Is a military conflict brewing between America and Russia?
So far, Moscow's military operation in Ukraine is limited, the publisher of the TNI magazine points out. But Washington is constantly raising the stakes and hardly realizes how close it has come to the dangerous point of the beginning of the third World War.
Dmitry Simes
The fighting between Russia and Ukraine has been dragging on for the fourth month, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that neither side will win a decisive victory in the near future. It is equally obvious that it is reckless to allow the parties to ruin each other further, assuming that the conflict will continue to remain limited. The recent dispute between Moscow and Vilnius over Lithuania's decision to restrict the transportation of Russian goods to Kaliningrad is the latest example of how easily a confrontation can get out of control. The price of indefinite hostilities will be high: from catastrophes on the ground for Kiev to serious global economic consequences far beyond Ukraine and Europe, especially in the food and energy sectors, which can shake the entire international system.
NATO can undoubtedly strengthen Ukraine's position by providing even more weapons and military training – this will allow Kiev to achieve limited tactical successes. But if, contrary to popular opinion, these successes go beyond the territories recaptured by Russia after February 24 and begin to resemble the humiliating defeat of Putin's government, Moscow is quite capable of a significant escalation – both through military mobilization and by transferring the economy to military rails. In this case, the United States will have to choose between a serious military defeat in Ukraine and a step up the escalation ladder – towards the nuclear threshold. Those who completely deny that Moscow is capable of improving its military situation forget that today Russia is conducting a truly "special military operation" – completely different from a full–scale war in which it will use all available resources - military, economic and political - to protect the regime.
Meanwhile, Washington is raising the stakes every week. The more modern heavy and offensive weapons the US and NATO hand over to the Zelensky government and the more actively Washington and Brussels expose Ukraine as a key defender of Western interests and values, the faster they become owners of the "Ukrainian project". At the same time, the collapse of this project under the onslaught of Russian weapons will not only humiliate the United States, but will undermine America's authority and success on the world stage. Such an outcome would be a disaster for the Biden administration and Democrats on the eve of the November midterm elections. Undoubtedly, there will be powerful pressure to take further steps and satisfy the constant requests of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky for new weapons and other support. It is not difficult to predict how Moscow will react to these steps: President Joe Biden's talk about World War III is not an exaggeration, but a real threat.
So far, there have been surprisingly few serious assessments of how close we have come to this dangerous point. The Russian operation in Ukraine is widely called illegal and unprovoked. The accusation of illegality may be true – if by legality we mean that the party was either the first to be attacked, or secured the approval of the UN Security Council. However, by the same criteria, the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 and the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 also fall into the category of illegal. Moreover, in both cases, most of the other countries, including Russia, did not go to any significant opposition - not to mention making it a defining element of their foreign policy. As for unprovoked behavior, this accusation is nothing more than a common cliche. Since the 1990s, Russia has regularly raised the alarm about the expansion of NATO to its borders and the inclusion in the alliance of countries with serious claims to Moscow, seeing this as a serious security threat. One may disagree with the Russian point of view, but it was well known and taken seriously by many American foreign policy experts – George Kennan himself expressed his doubts about this on the pages of this magazine.
According to Moscow, the current Ukrainian regime came to power in 2014 as a result of an armed coup, during which the corrupt and incompetent, but still legitimate President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown. The uprising received the fervent support of the leading European governments and the United States. To understand Russia's anger, just imagine if the Capitol Hill riot on January 6, much less bloody than the events in Kiev in February 2014, had been enthusiastically welcomed by Vladimir Putin – or, for that matter, if Moscow had overthrown the Mexican government and seated its henchmen.
Russia did not launch its operation without warning – on the contrary, it was preceded by attempts to solve the problem by diplomatic means. At the end of 2021, Moscow presented a list of security requirements, primarily regarding Ukraine's membership in NATO and, as it seemed to her, its military takeover by the alliance. Moscow's formulations turned out to be unacceptable to the United States and its allies, but there was a prospect of serious discussion and search for mutually acceptable solutions, especially since it was not planned to offer Ukraine membership in NATO in the near future. But instead, the United States and NATO rejected the Russian ultimatum with contempt – not only in words, but also with new sanctions and new arms supplies to Kiev. It was the exact opposite of what Putin was trying to achieve. The reaction of the West was so categorical and, according to the Russians, dismissive that some experts of Russian state television even suspected that the United States was trying to provoke Russia to attack Ukraine and get bogged down in a quagmire – like the USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
At that time, President Zelensky was right to be skeptical of Biden's warnings about the "inevitability" of a Russian invasion of Ukraine – if only because it was not inevitable and was not even in the plans. Russia conducted military exercises in Belarus in order to deploy its forces there, declare itself and use them as leverage against Ukraine – they were clearly not enough for a full-scale military invasion. This became finally clear with the beginning of the special operation. Not only key figures in the Russian government, but also senior military officials did not suspect any inevitability – hence the confusing beginning of this operation. The main reason why so few people, even in Putin's circle, including top diplomats and representatives of national security, knew about the operation almost until the last moment, was that such a decision had not yet been made. As one senior official, who is believed to be aware of the events, told me, Putin hoped against hope that "sooner or later serious negotiations would begin and no military action would be required." Instead, Washington felt that Moscow was bluffing and put Putin in front of a painful choice: either give up and discredit himself, or press the button.
