Tag: United States
Stevenson’s army, April 20
– WaPo has updated list of weapons headed for Ukraine.
– NYT story on same topic notes US isn’t giving longer range weapons that can hit inside Russia.
– US says no more ASAT tests. Politico has more.
– DIA releases report on “Challenges to Security in Space”
– CRS issues new report on Russian nukes.
– Just before US officials arrive, Solomon Islands sign pact with China.
– WSJ tells how US-Saudi relations have fractured.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Russia is losing the war even when it wins
The Russians have now adjusted their aggression in Ukraine. They have abandoned for now the homicidal but fruitless assault on Kyiv. Instead they are now focused on enlarging the areas they already controlled in Donbas and ensuring a land bridge to Crimea along the coast of the Sea of Azov. They also continue to bombard Ukrainian cities, including Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Lviv.
This new war plan makes far more sense than the original one. The areas in question are contiguous to territory Moscow already controls. The limited objectives are commensurate with the forces Moscow has available. Russian speakers inhabit much of the coastline in question, though by now most of them have fled westward.
The Russians are gaining ground but at high cost
The Russian assault has gained some ground in the east and south. But the effort is ponderous and costly. They have lost eight generals. If the ratio of generals to troops is the same in Ukraine as in the Russian army, that likely means they have lost at least 15-20,000 troops (killed) plus wounded and exhausted. But generals are harder to kill than soldiers, so that number may be low. It is roughly consistent with NATO’s guesstimate.
The Russian gains are coming at high cost not only in manpower but also in Ukrainian infrastructure. The Russians are leveling not only power and water plants but large numbers of apartments and businesses, especially in besieged Mariupol. If you are planning to occupy territory, destroying its civilian infrastructure is not so smart. Murdering and raping the locals is also not a good idea, as they are not likely to take mistreatment lightly. But that is precisely what the Russian forces retreating from north of Kyiv did.
The strategic outcome is no longer in doubt
These tactical mistakes compound the strategic ones. Ukraine will not be a friend to Russia in the future. When the people you are liberating flee away from your army, you are doing something wrong. If all, or more likely part, of Ukraine is occupied, the population will resist. Putin doubted that Ukrainian national identity is real, but Ukrainians no longer do. They are standing up to defend their country’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. That is a big strategic loss for Russia.
Any territory the Russians occupy will remain unreconstructed, as the West won’t pay and the Russians won’t have the money. Colin Powell’s antique store dictum (“you break it, you buy it”) will saddle Moscow will an enormous burden. Russia doesn’t even have the kind of excess population required to re-populate any parts of Ukraine it occupies. China, which has both the money and the population, will be far more interested in economically penetrating the European Union than supporting a costly Russian satrapy in Donbas.
The geopolitical situation looks no better. Russian aggression has brought strengthened NATO forces to its eastern members, all of whom now understand the risks they run if Moscow succeeds in Ukraine. They are funneling arms and training to the Ukrainians. Finland and Sweden are readying membership applications for the Alliance. Russian threats against them as well as the Baltics, Poland, and other NATO members for supplying weapons to Ukraine are falling on deaf ears. Republicans in the US Congress are muting their Russophilia. Even Turkey is sympathetic with Ukraine. NATO hasn’t been this unified since the Cold War.
Russia’s interests and Putin’s are diverging
Russia needs an end to this war, sooner rather than later. It can’t do that by continuing the fight, which will prolong the agony. But Putin’s interests are not the same as Russia’s. He likely can’t survive in power if Russians conclude the war was lost or that it was a colossal mistake. Hence the massive repression Putin is exercising inside Russia, which has lost all pretence of democratic norms. Putin often says Russia is fighting Nazis in Ukraine, but his own behavior now resembles Hitler’s far more than Ukrainian President Zelensky’s.
Russian aggression in Ukraine was ill-conceived and ill-executed. But so long as Putin is in charge, it will continue. Only if there is a serious threat to his hold on power will he reconsider. President Biden’s references to Putin as a genocidal war criminal are intended to signal US readiness to support an alternative. The Russian security elite, Putin’s oligarchs, and the Russian people have however so far failed to mount a serious effort against him. But that is not to say they never will. Some day they may conclude the obvious: Russia is losing the war even when it is winning.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 18
– Chicago Council poll shows continued strong support for help to Ukraine.
– AP reports GOP demands on COMPETES act.
– NYRB reviews Yovanovitch, Vindman and Hill books on Trump and Ukraine. Note well the quotes from Max Weber.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 17
– WaPo says US plans long term isolation of Russia.
