Opinion: With Ukraine showdown, Vladimir Putin reveals goal

Authored by dw.com and submitted by Europeaball

One of Vladimir Putin's favorite stories in his "tell all" 2000 book, "From the First Person," is about a large rat he was chasing as a schoolboy with a group of friends inside the Leningrad apartment block where he lived. He cornered the animal. Suddenly the rat turned on its pursuer and aggressively attacked Putin. He even had to flee. For Putin, metaphors of strength and desperation always held a special meaning. These days they are doubly important.

There was a flurry of statements from Putin's closest foreign policy confidants immediately before and after the Russian leader's phone call with US President Joe Biden. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser, Yuri Ushakov, and Russia's ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, all focused on one point: Moscow will not agree to the endless Cold War-style talks with the US and drop its insistence on legally binding "security guarantees" from the West. These include assurances that NATO will not admit any more new neighbors from the ranks of the former Soviet republics (i.e., Ukraine and Georgia), as well as a promise to decrease the alliance's military activity in Central Europe and the Baltic states. Russia also wants the US not to deploy any short- and intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Putin is making it clear: He will consider withdrawing Russian armed forces from the Ukrainian border only after NATO scraps the promise of future membership made to Ukraine and Georgia at the alliance's summit in Bucharest in 2008.

After over 20 years on the international stage, Putin knows all too well that this will never happen. Rescinding the Bucharest invitation (controversial as it is among some European allies) and limiting deployments in Central Europe is tantamount to giving Moscow veto power over the alliance's decision making. This will put an end to NATO as we know it.

Biden already said that Ukraine needs to fix its corruption problem before thinking about membership. He also reiterated that the United States will not deploy any offensive weapons on Ukrainian territory. In theory, it may also be possible to limit US military cooperation with Kyiv, although this risks infuriating Congress. In fact, Washington made most of the possible concessions to Moscow before the Russia-US talks in Geneva, scheduled for January 10, even started. But the Kremlin is pressing ahead with demands that it knows will not be granted. Why?

Watch video 03:31 Biden and Putin discuss Ukraine tensions — DW speaks to Steven Pfifer, Brookings Institution

Putin considers the West, and the European Union in particular, to be enfeebled by the pandemic, state capture by big business and lack of coherent leadership. Biden made a mistake when he invited Putin for direct talks issued in spring in the wake of Russia's first menacing armed forces deployment near Ukraine's border. Putin read it as a sign of weakness and readiness to "trade" Ukraine in exchange for Russia's noninterference in Washington's century-defining struggle with China. The Russian strongman was also infuriated by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy's decision to arrest and put on trial for treason Putin's closest Ukrainian friend and the country's No. 1 pro-Russia politician, Viktor Medvedchuk. In addition, he finally understood that no Ukrainian leader will ever fulfill the 2015 Minsk agreements. They are seen as signed at gunpoint and humiliating.

On top of it, Putin sees the Ukrainian forces' use of Turkish-produced drones, as well as its navy modernization program and expanding cooperation with NATO countries, as a dangerous trend. In the Kremlin's view, it could eventually lead to Kyiv's launching a victorious offensive against the Russian-controlled areas of Donbass. After all, Azerbaijan unexpectedly succeeded in such an endeavor in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 after many years of rearmament.

The Russian leadership thinks that the moment to press for inflexible demands is right — and unique. Germany is headed by the Russia-friendly Social Democrats, who refuse to abandon the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. France is in the midst of a scandalous presidential campaign, with one leading contender promising to take the country out of NATO and lift anti-Kremlin sanctions. The United States is headed by a nearly octogenarian president with an administration split between "China first" realists and "Let's not forget Russia" internationalists. Ukraine itself is weakened by permanent political turmoil and severely undermined by its slow response to the pandemic.

The foreign policy divisions of the Biden administration work to Putin's advantage

There is one more consideration: As commander-in-chief, Putin cannot afford to kick the Russian forces back and forth in massive, costly deployments twice a year for the sake of mere phone calls with the US president. This produces an image of indecisiveness and weakness — something Putin abhors. Russia is not a democracy, so keeping key elite constituencies on board and happy is of paramount importance for the leadership. The army top brass is one of them. This is one of the main tools of ensuring regime stability.

