As expected, the diplomatic talks between Russia, the U.S. and NATO produced no progress. The opposing sides are far apart. Meanwhile, long trains carrying Russian military equipment are heading in the Western direction. What will Putin do next?
- Something significant will happen soon. Neither side seems willing to back down. Instead, each seems committed to escalation. While Russia is beefing up its military assets close to Ukraine, the talk in Washington is focused on more sanctions against Russia and more arms shipments to Ukraine – even before any Russian attack occurs. Arms from various NATO countries continue flowing to Ukraine every day. From the Russian perspective, all such steps also constitute escalation. Escalation, if not stopped, eventually leads to war.
- Having made his ultimatum and seeing it rejected, Putin started a game he cannot lose. Also, China cannot afford to let him lose. If Putin falls and a Russian version of Saakashvili takes over, China will be surrounded by enemies. So, Xi Jinping is along for the ride, whether he likes it or not.
- Objectively, neither Putin nor any other Russian leader in his right mind can allow NATO to advance any further. A hostile and fearless Ukraine, armed to the teeth and protected by NATO, that shares a long border with Russia and is allied with Russia’s permanent Western adversaries would never be a tolerable outcome for Russia. To feel secure and powerful, Russia needs a weak or friendly Ukraine that can never take military action against Russia’s interests.
- Statements by Russian officials strongly suggest that Russia’s next steps will include the use of military force – or, at least, “counter-threats”—whatever that means. This is the logical progression after diplomacy has failed.
- Economic sanctions will not deter Russia, just like they have not stopped Iran or North Korea from developing weapons essential to these countries’ security. The stakes are too high for money to affect the calculus. If Ukraine joins NATO and becomes invincible, the long-term survival of Kremlin’s regime, and the Russian Federation as a whole, will be in jeopardy. This is why Russia has already invested so much in seizing Crimea and in keeping Ukraine bogged down in the Donbas conflict, despite the cost of economic sanctions that have now been in place for eight years. Russia has been hoarding tons of gold for a reason, and is braced for more sanctions to come in any event. Finally, China is unlikely to support any Western sanctions and may offer Russia an alternative economic lifeline.
In sum, the shit will soon hit the fan. Where will it happen, and how? First, a few basic things to keep in mind:
- While invading Ukraine is the most obvious move for Russia to make, it’s not at all clear this is where Putin will strike. Of course, there’s always a chance Ukraine does something crazy in Donbas, forcing Russia to intervene more forcefully. (Much of the Russian military presence in the neighborhood has already been there for a long time, for this reason.) But if the objective is to force NATO to give up on Ukraine, and more broadly to stop laying siege to Russia, then slaughtering a bunch of Ukrainians and taking their land probably won’t get the job done. The West cares much less about Ukraine than about itself. For NATO, Ukraine is mostly cannon fodder, a useful irritant to keep Russia distracted – and, down the road, a potential platform to launch and sustain an armed insurgency inside Russia itself, when the opportunity presents itself. If Russia wants to occupy Ukraine, face a long guerilla war, and take ownership of Ukraine’s ruined economy, few people in the West will feel sad about it. It’s hard to lament losing something that the West never fully owned.
- On the flip side, Russia doesn’t really want to own Ukraine and its problems. She just wants to deny NATO access to Ukraine’s territory, and to maintain Russia’s current ability to intimidate Ukraine into not crossing certain red lines. (Including the ability to invade Ukraine if its behavior gets out of hand, which Russia has already done in 2014 when Kyiv’s artillery pounded Donetsk and the pro-Russian rebels were about to get crushed.) Russia just wants to remain able to do to Ukrainians what Israel does to Syria and Gaza every week: punch them in the jaw whenever it feels appropriate, if only to remind them who is the boss.
- Russia, and China, have many tools to inflict harm on the West itself. This is more likely to bring the West back to the negotiating table. And that’s what is truly raising anxiety in Western capitals – not the threat to Ukraine, which is merely an important piece of a larger puzzle that Russia is trying to solve. Putin, the unpredictable judo master, might choose a less obvious (and more painful) pressure point than doing what most pundits expect him to do.
- Russia’s recent actions, including the ultimatum to NATO, must be closely coordinated with China. It’s unlikely Putin would have started this game without checking with Xi Jinping first, and the two leaders spoke extensively in the months leading up to the showdown. China has already expressed its support for Putin’s ultimatum. Most observers seem focused on the current stand-off as a pure Russia vs. West play, oblivious to the fact that Russia and China are increasingly aligned in a common goal: preventing American global hegemony. So, asking “What can Russia do?” is missing half the story. The better question is: What can China and Russia, acting in concert, do?
