Putin Has the U.S. Right Where He Wants It

-Fiona Hill in NYT Jan. 24.

...

“George, you have to understand that Ukraine is not even a country. Part of its territory is in Eastern Europe and the greater part was given to us.”--President Vladimir Putin of Russia to President George W. Bush in Bucharest, Romania, at a NATO summit in April 2008.

Mr. Putin was furious: NATO had just announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the alliance. This was a compromise formula to allay concerns of our European allies — an explicit promise to join the bloc, but no specific timeline for membership.

At the time, I was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, part of a team briefing Mr. Bush. We warned him that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded.

Within four months, in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. Ukraine...backpedaled on NATO membership for the next several years. But in 2014, Ukraine wanted to sign an association agreement with the European Union, thinking this might be a safer route to the West. Moscow struck again, accusing Ukraine of seeking a back door to NATO, annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and starting an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbas region. The West’s muted reactions to both the 2008 and 2014 invasions emboldened Mr. Putin.

What was W's  muted reaction to the Georgia invasion (during the Beijing Summer Olympics, too.). What should W have done, rescinded the NATO invitation to Georgia? Obama's muted reaction in 2014 was what? Since these muted reactions "emboldened Putin" to invade what would the desired reactions have been had either hit the unmute button? 

This time, Mr. Putin’s aim is bigger...— he wants to evict the United States from Europe. ...

As I have seen over two decades of observing Mr. Putin, and analyzing his moves, his actions are purposeful and his choice of this moment to throw down the gauntlet in Ukraine and Europe is very intentional. He has a personal obsession with history and anniversaries. December 2021 marked the 30th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when Russia lost its dominant position in Europe. [And now, another Beijing Olympics, another invasion!] ...

In the 1990s, the United States and NATO forced Russia to withdraw the remnants of the Soviet military from their bases in Eastern Europe, Germany and the Baltic States. Mr. Putin wants the United States to suffer in a similar way. From Russia’s perspective, America’s domestic travails after four years of Donald Trump’s disastrous presidency, as well as the rifts he created with U.S. allies and then America’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, signal weakness. If Russia presses hard enough, Mr. Putin hopes he can strike a new security deal with NATO and Europe to avoid an open-ended conflict, and then it will be America’s turn to leave, taking its troops and missiles with it.

...Mr. Putin has bogged the Biden administration down in endless tactical games that put the United States on the defensive. Russia moves forces to Ukraine’s borders, launches war games and ramps up the visceral commentary. 

["bogged the Bidens down in endless tactical games" (?) "Moving forces to Ukraine's border" is "a tactical game", a "game," i.e. not serious, not a necessary precursor to an invasion? In what way...I don't understand her. The Russian military buildup was clearly not some game. In what ways did the Bidens get "bogged down"?  Is this another "muted reaction"? What should they have done? How could Putin's actions not put the U.S. "on the defensive"? Isn't taking a defensive position that of every country and ally facing invasion? What should the U.S. and/or NATO have done, preemptively attacked Russia?]

In recent official documents, it demanded ironclad guarantees that Ukraine (and other former republics of the U.S.S.R.) will never become a member of NATO, that NATO pull back from positions taken after 1997, and also that America withdraw its own forces and weapons, including its nuclear missiles. Russian representatives assert that Moscow doesn’t “need peace at any cost” in Europe. Some Russian politicians even suggest the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against NATO targets to make sure that we know they are serious, and that we should meet Moscow’s demands.

...[Putin and his people have] also intimated that they may ship hypersonic missiles to America’s back door in Cuba and Venezuela to revive what the Russians call the Caribbean Crisis [i.e. the Cuban Missile Crisis] of the 1960s.

Can you blame Putin, Fiona? JFK dragged the U.S.--in his own words, as you know--to within a "one chance in three" of nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Russian missiles in Cuba. JFK invoked the Monroe Doctrine. Isn't the alignment of U.S. and NATO forces, including missiles, in Central and Eastern Europe many times the situation that came so close to driving JFK to war? Does Putin get his Monroe Doctrine or no? No, right? That's an American thing cuz we're exceptional?]

