Fears Are Mounting That Ukraine War Will Spill Across Borders
David E. Sanger [<--the best] and Steven Erlanger
WASHINGTON — For nine weeks, President Biden and the Western allies have emphasized the need to keep the war for Ukraine inside Ukraine.
Now, the fear in Washington and European capitals is that the conflict may soon escalate into a wider war — spreading to neighboring states, to cyberspace and to NATO countries suddenly facing a Russian cutoff of gas. Over the long term, such an expansion could evolve into a more direct conflict between Washington and Moscow reminiscent of the Cold War, as each seeks to sap the other’s power.
In the past three days, the American secretary of defense has called for an effort to degrade the capability of the Russian military so that it could not invade another country for years to come. The Russians have cut off gas shipments to Poland and Bulgaria, which joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization after the collapse of the Soviet Union;... Explosions have rocked a disputed area of Moldova, a natural next target for the Russians, and gas depots and even a missile factory in Russia have mysteriously caught fire or come under direct attack from Ukrainian forces.
And with increasing frequency, the Russians are reminding the world of
the size and power of their nuclear arsenal, an unsubtle warning that if
President Vladimir V. Putin’s conventional forces face any more
humiliating losses, he has other options. American and European
officials...behind the scenes...are
already gaming out how they might react to a Russian nuclear test, or
demonstration explosion, over the Black Sea or on Ukrainian territory.
In my reading of the irradiated tea leaves all of this was already baked in to Austin's pronouncement. Clearly, as the undersigned wrote yesterday, or the day before, the substance and tone of American statements and actions have changed since the beginning of the war. American officials no longer offer Zelensky a "ride" into exile. They no longer have worry lines creasing their foreheads; in a photo op with Zelensky, Austin and Blinken are smiling, Austin broadly. Zelensky looks like a POW. The Biden administration has gotten everything right in Ukraine so far, they have read Putin like like a first grade reader. I am extremely skeptical that in the last three days they have taken a big gulp of Stupid.
...
American and European officials say their fears are based in part on the growing conviction that the conflict could “go on for some time,” as Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken put it recently.
Yes. The longer something bad goes on the more likely that something worse will occur. That is a seasoned judgment. Do the fearful though not expect the war to go on for some time? Would they have it not? There are some, I was among them, who dismissed Ukrainian resistance as futile blood shedding. But the West is not going to repeat Munich and negotiate away a state's existence. No foreigner from 5,000 miles away is going to tell the leader and people of a sovereign nation not to fight. The fearful must answer the question: Would they have Ukraine not resist? The West not send war military materiel?
American and European determination to help Ukraine defeat ["the word you're looking for is crushed"] the Russians has hardened, partly after the atrocities in Bucha and other towns occupied by the Russians became clear...
Yes, it is an emotional reaction. Reason can be solidified with the fire of emotion. What kind of a people would we be if our "determination" were not "hardened" by Russian anthropoids raping, murdering, and beheading Ukrainian women, children (including one baby that an anthropoid self-video'd himself sexually abusing), the elderly, civilians all? If a "wider war" comes, even a nuclear war, these are righteous reasons for Armageddon.
...
“Russian casualties are continuing to mount, and the U.S. is committed to shipping more powerful weapons that are causing those casualties,” [expert] said. Sooner or later, he added, Russia’s military intelligence service might begin to target those weapons shipments inside NATO’s borders.
Once more, what do the worriers propose, even retrospectively? That Ukraine not have killed Russian soldiers? That they cease killing them now? By international law and common sense the West was a party to this war the moment it sent Ukraine the first rifle. The West knows, and the West knew then, that under the rules of war weapons trains in third countries can be targeted. The worriers, and I do not mean that derogatorily, I too am a worrier, would serve their worry better by minding the law of chronology: You cannot travel back in time.
1) Putin masses to invade. We warn. Our warnings are dismissed by Zelensky;
2) Biden tells Putin exactly what he will do if he invades: no boots on the ground but cut Russia out of the global financial system. Putin: "If you do there will be a complete rupture of diplomatic relations." Perfect clarity.
3) Putin invades. Zelensky morphs from Chamberlain to Churchill and pleads with the West for,
a) immediate EU membership (denied),
b) a no-fly zone (denied),
c) materiel (granted). And the war came.
Pause there. Putin is the actor, the West is the reactor. We went to the UN on several occasions, got no result other than meaningless resolutions. We worriers need to answer: Should we not have gone beyond the UN? Let Ukraine be ravished? Devoid of all human empathy--but not of all logic. Ukraine was not a member of the EU nor of NATO. Ukraine's existence does not--standing alone (key, key qualifier)--implicate the EU's existence or the U.S.'s existence. Ergo, invade away, Vladimir, just pay the toll booth as you enter and leave. That was President Obama's approach to Crimea; it was President Biden's approach at the beginning; it was at least half of my (a Worrier) approach on Feb. 24. We worriers, mindful of international law, were wary of providing any materiel to Ukraine. "Okay, defensive weaponry only." Okay, that is not a distinction recognized under international law. "Okay, we're going to provide it anyway." Okay, I agree. Should we worriers not have agreed? We need to answer.