– WSJ notes global debt problems.
– US Army adapts training to Ukraine.
– Ross Douthat wonders if Democrats could be locked out of power for year to come.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 15
– Jake Sullivan revealed after a DC speech that President Biden frequently rejects unanimous NSC opinions.
– WaPo reports Russia has sent a formal demarche warning against sending weapons to Ukraine.
– CIA director says Russia might use nukes.
– Israel says it has tested a laser missile defense.
– FP says Russia is sending mercenaries to Mali.
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).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Realism and idealism point the same way
Lots of folks are seeing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as a watershed. Charles Kupchan does it intelligently in the NY Times Monday. He thinks America needs to dial back its idealist ambitions to accommodate a realist world in which China and Russia could combine to challenge American power.
Biden’s preference
That level of generality, however, tells us nothing about how to end the Ukraine war.
President Biden is signaling his preference. He has already said Russian President Putin cannot (he later explained he meant should not) stay in power. Now he has used the g-word. Accusing Russia of genocide reinforces the impression that the United States is looking for person change, if not regime change, in Russia.
There are two routes to change in Moscow. A peaceful, non-violent rebellion would be the better. But Russians who protest the war have been unable to mobilize the necessary mass to make their point. Putin has overwhelming popular support for the war in Ukraine. Putin may have lost the international information war, but his increasingly autocratic regime appears to have won the domestic equivalent. Government control of the press has consequences.
A coup is the second option. Russian army officers could combine with oligarchs to deprive Putin of his presidency. But there too the path seems blocked. The Ukrainians have shredded the Russian army in northern Ukraine and killed a lot of generals. Western sanctions are depriving many of Putin’s oligarchs (and hopefully Putin himself) of ill-gotten gains. But there are few signs of dissent within the ruling elite.
The military option
Putin has abandoned negotiations for a settlement. He is intending instead to mount a major offensive in southern and eastern Ukraine. There Russia is interested in enlarging its area of control in Donetsk and Luhansk as well as establishing a land bridge to Crimea. Putin might even still be hoping to take all of Ukraine’s southern coast. That could link Russia to the Transnistrian area it controls in Moldova.
Military experts are suggesting the Russians have better odds of success in the south than they had in the north. The terrain is flat and more suitable to Moscow’s heavy armor. Supplies can flow directly from Russia and Russian-controlled Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea directly into Ukraine. Moscow has appointed a new military commander responsible for the obliteration of civilian areas in Syria. He has been doing likewise to Mariupol, a vital city on the southern coast. Ukrainian President Zelensky claims the Russians plan to use chemical weapons there:
The war in the south has already gone much better for the Russians than near Kiev and Kharkiv.
But the enemy has a vote. The Ukrainians seem to be prepared to defend Mariupol to the last brick. They have been stalwart as well near Kherson and Mikolaiv, which is on the way to Odesa. Arms are flowing rapidly from the West into Ukraine, though it is unclear whether the upgraded resources will arrive in time. Heavier armor, better artillery, and longer-range air defenses require training and elaborate logistical support.
The politics
The Ukrainians have been winning the battle for international support. The UN General Assembly backed civilian protection and humanitarian aid even before the Russian withdrawal from the north revealed its atrocities against civilians. But there are still key countries either sitting on the fence or supporting Russia. Prime among these are China, India, Israel, and Turkey. Lots of countries in Africa and the Middle East (in addition, for the benefit of my Balkan readers, to Serbia) are leaning in Moscow’s direction. “Not our fight” is the “nonaligned” motto.
The military situation inside Ukraine will affect the international politics of this war. If the Ukrainian army manages to prevent further Russian advances in the south and east, international opinion will swing in Kiev’s direction. If it loses more territory, the fence sitters will swing in Russia’s direction. Kiev is already under pressure from international commentators who claim continuing the war will only kill more people. But Ukrainians appear ready to continue what so far has been a successful effort to stem Russian advances.
Bottom line
The war is far from over. There is lots of mutual hurt, but no stalemate. Nor is their any way out. While both Russia and Ukraine say they are prepared to accept Ukrainian “neutrality,” their definitions of it remain far apart. Kiev wants international guarantees of Ukraine’s territorial integrity (including Donestk, Luhansk, and Crimea) and sovereignty, including by NATO members. Moscow wants Kiev to cede territory and sovereignty to Russia. There is no “zone of possible agreement” between these two positions.
For now, realism and idealism point in the same direction: the fight will go on.
RSS - Posts