Mr. Putin is a master of coercive inducement. He manufactures a crisis in such a way that he can win no matter what anyone else does. 

[Will Putin "win" if Biden cuts Russia off from the global financial system?  What would you have Biden do, Fiona? Are you ever going to answer what W and Obama should have done?]

Mr. Putin plays a longer, strategic game and knows how to prevail in the tactical scrum. He has the United States right where he wants it. His posturing and threats have set the agenda in European security debates, and have drawn our full attention. Unlike President Biden, Mr. Putin doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or pushback from his own party or the opposition. Mr. Putin has no concerns about bad press or poor poll ratings. 

[I don't see how any of that follows.]

So Mr. Putin can act as he chooses, when he chooses. Barring ill health, the United States will have to contend with him for years to come. Right now, all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union. Getting out of the current crisis requires acting, not reacting. The United States needs to shape the diplomatic response and engage Russia on the West’s terms, not just Moscow’s.

[So it should be a diplomatic response, not a preemptive strike! We need to "shape" it, like mold it, caress it, to get Russia to play on our terms. I see.]

To be sure, Russia does have some legitimate security concerns, and European security arrangements could certainly do with fresh thinking and refurbishment after 30 years. ...

[To be sure they do have legitimate security concerns! To be sure post-1989 NATO does need "fresh thinking and refurbishment." We need to polish NATO in addition to "shape" it. Any ideas, Fiona? No? Alright then.]

...Ultimately, the United States needs to show Mr. Putin that he will face global resistance and Mr. Putin’s aggression will put Russia’s political and economic relationships at risk far beyond Europe.

Okay, I give up.

The United States and its allies, and Ukraine itself, should take this issue to the United Nations and put it before the General Assembly as well as the Security Council. Even if Russia blocks a resolution, [Fiona...we have already done that. We will do that again when Russia invades Ukraine but we did "act, not react."]

the future of Ukraine merits a global response. The United States should also raise concerns in other regional institutions. 

[Okay: Hi! Regional Institutions! I have a concern. Anything else, Fiona.]

Why is Russia trying to take its disputes in Europe to Asia and the Western Hemisphere? What does Ukraine have to do with Japan, or Cuba and Venezuela?

[Got it we'll raise those points as concerns.]

Mr. Biden has promised that Russia “will pay a heavy price” if any Russian troops cross Ukraine’s borders. If Mr. Putin invades Ukraine with no punitive action from the West and the rest of the international community, beyond financial sanctions, then he will have set a precedent for future action by other countries. Mr. Putin has already factored additional U.S. financial sanctions into his calculations. 

[Cutting Russia off from the world financial system is not something his currency reserves can inoculate him against indefinitely. Short of a military response that is the heaviest price any country has ever paid in the modern age.]

But he assumes that some NATO allies will be reluctant to follow suit on these sanctions and other countries will look the other way. U.N. censure, widespread and vocal international opposition, and action by countries outside Europe to pull back on their relations with Russia might give him pause.

[A U.N. censure resolution? What, the General assembly? "Russia, we censure you." That's our unmuted play? And as you just wrote Russia would veto any such thing before the Security Council. Define "pull back on their relations with Russia", what should they do, break diplomatic ties? How does the U.S. get other countries to do that? Let's assume we can or they want to do it on their own as a way to "raise their concerns." All of that combined would give Putin "pause"?  You think he hasn't "factored that in"? You don't think he's done his vote-counting ("Xi, you with me?" "With you, Vladimir!").]

Forging a united front with its European allies and rallying broader support should be America’s longer game. Otherwise this saga could indeed mark the beginning of the end of America’s military presence in Europe.

Okay, forge away, Biden, rally too. All air, nothing but air.