...
Stephen Kotkin, a professor at Princeton University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford...recently... wrote that “the original Cold War’s end was a mirage,” as the effort to integrate Russia into the West slowly collapsed.
So true. "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation FOREVER!"
President Biden himself has endorsed the theory that Mr. Putin has designs that go beyond Ukraine. The invasion, he said on the day it began, Feb. 24, was “always about... Putin’s desire for empire by any means necessary.”
"Theory". Nothing wrong with theories, a little Ivory Tower-sounding, "not proven" is what theory means. Was that the case here? Were Biden and Blinken and all them thinkers and diplomatists contemplating their navals? No. A NATO rollback was what Putin articulated many times, what Lavrov proposed to the Bidens as a "solution" to European security.
Once again I can see the logic of the illogical reverse-logic of the Russian position. I opposed NATO expansion. I opposed it early and often. "So if you opposed it then why not roll it back now?" Because you cannot time travel. You cannot undo acts. You can mitigate the consequences of past acts but you cannot undo them. The consequence of past NATO expansion was, in our minds contemplation of Russia's mind, Russian fear. We mitigated. We didn't attack. For thirty years we didn't attack Russia. We extended NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia. That increased Russian fear. We mitigated. We didn't admit Ukraine and Georgia. In 2014 Russian fear morphed into paranoia (or came to be seen increasingly as cover for their real game, imperialism) with the Euromaidan protests. The Ukrainian people evinced unequivocally their fervent desire to be done with Russia and to join the EU (denied (by both Russian invasion of Crimea and by the EU)).
...
Coincidentally or not, Mr. Putin’s move came just after Defense Secretary Austin went beyond the administration’s oft-repeated statement...to get Russia to withdraw its forces “irreversibly,”...and respect Ukraine’s borders as they existed before the invasion...“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds
of things that it has done in invading Ukraine,” Mr. Austin said, a
line that seemed to suggest the U.S. wanted to erode Russian military
power for years — presumably as long as Mr. Putin remains in power.
Actually, he meant "as long as anthropoids remain in Russia." (actually not (I don't think)).
Some Europeans wondered whether Washington’s war aims had broadened from helping Ukraine to defend itself, which has broad support, to damaging [the word you're looking for is crushing] Russia itself, a controversial goal that would feed into a Russian narrative that Moscow’s actions in Ukraine are to defend itself against NATO.
Focus: Which happened first? Who acted, who reacted? Who caused Russia itself to be damaged, the West, or "Russia itself"? It is "controversial" that we, the U.S., not Europeans, some, want to "damage" Russia itself? All of the European Union agreed, in fact, took the lead over the U.S., in imposing the economic sanctions that "damaged", nay rocketed, the Russian economy into pre-21st century isolation. That has severely damaged Russia itself. Worriers: should we not have so-damaged Russia? With belief beyond a reasonable doubt the United States is done with Russia. Forever. There is no going back from this, not from Bucha, not from the as yet unknown in Mariupol. The Russians have grazed themselves full on NATO paranoia through 5 of the last 0 NATO attacks on them for 25 years. Let them feed on the real thing on our dime.
Some administration officials insist Austin’s comments were overinterpreted, [“We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine”] and that he was not suggesting a long-term strategic goal of undermining Russian power. Instead, they say, he was just amplifying past statements about the need to sharpen the choices facing Putin — while setting back Russia’s ability to launch another invasion once it regroups.
I too studied Austin's words, all 24 of them. I was not sure if those 24 words meant "in other countries" or continuing in Ukraine. I concluded that it was not reasonable to interpret them as applying to Ukraine. Now with Sanger & Erlanger I am not sure if "another invasion once [Russia] regroups" refers to Ukraine or another country. But I was crystal clear about the meaning of "We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things it has done" wherever. Yes, Austin "wants to see Russia weakened" permanently and I have no idea what "amplifying" and "sharpening" Putin's "choices" means.
But many in Europe thought his statement suggested a long war of attrition that could have many fronts.
Austin's statement did not "suggest a long war of attrition," Russia's inability to grab its ass with both hands and Ukraine's resistance "suggested a long war of attrition."
“Are we headed for a wider war or is this just a gaffe by Austin?” asked François Heisbourg, a French defense analyst.
A gaffe? No, Francois, it was not a gaffe. A wider war is Putin's call. (He is the actor.) We are ready if he chooses a wider war. The West's "determination" has "hardened". Everyone in the West now is hard.
“There is a widening consensus about supplying Ukraine howitzers and more complex weapons systems, and everyone is now doing that. But it’s another thing to pivot the war aim from Ukraine to Russia. I don’t believe there’s any consensus on that.” Weakening Russia’s military capacity “is a good thing to do,” Mr. Heisbourg said, “but it’s a means to an end, not an end in itself.”
Uh...Hmm...no consensus on pivoting the war aim from Ukraine to Russia; "weakening Russia's military capacity is a good". "Russia itself", no good. "But a means to an end, not an end in itself." Yes, I think we have shifted our focus from purely defending Ukraine's people and the country's integrity as a state to "Never Again." I do think the U.S., and I think the NATO countries' leaders, are done with Russia and I think the U.S. believes the Russian military is done for. I can understand there not being consensus on pivoting the war aim to "Russia itself." I don't know for sure if the Bidens pivoted to a war on Russia itself. There is a distinction, clearly. The Bidens see it. However, I think the Biden's view at this point is it is a distinction without much difference to them. The president has said Putin cannot remain in power. The administration has hoped for a popular revolt or a revolt of the generals. Neither has happened. The Russian military is the spear of the Russian people, who support Putin, who support the war, whose wives give permission to their husband-soldiers to rape Ukrainian women. Brutality in war is as Russian as vodka. I personally don't see how replacing Putin with some other Putin-lite brings the distinction between the Russian military and "Russia itself" into sharper relief. Russia has terrorized the world since 1917. They now intend to rollback NATO to pre-1997 levels. It is Russian policy that Ukraine is the opening battle in "the final struggle" (in the words of the Internationale). We accept. Or we surrender to nuclear blackmail and let the raping and murdering proceed from Kviv to Warsaw to Berlin to Paris.
I pick a nit with Mr. Heisbourg on another point. I don't understand how any defensive strategy can be eternally defensive. For instance: Russia is able to resupply and replenish from the motherland and from Belarus. Ukraine has no such ability. Ukraine loses X number of soldiers, we are not replenishing their personnel losses. Ukraine loses Y number of fighter aircraft, are we not to resupply them with the materiel to shoot down Russian war planes, to attack "Russia itself" and its weapons stores? Weakening Russia's military capacity "is a good thing to do", Mr. Heisbourg says; the economic sanctions were, presumably, a good thing for him, too; providing Ukraine with heavier and more advanced weaponry has "widening consensus" which "everyone" is doing. I am not clear whether Heisbourg thinks that is a good thing as well or if he is saying it is a fait accompli.
Pause again. You cannot reverse time travel but neither are you in for a dime in for a dollar. That is, the fact fact that the West made itself a party to the war by providing materiel does not mean that it must continually up its ante ad infinitum. "Okay, next, we're going to ship nukes to Ukraine." NO WE ARE NOT. You can stop, in other words. From the first day Putin has warned the West about "interfering". He and his lackeys continually raise the spectre of a nuclear counterreaction. The latest tranche of more powerful, sophisticated weapons systems need not have been. It is not unreasonable for anyone to worry about it. The West can say, thus far but no farther at any time. What does Heisbourg say? I don't know. What do the Bidens say? Farther. What do I say? I trust the Bidens. Weapon resupply is necessary to weaken Russia's military. In a word, the "pivot" to Russia itself is necessary--even if our "war aim" remains solely on Ukraine. Unpause.
At least in the U.S., and I believe in NATO as well, the sanctions were never "a means to an end," the end of the war with Ukraine intact. President Biden has been crystal clear that no sanctions stop war. Which leaves the purpose of the military aid and an apparent distinction that Heisbourg is drawing between "weakening Russia militarily" ("good") and a "Russia [itself] weakened" permanently (not good). It seems reasonably, but not beyond doubt, clear that both Austin and Heisbourg mean "Russia militarily". There is a distinction if Austin intended to conflate the two and which Heisbourg can draw if he intends to. However the clearer, less Talmudic scholar-reading is to military "weakening." Since that is a good in both men's eyes (and it is a good in my 20/400 eyes) I don't know how Heisbourg would have weakening Russia's military capacity come about without widening the war by having NATO countries resupply arms. I am truly at a loss to how Mr. Heisbourg would thread the needle between weakening Russia military and not weakening Russia itself. I sincerely want to know what alternative he suggests since "weakening Russia militarily" is a good thing in his eyes. What should the West be doing that it is not doing and what should it not be doing that it is? Heisbourg needs to answer.
There are other factors that risk broadening the conflict. Within weeks, Sweden and Finland are expected to seek entry into NATO — expanding the alliance in reaction to Mr. Putin’s efforts to break it up. But the process could take months because each NATO country would have to ratify the move, and that could open a period of vulnerability. Russia could threaten both countries before they are formally accepted into the alliance and are covered by the NATO treaty that stipulates an attack on one member is an attack on all.
If Russia attacked Sweden and Finland in the interregnum--see Ukraine.
But there is less and less doubt that Sweden and Finland will become the 31st and 32nd members of the alliance...Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House, a British think tank...said a new expansion of NATO — just what Mr. Putin has been objecting to for the last two decades — would “make explicit the new front lines of the standoff with Russia.”
...
Russia has its own handbook, episodically arguing that its goals go beyond “denazification” of Ukraine to the removal of NATO forces and weapons from allied countries that did not host either before 1997. Moscow’s frequent references to the growing risk of nuclear war seem intended to drive home the point that the West should not push too far.
And it is that which is the "wider war" that Francois Heisbourg fears--with good reason! But it's here. The wider war is here. Now. It has been in the Russian "handbook" and on Vladimir Putin's lips for years. He activated it on February 24, 2022. Ukraine was step one of a dozen. Russia (itself) must be destroyed.
