak. Offensive guerilla operations will be far more difficult for the Ukrainians in the relatively flat and cleared areas of southern Ukraine than in the wooded and hillier north.
War has consequences
Already about one-third of the pre-war Ukrainian population of more than 41 million is displaced, 5.1 million outside the country and 7.7 million inside. Poland has received more than half the refugees. Romania, Hungary, and Moldova have received most the remainder. The vast majority of Ukrainians are fleeing west, not towards Russia or Belarus. They are voting with their feet. Political consequences in the receiving countries so far have not been dramatic. The welcome mat is still out. Relief efforts inside Ukraine are falling short of requirements.
Ukraine and Russia are major grain suppliers to world markets. Their exports will fall dramatically this year, both due to the war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. This will create a price problem more than a physical supply problem. That will be felt more strongly in poorer countries that susidize bread prices, like Egypt, than in the US or other rich countries. China, a big importer, is shifting its purchases to Russia, which may help to reduce the impact on world prices.
The broader political consequences of the war are already clear. With the exception of Hungary, NATO is more unified. Western forces on NATO’s eastern flank are increasing. Finland and Sweden appear likely to join the Alliance sooner rather than later. Many countries in Africa and Asia have tried to avoid “taking sides,” but still Russia is increasingly isolated in the United Nations when it comes to discussion and voting on humanitarian issues. China has so far backed Russia, but awkwardly given its position on sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is still unclear whether Beijing is supplying the weapons Moscow has sought.
Meaningful negotiations aren’t likely
Both sides in Ukraine are hurting, but there is as yet no stalemate. It will be weeks if not months before it is clear whether one side or the other can make significant progress in the continued fighting.
Nor is there any indication of a “way out.” The war aims are compatible only if the war continues. The Ukrainians have emphasized from the first their willingness to talk. Their aims in doing so have been limited to humanitarian issues and re-establishing sovereign control of Ukrainian territory. The Russians have met with the Ukrainians repeatedly, but with delegations that don’t appear to have authority over military forces. Supposed agreements break down while President Putin threatens the use of nuclear weapons if the West continues to aid Ukraine.
That threat is one the Americans have to take seriously. The only way of deterring it is to make clear that it would trigger an American response, not in Ukraine but against Russia. There is enormous peril embarking on a course that leads to mutually assured destruction, but it is the only known route to preventing nuclear war. Extension of the American nuclear umbrella to Ukraine would, ironically, make Ukraine all but a de facto member of NATO, precisely what Russia claims it wants to avoid.
Stevenson’s army, April 23
[The magnificent “Merchant of Venice” ends its run at STC tomorrow.]
– An issue that may come up in next week’s discussion of the Courts is the Chevron Doctrine and delegation of powers to the bureaucracy. See this CRS report.
– Moldova worries about Russian threats
– Cornell prof says sanctions won’t stop the Ukraine war.
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).
Stevenson’s army, April 22
– Rapid development: Politico has the story of the Phoenix Ghost drones.
– WH names a Ukraine aid coordinator.
– CISA issues a Russian cyber threat warning.
– Lawfare explains why Finlandization is a bad model.
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).
The odds are bad, but Biden is aiming high
President Biden has often talked about Ukraine in recent days, but he never specifies clear goals. He presumably wants to avoid raising expectations and leave himself the option of settling for less. Can we interpolate his goals from what he and the Ukrainians say and do in public?
The evidence
I think so. Here are some hints:
- He has disappointed the Ukrainians by ruling out a “no-fly” zone. This is intended to avoid a direct military confrontation of NATO with Russia. But one way or another Biden has managed to send all the kit they have asked for. That apparently now includes aircraft or aircraft parts. If there is anything still lacking, it might be air defense systems. But those are complicated and difficult to operate without extensive training.
- The Ukrainians don’t complain about lack of intelligence information. Their success in the first phase of the war appears to have been due in part to an uncanny (and likely well-informed) ability to anticipate Russia’s moves. The Ukrainians anticipated the assualt on Kyiv.
- The sanctions the US and EU are imposing on Russia and Russians are close to the maximum ever. It will not be easy to dial these back so long as Russian troops remain in Ukraine, even if only in Donbas and Crimea. The sanctions are going to crater the Russian economy. That will drive Moscow into economic dependence on and subservience to China, if President Xi is willing. There is no sign the US is planning for a return to the status quo ante.
- Biden has called out Putin as a war criminal responsible for genocide. That rules out any Western negotiation with him as well as any chance for rehabilitation. The President has made it clear his statements were not intended as an official legal determination. But neither he nor any Western leader other than Hungary’s Prime Minister Orban will ever risk meeting with Putin again.
- Biden has explicitly expressed the hope Putin will not remain in power after the war.
What Biden wants
The evidence is clear: Biden is seeking a resounding defeat of Russia, including if possible complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory and Putin’s removal from office. Of course the Americans may have to settle for less. The human costs to Ukraine of chasing Russia completely from Donbas and especially Crimea could be high. Putin may cling to power, as his pal Bashar al Assad has done in Syria. Though he is still popular in Russia, Putin won’t allow a serious, competitive election. He has murdered and imprisoned his two principal antagonists and shut off the rest from media access.
The laws of politics have not been revoked
Biden himself faces an important mid-term election in Novmber. One-third of the Senate and the entire House are at stake. Current odds favor the Republicans. Biden needs a hat trick to turn the tide in his own favor:
- The COVID-19 epidemic needs to definitively subside.
- The economy needs to continue to grow but inflation needs to decline sharply.
- The Ukraine war nneeds to turn out well for the Ukrainians, or at least seem to be heading in that direction.
The odds for all three of these outcomes are low. At 50/50 for each, we are talking a 1 in 8 chance of success, if I’ve calculated right. But what were the odds that President Zelensky would turn out to be an effective communicator and international statesman? Who knew that Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine would flee away from the Russian invasion? What were the odds the Ukrainian army had learned to fight so well in the years since failing to confront the Russians effectively in 2014? What were the odds that Ukrainians would prove brave patriots?
Stevenson’s army, April 21
– Putin claims victory in Mariupol.
– Taiwan TV apologizes for false attack report.
– NYT analyzes Solomon Islands pact with China.
– Analysts warn of long Ukraine war.
– Foreign Affairs article describes new warfare in Africa.
– House will vote next week on Senate-passed bill labeled “Lend-Lease.” In fact, it merely waives some sections of existing arms sales laws.
Dan Drezner joins crowd drawing on Thucydides, but adds this less-often-quoted section on what happens during war: Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense….. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more account than self-preservation.
Charlie added this later in the day:
Prof. Cohen has a new article in Foreign Affairs urging less concern about grand strategy and more about statecraft, how we do what we want. I couldn’t help thinking about our course when he writes:
More than one might think, sound foreign-policy making rests on the basics of bureaucratic behavior: clear and concise memorandums, crisply run meetings, well-disseminated conclusions, succinct and unambiguous guidance from above. Good process does not guarantee good policy, but it increases the odds of it. With that in mind, the U.S. government should pay renewed attention to the training and career management of security professionals.
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).