Of course, President Putin has ordered the start of hostilities, and it is he who will have to take responsibility for the consequences. However, as Pope Francis recently noted, it was the leaders in Washington, London and Brussels who staged, as it seemed to the Russians, a clear provocation and thoughtlessly ignored Russia's demands, although they themselves did not plan to accept Ukraine into NATO.
While Moscow was deciding what to do next after the West rejected its ultimatum, a number of leading Russian experts considered Washington and Brussels' rejection of Russian demands categorical and excessive (in the end, Ukraine's membership in NATO in any case did not shine, and the Biden administration refused to use military force in its defense). A logical conclusion suggests itself, they decided, that Biden and his advisers are deliberately provoking Russia to attack Ukraine. Konstantin Remchukov, the publisher of the famous "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", made this argument on the talk show of Channel One. In the end, Putin clearly decided that there should be a "special military operation" – and it does not matter whether it is provoked or not.
After four months, it is fair to say that the operation is not unfolding exactly as the Russian government expected – whether militarily or politically. The Ukrainian military resisted more fiercely than the Biden administration expected from them – in February, the United States hastily evacuated the embassy from Kiev and offered to flee to President Zelensky. The Biden administration is certainly pleased with the unprecedented unity in the ranks of NATO and in the West in general. The unprecedented agreement is accompanied by exceptionally tough and extensive sanctions against Russia. No less striking is the military aid promised to Kiev in the amount of $5.6 billion since February. It is thanks to the help of the United States, as well as their allies – a total of forty countries – that the Ukrainian army has achieved truly impressive results in battles with the Russian military and much superior artillery and aviation.
However, the key problem for the Biden administration is that Putin's government has also achieved impressive success. Almost single-handedly opposing the entire West and the most developed democracies of North America, Europe and the Pacific region, Russia remains undefeated and unconquered. After initial setbacks, Moscow moderated its initial goals, but achieved tactical successes in the Donbas and southern Ukraine. Even despite the sanctions and the freezing of half of the Central Bank's gold and foreign exchange reserves, Russia maintains a tolerable level of economic activity and continues to produce weapons and ammunition. Moreover, with the exception of the West, most countries flatly refused to isolate Russia. Even those who voted at the UN General Assembly in support of non-binding resolutions criticizing Russia, in most cases did so under pressure from the West, and not out of real convictions. Key countries like China and India refused to condemn Russia even symbolically, making it clear that they want to maintain normal relations with Moscow and strengthen economic ties as much as possible without violating Western sanctions and without incurring painful repression. Perhaps even more importantly, the unity of the West around tough and comprehensive sanctions has cost him dearly: a significant part of Russian society has rallied around Putin. Numerous opinion polls, including independent and opposition ones, indicate that after four months of hostilities, the nuclear power Russia is united and ready to face the challenges of the West.
Until now, Moscow's military operation has been limited in nature – and not only in words. From the very beginning, Russia simply did not have enough troops for a large-scale offensive. This is one of the reasons why the Zelensky government was skeptical about the operation while it was still at the planning stage. And if today Russia retains superiority in most categories of military equipment, then according to many experts, Ukraine, after a number of mobilizations, gained an advantage on the battlefield. Russia has not yet carried out any mobilizations: the conscripts sent to Ukraine at the beginning of the operation turned out to be an exception. There is a long list of steps that NATO assumed in the event of a full-scale conflict, but Moscow has not taken. Although Russia did not hesitate to launch indiscriminate bombing when it lacked precision weapons and intelligence, in general it acted very restrained, for example, it did not touch important government buildings, power plants, TV towers and the presidential residence in Kiev. Foreign leaders even visited Zelensky and came to Kiev by train – and Russia did not put any obstacles in their way, not to mention rocket attacks and air raids. Despite Moscow's numerous rhetorical threats, Russian troops have not yet attacked warehouses, airfields, train stations and highways outside Ukraine, through which neighboring countries deliver military aid to Kiev. Large-scale cyberattacks and sabotage, which are considered an integral part of the Russian toolkit, are not yet visible.
