Europe has been relentlessly complaining about its inability to force Russia to change course or moderate its approach towards Ukraine. However, so far it has only seen Russia hammering its way with massive power and clear apathy towards European tactics.
The lack of real impact on Russia of sanctions, massive military aid to Ukraine worth more than $50 billion, and even stooping down to sabotage of Nord Stream 1 and Crimea bridge has left the entire of Europe deeply stunned.
Unperturbed, Europe has continued trying something new to tame Russia even as it’s seen one after the other trick getting botched. Two aspects that Europe didn’t adequately account for include the reverse impact of sanctions on Europe itself, and Russia’s resilience to it.
NATO’s continued push for expansion at the peril of Russian security concerns had caused great anguish in Kremlin. In fact, the US bears a chunk of responsibility for undermining Russian core interests ever since the Soviet Empire broke up. The US has unilaterally walked back from CBMs like Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT; 1967-1985), Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (1972-2002), and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (1987-2019). These were cornerstones for maintaining power equilibrium and proved their worth in providing stability to the global order during the larger part of the 20th Century. There was a clear realisation that in the long run, the nuclear race would make both countries go bankrupt and any nuclear war cannot be won by either side.
However, the West’s continued indifference to Russia pushed it to the edge. Russian action was neither sudden nor unexpected; it rather allowed its firm intent to be adequately known. All the flow of so-called ‘ground intelligence’ and sequential release of satellite imageries of Russian build-up was largely possible because President Vladimir Putin wanted the message to go very loud and unmissable even to the deaf and dumb! This was the time of December 21 when Russia gave diplomacy a final chance; it presented its own version of a new European security framework to the EU whose negotiated settlement could have prevented, what we now see, as a complete catastrophe.
Vertical Split
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, think tanks in the US came up with the idea that the US is no longer threatened for existence by Russia. This led to unilateral actions by the US: The tactical nuclear warhead W-54 of 1KT yield, which the US has already taken the lead to build, gave them the sort of confidence that it can be used on the battlefield.
US withdrawals from various mutual treaties with Russia were also on the pretext of highlighting newer challenges beyond Russia. But their actions spoke louder with the US ending up deploying the intermediate-range nuclear-capable hypersonic missile THAAD Eagle in Germany in 2021, something which the INF treaty would have prevented. It can impact Russia within 5-6 minutes of launch – barely enough time for Russia to authorise a retaliation.
A missile in flight is impossible to be distinguished as carrying a nuclear warhead or not, no one can be faulted for working with a worst-case scenario. It’s the US which created the situation of a nuclear confrontation a reality. All this while Russia kept raising red flags one after the other; unfortunately, each time it was discarded as an insignificant irritant in the great power gamble. No surprise then that Europe too leaned onto these views. Thus, Europe, without having a realistic impact assessment, followed the US lead and simultaneously acted as the lead for a desperate Ukraine. It became an apt case of one blind leading the other.
Avoidable Conflict
Very strange but more than a year into this avoidable conflict, there is more wisdom and sanity seen now than at the beginning of the war. Voices are hushed today but nevertheless, rumblings are apparent; Europe is almost in a vertical split.
Germany has allowed its insurers to activate Nord Stream insurance cover implying that now this can be repaired. Countries are adopting policies which are likely to give them better dividends but run counter to broader EU policy.
Similar is the case with France, Belgium, Italy and Spain.
France has shown willingness towards a negotiated settlement. During French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Beijing this month, the conflict resolution agenda was very much on the table. French recognition of the likely Chinese role in this conflict indicated French eagerness to have these very unfavourable developments resolved as soon as possible. What’s important is, all of them are major stakeholders in the EU and now realise that the conflict has done severe harm to their national interests.
Unsustainable War
For sure overt NATO’s intervention in the conflict is straight off discussion and there’s good reason for that. After initial hesitation, NATO opened up its war reserves to supply Ukraine with state-of-the-art weapons, tons of munitions, and a communication backbone while training more than 30,000 Ukrainian troops. This did give Ukraine some tactical edge over the Russian offensive during the Sept-Oct period last year. The development was quickly lapped up by the Western media to hold that Ukraine is going to prevail, Russians are losing troops in droves, and Putin won’t be able to sustain the war economically or morally any longer.
However, the war through the coloured narrative is probably different from the factual ground situation. Tactically Russia inside Ukraine is all bonus, it easily traded ground for troops, and it consolidated and launched massive aerial counterattacks keeping its troops at safe distances. Within a month’s time, Russia not only destroyed the heavy weapons donated by NATO but decimated the trained troops operating them.
The ground manoeuvres were held back to let Russian supremacy be unmistakable to all. Russian strategy has blasted the modern war theories to be short, swift and hugely destructive. Russia appears to be in no hurry and that’s precisely what has shaken Europe.
Lessons on Ground Battles
Russia appeared to be giving some free lessons to European powers who were feeding the NATO war chest about how to fight classic ground battles next door. Europeans have had a problem; a majority of them have held expeditionary forces designed and tailored for operations in distant parts of the globe they never prepared for, to fight close combat and suffer major troop loss in a border confrontation.
Alarmed at the war expenditure by Ukraine when the operating theatre is very restricted, Europe realised it was beyond military and economic sense to sustain this war.
Russia doesn’t have such worries. Its economy has stabilised after the initial shock; it definitely doesn’t have any fuel shortages; its war industries are still exporting and by all accounts, Russia hasn’t yet brought its best to this war so far!
Who Prevails?
A look at the strategic objectives of Ukraine and Russia highlights a very startling fact: Ukraine has laid down the recapture of all its territories including Crimea as the end settlement of the war. Russia, on the other hand, laid down the decimation of Ukrainian war-waging capability, destruction of critical infrastructure and liberation of Russian-majority Eastern territories, as its principal goals.
Russia has gone about amplifying its intent in the language that could be better interpreted at NATO War Room. Ukrainian resistance can be admirable but it’s no substitute for the harsh realities of the battlefield. European capitals are all seized to the development. Ukraine is not in a position to muster more trained troops at the current war wastage rates to support any meaningful counter-offensive and in case it somehow does, this is exactly what Russia has been waiting for. Let Ukraine bring in more and then ensure its complete annihilation.
A recent Pentagon leak of highly classified spring offensive plans also gave an indication of only “modest gains” as the outcome. Sane voices want Ukraine to survive the conflict with reasonable self-defence assets intact. The alternative option is too scary for Europe: An outright Russian declaration of victory against Europe’s collective might, in spite of them spending billions of euros for Zelensky.
On the diplomatic front, all Western efforts to isolate Russia in multilateral groupings have fallen on the face. Barring the expulsion of Russia from the Council of Europe, it is being represented at all international fora that matter, and it hasn’t stopped speaking.
On the contrary, differences have ensured no joint communique could be worked out in most of the forums, which only shows the importance of Russian disagreement. Not the least that Russia now also holds the Security Council presidency; it’s literally a diplomatic coup.
Notably, Russia has demonstrated shades of an invincible Soviet aura and the side which has its war objectives better aligned with prevailing ground realities will most likely prevail!
–The writer has varied experience in security paradigm and is a keen follower of international geopolitics. He is also the author of popular blog site (geostrat.in) on geo-strategic affairs. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
