NATO says tens of thousands of Russian troops are massed on the border with Ukraine for a potential invasion, yet Western states still lack a strategy to stop Moscow from intervening in its former Soviet neighbors.
With military action to protect non-NATO states effectively ruled out, current and former officials say sanctions and isolation provide the best — and perhaps only — way to pressure Moscow. Ramping up the pressure on the rich and powerful around Russian President Vladimir Putin, they say, might in time push him toward a much more conciliatory approach.
However that, they concede, could prove a long game and some both in and outside government worry that a more isolated Russia may simply become both more nationalist and self-sufficient. Putting Putin under more pressure, they worry, may give him even more incentive to take a populist, more aggressive approach.
Ultimately, Moscow’s commitment to rebuild the former Soviet Union as its own unilateral sphere of influence may outstrip the determination of Washington and its European allies to stop it.
Experts say Moscow has been infiltrating its neighbors ever more deeply, building its influence among security forces, government officials and politicians. That, some say, allows it to stir up instability in locations such as eastern Ukraine, and create both confusion and potential preconditions to invade.
“What we’re seeing here is a new form of warfare and part of a concerted strategy,” said Chris Donnelly, a former senior adviser to NATO on Russia and now director of the Institute for Statecraft in London. “Either we stand up to it or we let it happen. So far the response has been totally inadequate.”
With Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea now largely seen as an irreversible fait accompli, many now see more confrontation over the years to come.
In a March 18 speech following the Crimea intervention, Putin made it clear he would be willing to use force to safeguard the interests of Russian-speaking minorities.
The breakup of the Soviet Union left about 25 million ethnic Russians outside the borders of the Russian Federation, concentrated in places such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Central Asian and Baltic states, and breakaway enclaves in Georgia and Moldova.
Tens of millions more — classified in their old Soviet passports as ethnic Ukrainians, Belarussians or others — speak Russian as their first language.
There may be little Western states can do to stop Moscow reabsorbing into the Russian Federation three breakaway statelets its military already occupies — Moldova’s Transdniestria region, and Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Nor is there political will to stop Russia going further if truly determined to do so. The only true red line, some say, is that attacking the NATO member Baltic states would trigger NATO’s self defense clause, and a wider war with the alliance and its nuclear super power the US.
“We are in new territory,” one Western official said on condition of anonymity. “Realistically, there is little the West can do to prevent Putin invading Ukraine or other non-NATO former Soviet states, except for applying diplomatic and economic pressure. The priority now is to deter any aggression against NATO.”
The strongest message Western states could send to Moscow, some experts suggest, is that for every move Russia takes to entrench its position in the areas it can control, the closer other countries near its orbit would move to the West.
That would mean greater economic support, possibly moves toward EU accession for European former Soviet states such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, and perhaps new energy and economic deals with Central Asia.
On Wednesday last week, Reuters reported that Kazakhstan — a reliable Russian ally that has publicly supported Moscow’s actions in Ukraine — is seeking alternative export routes for its oil if sanctions on Russia are tightened.
Building up and supporting such states to make them more resilient to Russian influence, though, is dependent on those governments themselves finding stability. With Ukraine still mired in political crisis and Russian influence growing across the former Soviet Union that could prove overly optimistic.
Further Russian action would probably wreck an informal agreement not to base significant US or Western European military forces in former Soviet Union-dominated Eastern Europe, particularly the three tiny Baltic states, the only parts of NATO and the EU that were directly ruled by Moscow.
Moscow has long complained the West went back on a pledge not to push the boundaries of NATO and the EU to Russia’s border. Now it could see NATO troops permanently based there.
The USS Donald Cook, a guided missile destroyer, entered the Black Sea on Thursday last week to participate in exercises “to reassure NATO allies.” A French intelligence vessel was also due to pass through the Bosphorus.
So far, though, economic pressure has been the only real weapon in the Western arsenal and its effectiveness as a deterrent is difficult to assess.
Sanctions imposed on a few dozen Russian figures by the US and EU over Crimea have been explicitly designed not to have wide-ranging economic consequences.
Both Washington and Brussels have threatened much tougher measures if Russian troops move into other parts of Ukraine. That risk has accelerated capital flight from Russia, hurting its economy, but only indirectly.
So far Putin has not sent troops in, but no one apart from the Kremlin leader himself can say for certain whether he has held back because of the threat to Russian prosperity from sanctions, or for other reasons.
Western states have been unwilling to define in detail what tougher sanctions would mean. That, some say, reduces the impact of the threat. Suggested steps, such as wide-ranging asset freezes or moves to wean Europe off Russian gas, would hurt Western states as well as Moscow.
Targeting Russian investors more widely as well as Putin’s personal wealth and canceling French export deals for two helicopter carriers could also be on the table, officials say. However, such moves would cost jobs, as well as potentially undermining financial markets and real-estate prices.
Still, supporters say tough sanctions have proved effective against Iran, bringing it to the table on nuclear issues.
“This is a timely wake-up call,” said Michael Leigh, former deputy head of external relations for the European Commission and now senior adviser to the German Marshall Fund. “With the West scarcely responding to Crimea, Putin may feel he has nothing to lose for further annexation. A couple of tough winters is a price worth paying.”
A Russian move into eastern Ukraine would almost certainly spark at least limited military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. How the West would react to that is currently very far from clear.
In Washington, US President Barack Obama faces calls to arm Ukraine, and step up training and other military links, but there is little real enthusiasm for direct involvement, much less a nuclear face-off with Moscow.
If a Russian invasion did spark a messy insurgency, the West might find itself gradually dragged into providing at least some covert support to Kiev or any other Western-leaning government in a similar position, but it would almost certainly remain extremely limited.
On April 1, NATO announced what it called “concrete measures” to boost Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. In reality, though, these appeared limited to ill-defined “capacity building” measures and boosting the size of NATO’s liaison office in the capital.
“It’s not that the West couldn’t stop it — a couple of brigades of NATO troops would almost certainly deter an invasion, but that isn’t going to happen,” said Dmitri Gorenburg, Russia analyst at the Center for Naval Analyzes, a US-government funded body that advises the military. “When it comes to pushing back Russia’s actions in the former Soviet Union, there is no strategy and there is no appetite.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers