This war is obviously not going well for Putin. Consider Czechoslovakia in 1968: the invasion was largely unopposed, the Czechoslovak leader was arrested on the second day, flown to Moscow. The West just swallowed it. What we have today in Ukraine is playing out very differently.
The possibility of escalation and carnage remains. I would not rush to write Russia off as a paper tiger at this point. The situation is dangerous precisely because the war is not going well. Which brings us to the question of rationality.
Is Putin unhinged or has he miscalculated? In my recent piece for the War on the Rocks I talked about brinksmanship as a foreign policy strategy, and how war can happen (and has happened) as a result of miscalculation. warontherocks.com/2022/02/moscow….
I still think brinksmanship/miscalculation is the right frame to understand Putin's decision-making. If you think the other side will fold fast, and that the world has already resigned itself to Ukraine being in the Russian "sphere", the risks seem manageable.
He gambled, and he failed, and that's why we are back to brinksmanship with nuclear threats. Nuclear brinksmanship is underpinned by rational calculations about the other side's likely reaction. Khrushchev's certainly was (see my War on the Rocks piece: warontherocks.com/2021/12/the-be…).
What is important in this situation? First. To understand that it's not over until it's over. For all we know, the war hasn't even fully begun. We are in an extremely dangerous phase of this conflict.
Second. Assume that Putin is rational. True, he may just be crazy, in which case we are doomed. But we can't do anything about his craziness (if this is the case). We can do something about his calculation of costs/benefits if he is rational.
This means: we have to provide the Kremlin with off-ramps at every suitable opportunity. You don't like the sanctions? Some of these could be lifted if you pull out of Ukraine. We are ready to talk if you de-escalate. What about strategic stability talks, or new INF talks? Etc.
Just remember: a wild animal is always at its most dangerous when it's cornered. This has to be played smartly: without the unnecessary hubris, with firmness but with full understanding that the risks of miscalculation are extremely high - for both sides.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few thoughts about a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine.
No.
We have to be brutally frank about this. Russia is conducting a horrific war against Ukraine. An unjust war, unjustly waged. Innocent people are dying: it's tragic and heartbreaking. We must help Ukraine in every conceivable way... except for getting NATO directly involved.
Reasonable people understand this, and that's why reasonable people (including in the Biden Administration) said - before the war ever began - that NATO would *not* become involved. This may have well contributed to Putin's war calculus - he wasn't counting on NATO involvement.
Wang Wenbin appears a little less dazed in this press conference, and it does seem that China has finally formulated a position on Russia's war in Ukraine. fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_6…. The position is benevolent neutrality, as I would have expected.
The benevolence is mainly rhetorical, at least for now: China "understands" Russia's "legitimate" security concerns and opposes sanctions on Russia.
At the same time, Beijing restates its support for the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, one of Wang Yi's "five points" on Ukraine. The repeated promise to look at the Ukraine issue "on its own merits" (按照事情本身) limits the applicability of this principle.
A great panel on Russia/Ukraine with my SAIS colleagues today. Let me pick up a thread that was touched upon but that requires further elaboration. Let's formulate it this way: is Putin unhinged or is he a rational actor?
I'd argue that seeing Putin as unhinged is unhelpful as a matter of policy choice. Doing so entails a logical fallacy. If we say that Putin is unhinged / determined to grab Ukraine no matter what, what we really say is that he is willing to fight a nuclear war to achieve his aim.
But if so, putting up resistance to his aggression in Ukraine makes no logical sense because Putin will unleash a nuclear war before he retreats in Ukraine, and, as a result, we'll have no winners, only losers. Hell, we'll all end up dead.
There are two ways to think about just war. The first criterion is jus ad bellum, the right to war. Russia failed by a wide margin. Its security concerns, such as there were, its made-up claims of a "genocide" - all did not add up to nearly enough to justify an attack on Ukraine.
The second criterion is called jus in bello - justice in war. This is an undertaking to use proportional force and to minimise civilian casualties. Russia's attack on Kharkiv today shows a blatant disregard for this principle.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Russia's war in Ukraine is an unjust war, unjustly waged.
We have overestimated Putin’s rationality in a sense. But here’s another consideration. Putin is acting the way he is because we have long resigned to Ukraine being in the Russian sphere. Why, the US/NATO have repeatedly stated they would not defend Ukraine. Art 5 doesn’t apply.
So Putin is acting like Khrushchev did in 1956 or like Brezhnev in 1968 when they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia respectively. They did because they knew there would not be much of a Western response. And there’s wasn’t one.
In this sense at least, Putin is reasserting the Brezhnev doctrine: no country ‘deemed’ to be in the Russian sphere should be allowed to leave it.
I never voted for Putin, having regarded him as unfit for office from day 1. However, if he stepped down after two terms in 2008, perhaps - and that’s a big perhaps, given the deeply worrying trends of his first eight years - history would still give him a C.
Years later, Russia still lacks viable institutions, still deeply mired in corruption, still dependent heavily on the export of oil and gas. Russia has lost all moral authority. It has become a pariah state. Questions are being posed about its leader being possibly deranged.
How did we get here? Bad political choices. Cowardice and greed of the few and the indifference of the many. And who is to blame? We ourselves are. And, yes, many bravely opposed this hideous regime, and have paid the price. But most have been ‘fine’ with it.