Russia’s Options
- Declare unilaterally that any country on Russia’s European borders that attempts to join NATO, or to host NATO troops, will be attacked by Russia immediately. And that nuclear weapons will be used against any NATO members who attempt to come to that country’s defense.
- The Kremlin has probably already said this to Western and Ukrainian leaders in private, while avoiding saying so openly. But a public proclamation will clarify the stakes for the public at large, and suck the air out of anyone in Ukraine still hopeful for NATO admission. It would also help raise spirits back home in Moscow.
- As a practical matter, while the West will react indignantly, this declaration should put an end to any serious talk of NATO expansion. (At least while Putin and like-minded people are in charge in the Kremlin.) Yes, NATO’s open door policy and “Russia has no veto right” are holy mantras among Brussels and Washington policy wonks, but nobody in the West is truly prepared to fight World War III and die for them. By contrast, Russia’s declaration will make clear that Russia is willing to fight to the death to stop NATO. Try explaining to the good citizens of Pittsburgh and Paris why they should be ready to get nuked to uphold NATO’s sacred right to put its tanks 300 miles from Moscow. Or to the good citizens of Finland that it’s worth a try sticking their neck out, just to see if Putin was bluffing.
- However, the West will never publicly admit defeat, will keep pressuring Russia to reverse course, and will continue feeding weapons and military personnel into Ukraine. The war in Donbas will also continue. Essentially, the current status quo will stay in place, and may keep deteriorating from Russia’s perspective. So, words alone will not do the trick.
2. Launch missile and air strikes in Ukraine, targeting Ukraine’s military and industrial infrastructure. (A more audacious target would be one of NATO’s training centers, which Russia argues are really NATO bases in disguise.) After a day or two of bombing, Russia may pause and declare “mission accomplished,” borrowing a page from George W. Bush’s book. Russia could also announce that the bombing will resume if any economic sanctions are imposed for what she has just done.
- This would be another feel-good, “who’s your daddy” moment for the patriotic masses back home. But Russia has already demonstrated superior military force on Ukrainian territory, humiliating Ukraine multiple times – in Crimea, Ilovaisk, and Debaltsevo. Yet the Ukrainians keep trucking along. NATO will shrug its shoulders and send more advanced air defense systems to Ukraine.
- Russia may continue the bombing, but (Yugoslavia aside) air power alone rarely wins wars. A more robust approach will be needed to make Ukraine collapse, perhaps shutting off all coal and electricity supplies to bring its economy to a standstill in the middle of winter. But again, the problem with any scenario in which Russia kicks Ukraine’s ass is that the West doesn’t care much. They will weep on TV about Ukrainian suffering, impose more sanctions, and continue patiently laying siege to Russia and trying to strangle Russia. The root of Russia’s larger problem is in the U.S., and it is the U.S. that Russia must confront and threaten to solve the problem.
3. Launch missile and air strikes against a NATO country, putting some NATO soldiers in bodybags. The likely targets would be anti-missile defense systems that the U.S. has been building in Poland and Romania, or NATO aircraft in the Baltic states. Again, Russia would warn (maybe even before striking) that any retaliation would trigger a nuclear response.
- This would definitely raise the ante, and force NATO to face a terrible choice: escalate into a nuclear war that it cannot win and that would end the West’s existence, or walk away with a bloody nose. The latter would be the less bad, rational choice, but people don’t always act rationally after you break their nose. So, potentially a home run, but also a huge risk for Russia to take. But if Russia feels confident, and is determined to bring the matter to a head and win quickly, this is the way to do it.
- This strategy would be even more potent if Russia persuaded others to play along, and a multi-prong attack occurs on several fronts. It may not be a coincidence that China has been ratcheting up simulated air assaults around Taiwan. Or that the Houthi rebels just hit Abu Dhabi’s airport and fuel storage facilities with missiles and drones, presumably provided by Iran. (Putin just met the other day with Ebrahim Raisi, who is playing his own high stakes escalation game with the West right now. Raisi proudly noted that his country has been under U.S. sanctions for 40 years, and has not backed down.) Or that North Korea has been firing more and more rockets into the Sea of Japan. Not that any of these players need to actually join in a massive coordinated attack, but even a “head fake” could be enough to keep the U.S. guessing and off-balance.
- A more mellow version (avoiding body bags, at least initially), mentioned by some pundits: shoot down some Western satellites, or cut the undersea Internet cables connecting U.S. and Europe. But any time one starts using force, one better be ready to take it to the next level that features bodybags, if the other side chooses to retaliate. So, damage against property is a possible tool, but only as part of a more complex strategy that includes a willingness to commit real violence against humans.
4. Deploy missiles and other strike capabilities close to the U.S. shoreline. This is getting some airtime in the Russian media, with pundits recommending Cuba and Venezuela as possible staging grounds. Parallels with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis are too obvious. Jake Sullivan’s “we will deal with it decisively” response drew smiles, since we’ve been hearing a lot about each country’s right to choose its military partners. If Ukraine has such a right, why doesn’t Cuba?
