Eldad Shavit Shimon Stein
How can a toll be exacted from Russia, without deteriorating into an all-out war? Western leaders must now tackle this challenging question, following the escalation in the Ukrainian theater, Putin’s annexation announcement, and Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. What dilemmas confront the NATO members, first and foremost the United States, and what is Israel’s role in this inter-bloc struggle?
President Putin’s decision to annex four regions of Ukraine and his definition of his struggle against the Western elites as an existential struggle, while avowing his determination to defend the annexed territories and making implicit threats about the possibility of using unconventional weapons, significantly increase the risk of escalation. Consequently, the United States and its allies are now at a crossroads. It seems that Russia’s conduct will compel them to formulate a follow-up strategy that will heighten the challenge of supporting Ukraine without getting dragged into war with Russia. Thus far, aside from the threat of a serious and “decisive” response, the United States and NATO have maintained a veiled response to Russia’s potential use of unconventional weapons. The response could be political (cutting off relations) and economic, but a conventional military response cannot be ruled out. The official statement by Israel – which so far has refrained from responding to Ukraine’s request to provide it with military aid – that it will not recognize Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian regions is a positive step, but insufficient. The Israeli government should stand clearly by Ukraine’s side, including responding to its military requests. In addition, it should unhesitatingly stand by the side of the US in the struggle, which will influence the shaping of the future world order and the leading role of the United States.
The United States administration persists in its determined statements regarding Russia's actions in the war in Ukraine. In response to Russia's decision to annex four regions of Ukraine's territory, President Biden condemned the move, defined it as illegitimate, and stated that the United States will continue to help Ukraine restore its control over its territory by strengthening its military and diplomatic capabilities. Biden also warned Moscow that Washington would defend every inch of NATO territory. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized that Russia's actions constitute a rhetorical escalation the likes of which have not been seen since the beginning of the war.
President Putin's "implicit" threats regarding the possibility of using nuclear weapons have received considerable attention in Washington. The administration is increasingly concerned that in light of Ukraine's success in its counterattack, the likelihood of this scenario has increased, even if at the present time sources at the Pentagon emphasize that no concrete signs have been identified. In any case, the administration and its NATO allies have repeatedly stated that the response to any use of nuclear weapons will be "decisive." The US National Security Advisor emphasized that the administration has "communicated directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the US and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail.”
To date, the administration and its allies have focused on imposing wide-ranging sanctions on Russia. The United States and its NATO allies have helped Ukraine with the ongoing provision of weapon systems, which have greatly contributed to its ability to fight back and to its military successes, including in the counterattack carried out in the past few weeks.
In response to the Russian actions, including after the annexation speech, the administration and other countries have imposed additional sanctions on Moscow, and Congress intends to approve another weapons package for Ukraine worth about $1.1 billion. However, even now the administration is refraining from specifying how it sees the end game, and aside from a statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at a press conference after visiting Ukraine, that the goal of the United States is to weaken Russia so that in the future it will not be able to repeat what it has done in Ukraine, the administration emphasizes its desire to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty. In a May 31 op-ed n the New York Times President Biden stated that in his view, the objective should include restoring Ukraine's control over all of the territories seized by Russia and making Russia pay a heavy price. More broadly, the administration also aims to strengthen deterrence against China, in light of the risk that it will seek to take military action to conquer Taiwan and impose its sovereignty there. Still, it is too early to tell whether the administration will achieve its objectives. It is already clear now that its cautious and sometimes hesitant policy has not stopped Putin, who is imbued with a historic mission, from continuing the war and even escalating it.
While the war in Ukraine continues and the risks of escalation following Russia's threats to use unconventional weapons rise, it seems that the US administration and its allies are at a crossroads. On the one hand, they still seek to exact a toll on Russia for its aggression and deny it achievements. On the other hand, they seek to avoid a deterioration into total war. It is doubtful that the current American policy can address the contradiction between these two objectives, and it seems that Washington will have to formulate a follow-up strategy for the war in Ukraine. The decision making process in Washington and in other Western capitals will likely have to address several dilemmas, which in turn will contribute to the policy chosen. Among them:
Refraining from being dragged into war against Russia – a challenge that is becoming very difficult, especially after the announcement of annexation and the threat that an attack on these regions will be considered an attack on Russia. So far the United States and NATO have insisted on demanding that Ukraine not attack Russian territory and have even refrained from acceding to Ukraine's request that they provide it with advanced long-range weapons, due to fears of escalation. Now this outline becomes very problematic when it is expected that the military campaign will continue. The administration is preparing for the possibility that Putin will carry out his threat and make use of unconventional weapons. While trying to deter the Russians from taking such a drastic step, it is taking into consideration the possibility that the use of nuclear weapons, even if it is tactical, will have strategic consequences that could require a change in the West's conduct. At the present time, aside from the threat of a serious response, the United States and NATO are keeping the nature of their response veiled, and it is not clear whether the administration has already made a decision and whether agreement has been reached with its allies. One way or another, the response could be political (cutting off relations) and economic, but a conventional military response cannot be ruled out. In any case, the response will probably also be influenced by fears of escalation among NATO members, including Germany and France. It is also possible (even if it seems a tenuous idea) that Russian use of unconventional weapons could actually further a dynamic that leads to a ceasefire after the United States and other countries place pressure on Ukraine to settle for a return to the February lines, such that Putin will be able to present an achievement.
Maintaining the coordination and cooperation between the United States and its allies: The European leaderships are under much pressure, mainly against the backdrop of the shortage of natural gas and the resulting rise in prices; this will only increase as winter approaches. There is already pressure now to advance measures to end the fighting, even if Ukraine is forced to pay a territorial price. Even if the responses to the annexation announcement were emphatic, presumably the fear of escalation will lead to increased calls for renewing negotiations and reaching compromises with Russia. In any case, it seems that Putin will continue his efforts to widen the cracks between the United States and its allies in Europe, and the attack during the past few days, apparently by Russia, on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines (whose gas flow was stopped earlier), seemingly aims to create a psychological effect and contribute to the increase in gas prices. Aside from its promise to supply liquefied gas, the US administration does not have an answer for the European needs.
Internal pressure within the United States: At the present time, the administration has refrained from connecting its policy regarding the crisis in Ukraine with US domestic issues. However, the forecasts of increasing inflation and the risk of a recession could intensify domestic pressure on the administration to accept the need to advance a formula with Ukraine that would enable the end of the fighting, especially if the risk of deterioration increases and affects the economic situation, with the beginning of the 2024 presidential election race on the horizon – immediately after the November midterm elections.
President Biden's legacy: It is doubtful that Biden's policy on Ukraine has contributed significantly to the recent slight improvement in his approval rating. However, the President probably sees it as a central component of his legacy and his ability to present achievements in the agenda that he seeks to advance, especially consolidating the standing of democracies versus autocracies. Furthermore, in his view, the United States has succeeded in restoring its stature as a leading power, and from its perspective this has positive ramifications for the struggle against China and the attempt by other countries to influence a new world order and their standing vis-à-vis the United States.
So far Israel has chosen not to respond to Ukraine's requests for military assistance in the war, nor is it an active partner in the administration's efforts to increase the international aid to Ukraine and thus to directly influence the results of the war and the struggle between the great powers that is underway surrounding it. Israel's decision to announce unequivocally that it will not recognize the results of the referendums in regions of Ukraine or Russia's decision to annex them is a positive step but is insufficient. Declarations of support are not enough; the government of Israel should stand up clearly for Ukraine, including responding to its military requests. It should unhesitatingly stand at the side of the United States in the struggle, which will undoubtedly influence the shaping of the future world order and Washington's place and standing in this framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment