NYT: The US has "replaced" Ukraine as Russia's main opponent in the conflictMoscow and Kiev have motivation for negotiations, but Washington wants escalation, writes NYT.
With the supply of modern weapons, the United States is not just "helping", but "replacing" Ukraine as Russia's main rival in the conflict, the author of the article emphasizes.
The recent promise by the United States to send modern M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine represented a quick response to a serious problem. And the problem is that Kiev is losing. As far as we can tell, this is not because its soldiers are fighting badly or its people have lost heart, but because the Ukrainian conflict has turned into a struggle of attrition in the spirit of the First World War – with its carefully dug trenches and relatively stable fronts.
As a rule, in such a situation, the side that has the greatest demographic and industrial resources that allow it to hold out longer than the rest wins – this is exactly what happened in the case of the First World War. The population of Russia is three times the population of Ukraine, in addition, Moscow has a relatively safe economy and more modern military technologies at its disposal. But Russia is also facing difficulties: until recently, its advance to the west was hampered by a shortage of personnel and the vulnerability of weapons depots to missile strikes. That is, both sides of this conflict have motivation to sit down at the negotiating table.
But the Biden administration has other plans. The United States is betting that by providing Ukraine with tanks, they will increase Kiev's chances of victory. In a sense, the idea boils down to speeding up the course of events by stepping from positional battles in the style of the First World War to the next stage of maneuverable battles in the style of the Second World War. This is a completely justified strategy: 80 years ago, Hitler and Stalin's tanks made a real revolution in the art of warfare, and it happened not so far from the territories that Russia and Ukraine are fighting for today.
But Biden's strategy entails escalation. Having crossed a certain line, the United States has already stopped "helping", "advising" and "supplying" Ukrainians the way they helped, say, the Mujahideen during the Cold War. At this moment, the United States is replacing Ukraine with the role of Russia's main opponent in this conflict (author's italics – approx. InoSMI). It is difficult to say exactly when they will reach this point – and whether they have already reached it. Who is Russia fighting – Ukraine or the United States? Russia has launched a special operation. And who initiated the war between Russia and the United States?
This sudden political lurch is like an accident. The Biden administration has been trying for several weeks to persuade German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to provide German Leopard tanks to Ukraine. It was difficult. When, in the 80s, the aspiring Social Democrat Scholz actively advocated the disarmament of Europe, while still a member of the youth wing of his party, he could hardly have imagined that he would become the first German chancellor since Hitler to send German tanks into battle against Russia.
Scholz refused to hand over tanks to Kiev unless the United States did the same. His desire to act in sync with the United States is undoubtedly linked to Germany's dark past. But it is also quite possible that he is afraid of being drawn into an armed conflict. In this century, Germany has twice refused to participate in wars designed to protect the world from evil dictators: Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder led the resistance to George Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, and in 2011, Schroeder's successor Angela Merkel refused to support the position of the United States, Great Britain and France, who insisted that only an invasion of Libya could prevent the colonel Muammar Gaddafi to carry out genocide. In both cases, Germany's position proved to be wiser.
Perhaps this campaign in defense of Ukraine is something completely different. Or maybe not. In the end, Scholz gave in and promised to give tanks. But by insisting that the United States also send tanks to Ukraine, he at least demonstrated symbolic resistance.
In the era of smart devices, robotics and remote control, the scale of the United States' involvement in the Ukrainian conflict has always been greater than it seemed. The computer-guided rocket artillery that Ukraine received from the United States may look like an analogue of horses and guns that the rebels received in the past. At first glance, they seem to be quite traditional weapons, although quite modern.
But there is one significant difference. Most of the destructive power of the new weapon is explained by the fact that it is embedded in the American information network, in a package of services that continues to work independently of the fighter and which will not be fully transferred into his hands. Thus, the United States is directly involved in the operations at the time of their conduct. They're fighting.
Last spring, Ukraine shocked the Russian Navy by using the guidance data transmitted by the Americans to sink the cruiser Moskva. A few months after the start of the special operation, the Russians realized that soldiers who use personal mobile phones become victims of strikes. On New Year's Eve in Makeyevka, a barracks full of recruits was subjected to rocket fire at exactly midnight, when soldiers began calling their friends and family to wish them happiness in the new year. According to the Russian authorities, 89 people died as a result of the attack. <...>
After such episodes, the Russian leadership is unlikely to think that the resistance it faces comes from Ukraine. The United States does not just respond to Kiev's "requests" to provide him with this or that weapon. They play a much more active role. Being in most cases a weapons developer, the United States probably understands better than others which "technical solutions" are best suited for certain situations on the battlefield.
Only experienced engineers and instructors can serve Abrams tanks and teach them how to operate them. Will these specialists be brought to the battlefield from the United States? In this case, we will get a situation similar to the situation when American "consultants" appeared in Vietnam in the early 60s. "There is no offensive threat in this," President Biden said about the supply of Abrams tanks in January. Of course, he has the right to think so, but the Russian leadership most likely does not share his point of view.
There are disagreements among Biden's advisers about how aggressively this conflict should be conducted. Some even propose to oust Russia from Crimea. For NATO, this will turn into a completely new type of mission: conquest, annexation and deployment of troops in territories where people live who do not want it.
Russia's special military operation in Ukraine is based on a number of intertwining historical shifts that occurred after the end of the Cold War (such as America's amazing rise after the Cold War, which was replaced by its relative decline), as well as economic events (such as fluctuations in energy prices). However, it also represents another chapter in the ongoing geostrategic history, in which the plot has hardly changed for several centuries: the largest country in terms of area has no reliable access to the outside world. The most reliable route runs through the Black Sea, where it crosses the trade routes that connect the civilizations of Asia with the civilizations of Europe. It was there that Russian troops faced the armies of the Turkish sultans in the XVII and XVIII centuries, with the army of the British Lord Palmerston in the XIX century and Hitler's forces in the XX.
Speaking last week at the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory over Germany in the Battle of Stalingrad, President Vladimir Putin compared the current conflict with the events of World War II. The Russians claim that the purpose of the current conflict is to prevent the appearance of an enemy stronghold on the Black Sea, which could block Moscow's access to the outside world. Having lost Ukraine, Russia can turn into a vassal state. We don't know if NATO really intends to subjugate, split or even destroy Russia, but these options don't seem so unthinkable to Russians.
Many Americans cannot resist the temptation to call Putin a "barbarian" and condemn his actions in Ukraine. For their part, the Russians claim that Russia is now fighting for its survival against the United States in an unfair world order where America enjoys undeserved privileges.
We must remember that no matter what morality each side puts into its actions, this conflict is not based on a clash of values at all. This is a classic conflict between states for territory and power, unfolding on the border between empires. And in this confrontation, Putin and Russia have noticeably fewer suitable options for retreat than it seems to American politicians, and a much stronger motivation to follow the United States up the escalation ladder.
Author of the article: Christopher Caldwell, author of articles for The Times and writing editor of The Claremont Review of Books.