Putin knowingly paints himself into a corner because he strives for a fight with Ukraine. He seemingly views it as both a strategic necessity and a matter of his historical legacy. So forget the Khrushchev-Kennedy and Brezhnev-Nixon summits. Putin's Russia thinks of itself as much more desperate and much freer to act than the Soviets.

DetlefKroeze on January 1st, 2022 at 01:00 UTC »

Rob Lee wrote a good thread about the situation on twitter a little while ago.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1476639117471629317?t=o5e-MFF8ruA2B16FSWYqDg&s=19

A better explanation is that Russia realizes that Ukraine will be a long-term hostile neighbor, is determined to retake the Donbas, is arming itself for that purpose, and it is better to act now before Kyiv has greater conventional deterrence (can target Russian cities/bases).

Ukraine is a national security threat that pins down much of the Russian Ground Forces needed to defend the Donbas. Either Russia will try to force changes to Ukraine's constitution/political orientation or force NATO to stop strengthening its military to "solve" that threat.

A Russian military operation would be much more costly if Ukraine has cruise and ballistic missiles that could target important Russian bases and cities, and future Russian coercion efforts would be weaker if Ukraine had those kind of capabilities.

I think Moscow believes that Kyiv won't make any concessions unless they are forced to by Washington or by Russian military force. Putin is currently trying with the former (and not attempting negotiations with Kyiv) and will likely attempt the latter if it fails.

Russia has broader security concerns with NATO and is using this as an opportunity to try to solve some of those with the threat of force against Ukraine. But the events in Ukraine are the more pressing concern for Moscow (and NATO membership isn't the proximate cause).

Russia's current actions are not routine. They have given: 1) specific demands 2) tied to a short timeline 3) promising a "military and military-technical" response 4) with substantial military capabilities capable of an escalation including an invasion on short notice.

They are deliberately backing themselves into a corner where their credibility will be questioned if they don't achieve concessions or use military force. These are classic elements of a compellence strategy, which usually requires force if the target doesn't change its behavior.

There are different tiers of force that can be used as part of compellence, so a large-scale invasion isn't the only possible option. Russia could shoot down TB2, target Ukrainian artillery/MLRS used in the Donbas, or unleash its long-range fires on the Ukrainian military.

The key questions: -how ambitious are Russia's objectives? -how much force does Moscow believe it has to use to force Kyiv to make those concessions? I'm not sure, but Russia is making it clear it considers the current events unacceptable and worthy of using force to stop them.

The spring buildup failed to achieves Russia's aims at deterring these steps, and the HMS Defender incident, Ukrainian TB2 strike in the Donbas (the footage was released publicly), and NATO bomber flights over Ukraine/Black Sea, etc. are public embarrassments for Moscow.

I think there are restraints for Moscow about what kind of military force is possible (i.e. I think killing civilians or damaging Ukrainian cities would be very unpopular among Russians), but Russia can inflict serious pain on the Ukrainian military without a larger invasion.

So when we try to assess Moscow's cost-benefit analysis of using force against Ukraine we need to not just assess the costs of an escalation for Russia, but also their perceived costs of not "solving" this issue now, which they likely think is greater.

We shouldn't forget about the Karabakh example for Moscow and Kyiv. Azerbaijan was determined to retake those regions, spent decades of heavy defense spending and arms imports to prepare, and then attacked when the balance of power shifted with the support of a NATO member.

I don't know what Putin is thinking, but Russia's rhetoric and actions are in line with an attempt at compellence and there will be a credibility cost if they don't act or achieve concessions. Since the latter is unlikely, I think a military escalation is more likely than not.

journeytoonowhere on December 31st, 2021 at 23:44 UTC »

If Putins not slowly up with Biden in office, assuming the thought was biden would put more pressure then trump, then why do any of the articles think putin will calm down without intervention? biden, in my opinion supports nato more than trump did. for the little ive read, hasnt putin just taken progressive steps toward commandeering the entire geo-area?

Fodedor_de_Rabos on December 31st, 2021 at 23:38 UTC »

The article didn't reveal it's take on Putin's specific goals, just that they are going to be harsh because he is smelling weakness. A good article but kind of clickbait.