- On a more serious note, putting aside that Russia clearly has a legal right to do this, it’s not clear that the U.S. will attack any such deployment. (What if a few Chinese missile cruisers join the party?) And if the U.S. does attack, Putin may welcome that as a justification to activate the extreme Scenario #3 above. Either the deployment succeeds, scoring some points for Russia, or it triggers the U.S. to lash out first and kill some Russians, opening the door for a massive Russian reprisal in Europe, Syria… or any other place where Russia can find Americans to kill, including the U.S. mainland itself.
- The main question with the Cuban scenario is whether Cuba’s leadership would want their country again to become a pawn in a high stakes global chess match. Pawns have a high casualty rate and, unlike some countries, Cuba is not anyone’s puppet. Venezuela may be a more likely host, if Putin throws in some cash, given Maduro’s dire financial situation and the fact he is already under a tough siege by the U.S. He may relish the opportunity to make the gringos sweat.
- But a local land base, while helpful, isn’t even needed to bring the threat to Americans’ home. A more likely scenario is Russia simply sending a few well-armed ships to cruise in international waters near the U.S. shoreline. Putin has mentioned the possibility of deploying “naval assets” within striking distance of U.S. territory, including new Poseidon nuclear drone torpedoes that are designed to destroy U.S. port cities by causing a tsunami and permanent radioactive contamination of the shoreline. A few Russian submarines are presumably always on patrol in the area anyway and are more useful, while surface ships are sitting ducks, but the appearance of surface ships would create a more compelling TV picture. People in Miami would be unnerved by images of Russian missile cruisers floating 20 miles offshore. Again, this would be perfectly legal tit-for-tat, exactly what the U.S. Navy has been doing to Russia in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and to China in the Taiwan Strait. And on that note, what if China simultaneously conducts a similar naval exercise 20 miles away from Los Angeles?
- But even though moving missiles into the Western Hemisphere would be a strong publicity stunt, and will greatly annoy the Americans, it won’t change the global balance of power much. Russia already has overwhelming ability to destroy the U.S. and their allies from her own territory, and most Americans realize this. So, an interesting move, but probably not enough to tip the scales by itself. Again, it would be more effective as part of a bigger, multi-pronged strategy.
5. Inflict a severe economic shock on the West. Imagine a multinational, coordinated hacking attack on Western financial and other economic infrastructure, causing the U.S. financial markets to crash. This may be coupled with sudden “right back at ya” economic sanctions imposed by Russia (cutting off all gas supplies to Europe) and China (embargo on export of crucial rare earth minerals or a massive sell-off of U.S. Treasuries), adding more disruption to global supply chains already strained by the Covid-19 pandemic. As a cherry on top, the Iranians and their Houthi friends might sink a few more oil tankers in their neighborhood, causing the price of oil to skyrocket.
- Or, more simply, imagine a total shutdown of the Internet for a week. In any country where people carry little cash and rely on debit cards, or on buying goods from Amazon, the inability to access your money or to effect any financial transaction would start to bite very soon. How long before law and order breaks down, and looters emerge on the streets?
- The economic shock scenario, while using little initial violence, may be the one that inflicts the most pain. The key source of the West’s power is its money. If that money is put in jeopardy, what advantage does the West have left? In one of my favorite Breaking Bad scenes, Jesse Pinkman turns the tables on the manipulative Walt White and causes him to snap by threatening to burn down all his money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij_2rQCZFtY
- Not surprisingly, the risk of Russia retaliating with a massive hacking attack allegedly was the main concern that forced Pentagon planners to recalibrate their targets for a missile strike in Syria a few years ago, making sure to avoid hitting any Russian soldiers. This may be the scenario that the West fears most. When Putin and his crew talk about “military or military/technical measures,” the “technical” part may be the Big Hack.
- Of course, a cardiac arrest of the global economy or an Internet outage will affect the rest of the world, including Russia. But don’t underestimate the power of totalitarian regimes to muddle through Stone Age cataclysmic events. In Belarus and Kazakstan, recent protests were stymied in part by governments intentionally shutting down the Internet, impairing the protesters’ coordination and cutting off communications from the outside world that could help spread incendiary messages among their citizens. Putin won’t care that ordinary Russians cannot access Facebook or don’t get their packages on time. He has enough men with guns to keep Russia’s population in check, and tons of gold to help tide things over for a while. A technologically advanced liberal democracy may be less adept at surviving such a meltdown for an extended period of time.
And on that happy note, let’s hope the diplomats have some tricks left up their sleeves. Will Blinken blink?
Vadim Mahmoudov
January 21, 2022.