It seems that Putin is really determined to continue a limited military operation for as long as possible in order to maintain a relatively normal situation inside the country. However, Western sanctions continue to expand, and people associated with the Putin regime are increasingly suffering from them only insofar as, for example, the children of Russian officials from their first marriage or successful entrepreneurs. Many were included in the sanctions lists purely for belonging to a particular industry, be it journalism or energy. Thus, the sanctions in Russia predictably gave the impression that their real target is not the Putin regime and not the Russian military, but the entire Russian people. Fortunately, Putin did not give vent to popular anger against the West and did not turn his operation into a kind of "patriotic war". But it would be a serious miscalculation to neglect the real potential of such a scenario.
It is unknown what red lines will prevent Putin from moving from a limited military operation to a "patriotic war". Tactical failures in the Donbas, especially in the territories occupied after February 24, will certainly not fall into this category, but there are a number of possible scenarios that could provoke a significant escalation on the Russian side. So, Ukrainian officials threaten to destroy the Crimean Bridge or even return Crimea with the help of American weapons. According to the Russians, this step is equivalent to a large-scale attack on Russian territory. And Poland and the Baltic States consider Russia not just a threat, but a hated monster that needs to be destroyed or at least humiliated, as a result, it seems that they are looking for a fight with Moscow. By restricting transit to Kaliningrad through its territory, Lithuania has made the Russian region dependent on sea supplies. It is not difficult to imagine that if the restrictions remain, Russia's reaction will not be fundamentally different from the US reaction to the Soviet blockade of West Berlin in 1948. Polish officials have added fuel to the fire, threatened to restrict Russia's maritime access to Kaliningrad and even offer to take responsibility for ensuring the air defense of western Ukraine. As Biden himself once noted, such actions by a NATO country will make the alliance a direct participant in the Ukrainian conflict. The hope that Russia will delay retaliatory military actions is illusory.
On the eve of February 24, American intelligence predicted a number of hostile steps on the part of Russia, which have not yet occurred – but are not excluded in the near future, starting from the quiet but systematic establishment of ties with hostile countries and movements (Iran, North Korea, Nicaragua and the Taliban*) and ending with cyber attacks and planning nuclear strikes. American intelligence does not see signs that Russia is engaged in nuclear training, but it is still unclear what exactly it is about. If such preparations became public, Russia would, of course, be accused of inciting a nuclear war, and not only Western countries, but even those who sympathize with Moscow, including China and India. Unlike the American media, where attempts by the Biden administration to start a hybrid war are regularly discussed, in Russia you will not find as detailed discussions of hostile actions against the United States – for example, as from the Ministry of Finance or the Office of Foreign Assets Control. However, there is a growing desire in Moscow to prepare a list of options, ranging from economic counter-sanctions to active measures, which will fall on Putin's table at the right moment. As for the nuclear catastrophe, the most improbable option is most often discussed on Russian television: when guests seriously or ironically rant about the strike with strategic missiles and the destruction of the east coast of the United States. If Russia suffers serious setbacks that threaten control over Crimea or Kaliningrad, its food and energy exports, or financial or internal stability, Russian military doctrine allows the use of tactical nuclear weapons. This scenario will surely be seriously considered by high-ranking Russian officials, because many of them believe that the leaders of the United States and the EU are not crazy and will not risk a full-scale nuclear war for the sake of interests that are not vital. In addition, the definition of vital interests changes when it comes to nuclear weapons of any capacity.
Given the conflicting goals of Russia and Ukraine, their opposing hopes for the further development of the conflict and the unstable situation on the battlefield, any agreement seems unlikely at this stage. However, the recognition of this reality does not mean that we have to put up with the incessant exchange of fire between Moscow and Kiev without any meaningful dialogue between Washington and Moscow. Today, the main danger is not a frozen conflict, but a vast fire that can break out almost at any moment from an unforeseen event like the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo in 1914.
It is one thing to say that a settlement without the participation and consent of the Ukrainian government is unacceptable, but it is quite another to completely hand over to Kiev the reins of negotiations with a nuclear power. The fundamental duty of the Biden administration is to ensure the survival of our republic. Ukrainians have the right to veto any territorial agreement with Russia, but not on the decisions of the United States on the types and quantity of weapons supplied, and, moreover, on what kind of relations America should establish with the only country that can destroy it. Putin has demonstrated that he is ready to make bold ruthless military decisions. However, he and his strategy are the product of a different political culture, so he has his own interpretation of what happened between Russia and the West. His view is very different from the one prevailing in Washington and may lead Putin to fundamentally different conclusions than the West has made. The idea that Moscow will be guided by the American measure of caution is fraught with a fatal miscalculation.
___________________________
* A terrorist organization banned in Russia (Approx. InoSMI)
