But she also provides some important observations about the military situation that is too often obscured in pieces by foreign policy wonks pitching their preferred approach toward Russia. For example:
[Despite impressive Ukrainian military performance,] Russia now controls significantly more Ukrainian territory than before February 24. Putin’s army holds Kherson, whatever is left of Mariupol, all the intervening territory, and now not only Luhansk and Donetsk but the entire Donbas Oblast. For example, whereas Ukrainian authorities controlled approximately 60% of Luhansk before the recent Russian invasion, now Russian forces control over 80% of the region. They also have about 70% of Zaporizhye region. Cumulatively, this accounts for an increase of Russian occupied territory from approximately 7%, including Crimea, before February more than double that now. Viewed this way, not losing looks a lot more like losing than winning.In the nearly three months of this year’s Ukraine war, my Twitter feed has offered up some fascinating themes. Some enthusiasts seem to see Ukraine as being in the position of the famous image of St. George the second before he melodramatically slays the Russian dragon with his spear. As Jayanti observes:
We love an underdog. We love a plucky little guy who beats the odds. It fuels hope for our ordinary selves and allows us to feel we are on the morally superior side. This is why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has appealed so successfully to the world. His defiance against the odds gave us someone to root for against a bully.But it's also important to be realistic about what's actually happening:
Ukraine’s relative success is due in part to the weapons at least 31 western governments have been donating. The U.K. has sent anti-tank, anti-air, and anti-ship missiles, air defense systems, and other weapons; Slovakia the S-300 air defense system; the U.S. drones, howitzers, missiles, and anti-armor systems; and this is just a sampling. These weapons have allowed Ukraine to maximize its home field advantage, leverage its troops’ greater resolve, and exploit Russia’s military weaknesses and apparent lack of adequate planning and preparation. Without these donations, Kyiv may well have fallen by now.Unlike the potential new NATO members Finland and Sweden, Ukraine has not spent decades coordinating closely with NATO and keeping their technological and fighting capacities on a comparable level. That doesn't happen overnight.
While Ukraine is flush with weapons and other military supplies and equipment, however, Ministry of Defense officials and volunteer fighters are both quietly admitting that they lack the capacity to absorb so much aid. Much of the equipment and weaponry requires new training to be used. Even when that is available it takes time. Similarly, the influx of 16,000 or more foreign volunteer fighters would seem like a decisive boon, but in fact almost none of them had any military experience or training. They proved little more than extra mouths to feed in most cases, according to Ministry of Defense staff and some of the volunteer foreign special forces soldiers on the ground. [my emphasis]
Given the slogans tossed around a lot right now, it's important to remember Jayanti's point that the NATO arms assistance has been crucial to Ukrainian performance. That means that so far the arms delivering are achieving their intended purpose. But it also means that NATO countries have considerable leverage on the Ukrainian government, though of course it's a bit delicate diplomatically for NATO officials to be explicit about that. But allied countries never have completely identical interests. The US and NATO might be a position at some point where they want to constrain some action by the Ukrainians. And at some point, it's also possible that the US and its NATO allies might later decide that they want to keep the Ukrainians fighting while the Ukrainian government might prefer a ceasefire or some kind of interim settlement. It's a war, not a football game or an actual saint-vs.-dragon contest.
Benjamin Friedman, Patrick Porter and Justin Logan wrote about this issue of diverging interest in We’re not all Ukrainians now Politico EU 05/17/2022: "The problem here isn’t helping Ukraine, it’s pretending the help is unconditional."
The term "proxy war" is a touchy one because Russia is framing the war as the West vs. Russia. NATO prefers to stress the more direct aspect of the conflict, Russia's attempt to conquer Ukraine with the express purpose of absorbing it as part of Russia. In practical terms, it's both. But diplomacy often requires euphemistic descriptions.
One of the more entertaining (though silly) themes come from New Cold War tweeters. Like the golden oldie of whining about Germany and France being hopeless wimps – two countries than have been supplying vital support to Ukraine, a country that’s not even a formal ally, to support them in a war against nuclear-armed Russia. I hope they noticed this week that it was Turkey, not Britain or France, who threatened to veto Finland and Sweden entering NATO.
I’m also fascinated by the ones that express sputtering outrage over the idea that the policies of the US and NATO countries over the last 30 years could have had any effect whatsoever in any way over Russian foreign policy during that period. The same folks typically have their own ideas about how US policy can become virtually omnipotent in influencing Russia, which in their view has been entirely ignoring the West for three decades. That whole stream of thinking is so weird that it’s hard not to kind of admire its creative strangeness.
Putin and Russian intelligence are surely aware that Finland and Sweden already have mutual-defense treaty commiments to the rest of the EU countries. (Just like the also technically "neutral" Austria.) And that the reason both countries could quickly become part of NATO is that they've been coordinating so closely with NATO since forever. (Also true of Austria.) https://www.politico.eu/.../putin-russia-no-problem.../
Even Vlad himself is saying he doesn't object to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. (?!) Our NATO ally Turkey, maybe so. But Britain and France are the useless wimps holding back support for Ukraine? Gosh, I must really be missing something. Or maybe some of the New Cold Warriors just don't bother with actual news.
"Gerhard Mangott notes in this tweet, "Putin explains, the entry of NATO into NATO is no direct threat to Russia."
Putin erklärt, der Beitritt Schwedens und Finnlands zur NATO sei keine direkte Bedrohung Russlands. Die Verlegung von militärischer Infrastruktur in die beiden neuen Mitgliedstaaten wäre es.
— Gerhard Mangott (@gerhard_mangott) May 16, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment