Military posturing in Ukraine

Biden's foreign policy is of course unfolding. And relations with Russia and China are a major part of that, of course.

There is a lot of maneuvering between Russia and the US over Ukraine, as shown in some recent reports. Anatol Lieven provides some important background in Again, Washington jumps to conclusions over Ukraine-Russia skirmish Responsible Statecraft 04/02/2021

The initial reaction of Biden administration officials to the latest clash between Ukrainian troops and pro-Russian militia (or Russian soldiers serving as militia) in eastern Ukraine exemplifies a very dangerous pattern in U.S. and Western behavior: to believe whatever “our” side in a given crisis tells us, automatically, and without checking facts.

How often in the past has the United States been seduced into disastrous international actions by local actors who knew the right American buttons to push and the right misinformation to feed to Washington? Iranian monarchists, British intelligence, the United Fruit Company, Vietnamese politicians; Cuban, Iraqi and Libyan exiles, Arab princelings, Afghan warlords, an almost endless succession of Latin American generals and oligarchs — I could go on.

While four Ukrainian soldiers died in the recent fighting, we have no independent evidence at all of who started it, or why, and more careful media outlets like the Financial Times have avoided apportioning blame in their reporting.

Ukraine, like Georgia and Belarus and Moldova, was formerly part of the Soviet Union. Russia wants to block closer alliances, particularly military alliances, between those countries and the West. The former Baltic Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are all now members of the European Union and the NATO military alliance.

In Georgia and in Ukraine, Russia is political and militarily supporting breakaway mini-republics on the territory of both those cuontries. And Russia has formally annexed Crimea, which is legally part of Ukraine. In international law, Georgia and Ukraine are right in rejecting those claims. But as a practical matter for Russia, those partial occupations have the practical function of making it very difficult for NATO countries including the US to form formal military alliances with Georgia or Ukraine. Because to have a formal military alliance, you have to define the territory to be defended. That creates risks, and not only risks from the Other Side. As Lieven recalls in the context of:

... the U.S. and Western response to the outbreak of the Georgia-Russia war in August 2008; for here, the evidence, far from being ambiguous and opaque, was always entirely clear. The war began with Georgian troops moving inside the disputed territory of South Ossetia and attacking Russian “peacekeeping” troops there. Nobody has ever produced the slightest credible evidence otherwise. Russia then counter-attacked and defeated the Georgian forces. Yet this obvious truth was turned by the Bush administration, the entire bipartisan establishment, and the U.S. media into a story of “Russian aggression against Georgia.”

To say this does not mean taking one side or the other on the underlying rights and wrongs of any of these conflicts. What it does mean is maintaining a respect for evidence and the truth in each specific case, without which it would be impossible to maintain either the integrity or the wisdom of the policymaking process and foreign policy debate: Garbage in, garbage out.

The Georgia-Russia war also demonstrates another sinister effect of this syndrome, which is to reduce the ability of the United States to learn from its mistakes — something that used to be to be considered a key advantage of liberal democracy over its closed and authoritarian rivals. The bipartisan establishment and media had agreed on pushing NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, and encouraged the Georgians to see themselves as allies for whom the United States would fight to defend in a war with Russia. They did this despite warnings from certain regional experts (including me), both of the risks they were encouraging Georgia to run, and of the obvious truth that America would not risk nuclear war with Russia for the sake of Georgia. [my emphasis]

Leonid Bershidsky writes about the current situation in Ukraine (Putin’s Ukraine Build-Up Is About Gaining Attention, Not Territory Bloomberg Opinion 04/09/2021):

The almost theatrical massing of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border in recent days, which some researchers have described as the heaviest since 2015, brings home to Western leaders an uncomfortable truth: If Russia had the appetite for a major military operation, Ukraine would be at its mercy.

Putin the opportunist, who seized a moment of confusion in 2014 to grab Crimea, surely sees a similar chance now, and he has little to fear at home if he launches a military operation. Yet there are good reasons to conclude that what Putin really wants is not more Ukrainian territory, but greater respect from the U.S. and his European neighbors for what he thinks of as his ability to advance Russia’s interests. [my emphasis]

But some of Bershidsky's commentary strikes me as pretty shaky, e.g., "Putin no longer needs to worry about legitimacy." Even dictators need some kind of legitimacy in their societies. Even Pol Pot did. And: "The Kremlin also isn’t too concerned about the coronavirus and its fall-out: Minimizing deaths is not a political priority when domestic politics are meaningless, and you can manipulate death statistics."

I think Bershidsky may be confusing the Putin who is the authoritarian President of Russia with some comic book villain he's been following.

Andrew Langley and Daryna Krasnolutska report (Merkel Joins Diplomacy Rush to Avert Ukraine Military Misstep 04/08/2021)

[German chancellor Angela] Merkel told Putin on during a phone call Thursday that Russia must reverse the buildup of troops in the area of eastern Ukraine to help achieve “a de-escalation of the situation,” according to her spokeswoman, Ulrike Demmer.

While Russia has played down the likelihood of an imminent attack by either side, its heightened military presence around the conflict that erupted after President Vladimir Putin seized Crimea in 2014 risks setting off a renewed spiral of violence. More intense battles in recent days between Ukraine’s army and Kremlin-backed insurgents have already added to the death toll of more than 13,000.

It's not surprising to see this kind of posturing in the early days of the Biden-Harris Administration. But these sorts of actions always have risks. And some people are being killed in these skirmishes.

Ilya Arkhipov and Daryna Krasnolutska look at the situation in Kremlin Warns of Risk of Broader War in Ukraine Conflict Bloomberg Quint 04/09/2021:

Amid the deepening crisis, Turkey said its NATO ally the U.S. had notified it that two warships would cross into the Black Sea and remain there until May 4. Russia continued nationwide military exercises announced by the Defense Ministry on Tuesday.

Calling the current escalation “rather unprecedented,” [Russian spokesman Dmitry] Peskov’s comments seemed to reflect a hardening of Russia’s position. They came a day after the Kremlin’s top envoy for the conflict seemed to play down the significance of what Moscow claims is a military buildup by Kyiv in the contested region. [my emphasis]

Aljazeera reports (Ukraine says soldier killed in shelling by Russia-backed forces 04/11/2021):

In recent weeks, fighting has intensified between Ukraine’s army and pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east, with signs of a Russian troop build-up in the region raising concerns of major escalation in the long-running conflict.

Ukraine has accused Russia of amassing thousands of military personnel on its northern and eastern borders as well as on the annexed Crimean peninsula.

The Kremlin said on Sunday it was not moving towards war with Ukraine, but that it “will not remain indifferent” to the fate of Russian speakers in the conflict-torn region.

Meanwhile, Moscow said it feared the resumption of full-scale fighting in eastern Ukraine and could take steps to protect civilians there. Kyiv has said it will not launch an offensive against the Russia-backed separatists.