A pause in the Ukraine crisis?

I hope the current seeming pause in the Russian buildup is real and that it is followed by further active negotiations over the key issues, including the formal discussions known as the "Minsk process."

The US response

Biden gave this speech on Monday (yesterday). In this PBS NewsHour video, he begins speaking just after 3:55. He basically repeated his previous public position, which on the surface seems to have been reasonably restrained. I'm sure we'll learn interesting details the next few weeks and months about how various considerations factored into the US response. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the energy lobby in the US and western Europe are not entirely unhappy that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project might be cancelled.

Some comments on this speech. (Official White House transcript is here.)

Because this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It’s about standing for what we believe in, for the future we want for our world, for liberty — for liberty, the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny, and the right of people to determine their own futures, for the principle that a country can’t change its neighbor’s borders by force. That’s our vision. And toward that end, I’m confident that vision, that freedom will prevail.

That is standard liberal internationalist framing (for better or worse). Since foreign policy runs to a significant degree on hypocrisy, critics of Biden's policies domestic (Americans and others) will be able to quote this stock passage about countries choosing their own destinies and determine their own future to criticize American policy. (Haiti's change of government in 2021? US-trained soldiers staging coups in countries like Mali, Chad and Guinea?)

"And when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that would bring natural gas from Russia to Germany, if Russia further invades Ukraine, it will not happen."

Assuming, the current crisis eases, it will be interesting to find out how much in agreement the German and US governments actually were on under what conditions Nord Stream 2 would actually be cancelled. The US has never been fond of the project. But concelling it would also have a major effect on German and European energy supplies in the coming years.

He did throw in at least a mild reference to the US alliance with the Soviet Union in the Second World War, referred to in Russia as the Great Patriotic War. "Seventy-seven years ago, our people fought and sacrificed side by side to end the worst war in history."

"And make no mistake: The United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power. An attack against one NATO country is an attack against all of us. And the United States commitment to Article 5 is sacrosanct."

The actual wording of NATO's Article 5 says that in the event of an armed attack on a NATO member, each member country "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." It's not an automatic declaration of war, in other words. And it doesn't mean that if, say, Russian and Lithuania troops start shooting at each other across the border that NATO armies will immediately seize Kaliningrad or something.

Interestingly, at this writing, the following portion of Biden's actual speech (at 12:45 in the video) does not appear in the official transcript: "To be clear: If Russia decides to invade, that would also have consequences here at home. But the American people understand that defending democracy and liberty is never without cost."

What could he mean by that? That gas prices would go up if Nord Stream 2 is shut down and other Russian oil and gas exports are curtailed? Presusmably that's a big part of it, because he does say two paragraphs later, "I will not pretend this will be painless. There could be impact on our energy prices, so we are taking active steps to alleviate the pressure on our own energy markets and offset rising prices." And proceeds to elaborate on that a bit.

I think it's very legitimate to wonder whether the US and some of the NATO allies overhyped the actual Russian threat. Particularly since the Ukrainian President himself was publicly joking about the liklihood of an imminent Russian invasion:

As the U.S. and European allies continue to issue increasingly dire warnings about Russia’s intentions, [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky has notably downplayed the threat, even chiding the Biden administration for hyping up the possibility of an invasion. His joking remarks seemed to be making light of all the doomsaying; a spokesperson told NBC News that “the president referred to a date that was spread by the media.” According to the outlet, “observers said Zelensky appeared to have been sarcastic to those who watched his video.” (Benjamin Hart, Ukrainian Leader Makes Confusing Joke About Russian Invasion New York 02/14/2022)

Hart does remind his readers that Zelensky is "a former professional comedian."

Christian Ferdinand Wehrschütz is an Austrian reporter who has been head of the Ukraine bureau of Austria’s public news agency ORF since 2015 and has established a good record in doing so. Did a did a post in German on Facebook 02/06/2022 making the point that the current level of troop numbers Russia was reported to be massing on Ukraine’s border, which is that they would be enough to take control of additional territory in the Donbass region, they didn’t sound remotely sufficient for a planned complete occupation of Ukraine.

My translation of a relevant portion::

First, as is so often the case, the question is not asked [in the article on which he is commenting] how great the expected Ukrainian (military) resistance would be! Because the Russian figures alone say nothing about the possibilities that are associated with it after an attack.

An example: for a peace mission for Donetsk and Lugansk [portions of the Donbass region currently under Russian control] – not a combat mission!!! - military planners have calculated that this would require an international force of 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers. This involves about 4 percent of Ukraine's territory. I have not met any ([Ukrainian] General Staff) officer who considers 100,000 /120,000 soldiers to be sufficient to conquer the left-bank [western portion of] Ukraine including Kiev.

In addition, this would not be a play war, but a real war with an occupying power, not to mention the Western sanctions. If the Ukrainians in Kharkiv and other cities do not capitulate without resistance, this means a war in the urban area with high losses, including for the Russians, and catastrophic images of destruction, death and misery. Apart from the Western reactions, is this so easy to "sell" to the population in Russia? [my emphasis]

Wehrschutz also links this story by Ansgar Haase, Was plant Putin? Geheimdienste geben düstere Prognose dpa/t-online 04.02.2022.