I have so far not been convinced that Russia intends to invade Ukraine, but something I heard this morning made me think again about that. I’m hearing that the Russians do not trust the United States to keep its word, even in a formal agreement, and not merely because of George H.W. Bush’s promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards. It seems the United States has acquired a reputation for breaking its word, whether to Qadhdhafi’s Libya, which was promised it would be left alone if it gave up its weapons of mass destruction, or to Iran, which was promised relief from economic sanctions if it agreed to limitations on its nuclear program. Perhaps the only way to deal with such an unreliable negotiating partner is from a position of strength, with superior military assets on the ground in the contested region, which in this case is Ukraine.
Russia does not have the strength to force the United States out of eastern Europe; that ship sailed thirty years ago. The best it can hope for is a tacit understanding that Russia has a vital interest in Ukraine and an agreement by both sides to respect its neutrality, which would necessitate a Russian withdrawal from those parts of the country it has occupied since 2014. NATO is going to stay in Poland, Romania, and the rest of eastern Europe no matter what the Russians do. An invasion of Ukraine would not alter that, and would likely bring more American military assets to Europe at a time when the Biden administration wants to focus on China.
One has to ask if the Russians would have done better to make no threatening moves at all, particularly as there has never been any prospect of Ukraine joining NATO any time soon. A future Republican administration might, after all, turn its back on NATO. And why is this happening now, during Biden’s time, when the ideal negotiating partner for Vladimir Putin was surely Donald Trump? It’s all very peculiar.
I don’t see a winning move for Russia in this crisis, if its true goals are what Russia claims them to be.