The Risks of a New U.S. Approach in Ukraine
Washington had taken pains to avoid the appearance that it was entering a direct confrontation with Moscow. That may be changing.
There is no doubt that a change has occurred in substance and tone of statements, and in actions taken.
As the horrors of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have became clearer, the Biden administration has pivoted to a more aggressive stance, with officials talking about constraining Moscow as a global power.
And the change has been that: more aggressive toward Russia directly. With the atrocities in Bucha and elsewhere, and I would add, the incompetence demonstrated by Russia's military, the scales have fallen from our eyes. With the first we see eternal Russia, uncivilized and uncivilizable, the same Russia as under Stalin. In the second we see that, unlike under Stalin, there are not unseen, innumerable Russian divisions that appear seemingly out of nowhere and with a maniacal fighting spirit, but rather more a paper tiger, still animalistic, but without the power that invoked fear. I saw deep concern, worry, yes fear, in the U.S. at the beginning of the war. I see none of that now. I see confidence. We see, as if overtaken by evolution, the (conventional) Russian military, the quality of its troops and its command structure, is as obsolete as the rotary phone. The U.S. has stated repeatedly that it sees Russia being defeated on the battlefield by Ukraine and I increasingly think that the U.S. has come to feel, "If UKRAINE (?!) can defeat Russia, WE can defeat Russia."
But that is an escalation, and escalations can go wrong.
-David E. Sanger
It is escalation, Sanger, who I respect and admire, is, as always, right about that. And yes, escalations can go wrong. The U.S. nuclear force is outgunned quantitatively and (on paper) qualitatively by Russia. In the worst case of a full nuclear exchange with Russia the U.S. would be badly mauled, perhaps destroyed completely. That is an enormous risk, but the U.S. clearly is prepared to push the envelope right to the edge of the nuclear precipice. I trust Blinken and Austin and Haines. They know what Russia's real capabilities are, what the risks are, what the U.S. will do if worse comes to worst, even better than does David E. Sanger. Clearly they feel that the recent change in stance is what should be done in the American interest.
The United States toughened its messaging on the Ukraine war, saying that the American aim was not just to thwart the Russian invasion but also to weaken Russia so it could no longer carry out such military aggression anywhere.
The change in stance could signal a situation that pits Washington more directly against Moscow.
