On July 9-11, NATO leaders convened in Washington, D.C., to commemorate the 75th anniversary of NATO, reflecting on the organization's foundational document signed in 1949.
While the summit was brimming with promises, it fell short on concrete plans. The war in Ukraine dominated the discussions as NATO unveiled initiatives to bolster Kyiv’s defense and promise an “irreversible” path to eventual membership.
Despite these measures, a central tension persists: while military aid has enabled Ukraine to resist Russian forces, it has not been sufficient for an outright victory.
The West's Strategic Considerations
The West's approach to the war in Ukraine is driven by a complex web of strategic considerations and historical contexts.
From the onset of the conflict, Western nations, particularly the United States and major European powers, have dragged their feet in supplying Ukraine with what it desperately needed to halt Russian advances. They haven't provided urgently needed air defense systems or aircraft and have imposed restrictions on what Ukraine can do with the provided weapons.
Ukraine has been left to fight with one hand tied behind its back. The primary aim has been to balance aiding Ukraine without provoking a broader conflict with Russia, a nuclear-armed power. This cautious stance is shaped by several factors:
- Historical Precedents: The memories of the Cold War and the potential for escalation into a direct NATO-Russia conflict remain vivid. Western leaders are acutely aware of the risks of a direct military confrontation with Russia, which could spiral into a nuclear exchange.
- Domestic Politics: Western governments face significant domestic political pressures. In the U.S., for instance, there is a sharp partisan divide on the approach to foreign conflicts, and public opinion is wary of becoming entangled in another protracted war.
- Economic Considerations: The economic repercussions of a prolonged conflict are significant. Energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and the economic sanctions imposed on Russia have had global impacts, affecting economies in Europe and beyond.
- Geopolitical Stability: The stability of the global order is a paramount concern. A weakened or destabilized Russia could lead to unpredictable consequences, including the potential for civil unrest within Russia and the emergence of even more hardline elements with a nuclear button.
- Caught Off Guard: Despite long recognizing the potential threat posed by Russia, the West was caught off guard by the timing and scale of Russia’s aggression. The West has underestimated and misjudged Putin for two decades. They did not anticipate Russia would feel ready to start such a conflict this early. This unpreparedness has left Western powers struggling to find a solid long-term solution. As to be discussed further below, the current conditions present no clear, viable path out of the conflict that aligns with Western interests and values.
The Intractable Nature of the Conflict
The war in Ukraine rages on because both sides are entrenched in positions where the compromises expected by the other are beyond their red lines. This intractability is fueled by several interrelated factors:
Russia's Take And Strategic Goals:
- Preventing Western Alignment: President Vladimir Putin appears or wants to be seen as determined to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western-aligned state at any cost. For Putin, Ukraine’s alignment with the West is perceived as an existential threat to Russian security and his plans to resurrect the Soviet Union. He insists that NATO's eastward expansion is a direct encroachment on Russia's sphere of influence and a violation of previous agreements.
- Subjugation and Sphere of Influence: Putin’s ultimate goal seems to be the subjugation of Ukraine, ensuring it remains within Russia’s sphere of influence. This involves not just preventing NATO membership but also exerting political and economic control over Kyiv. Putin views Ukraine's vast fertile lands, industrial might, and strategic geographical position as critical components of his plans, much like Stalin in the 20th century and Catherine the Great in the 18th century.
- Historical and Cultural Ties: Putin often invokes historical and cultural narratives to justify his actions, claiming a historical unity between Russia and Ukraine. This ideological stance further complicates any potential compromise, as it frames the conflict in terms of existential and historical destiny. In reality, Russian and Soviet authorities implemented brutal Russification policies in Ukraine from 1709 to 1991. Stalin attempted to erase a distinctive Ukrainian identity, exemplified by the Holodomor, a man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.
- Existential Battle: Particularly aimed at both the domestic audience and exploiting the divided public opinion in the West, Putin portrays the Ukraine war as part of a broader existential battle with the Western elite. He argues that this elite humiliated Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 by encroaching on what he considers Moscow's rightful sphere of influence, including Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Sovereignty:
- Existential Stakes: For Ukraine, the stakes are existential, indeed. The country is fighting for its survival as a sovereign nation. Ukrainian officials are adamant about regaining control over their territory and securing a future free from Russian dominance. The memory of Soviet domination and the more recent annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 have galvanized Ukrainian resistance.
- National Identity and Independence: Ukraine’s drive for independence is not just political but deeply rooted in a burgeoning sense of national identity. This identity is defined in opposition to Russian control, making any concession to Moscow politically untenable for Ukrainian leaders.
- Support from the West: While Ukrainian forces rely heavily on Western military and financial support, the Ukrainian government is keen to demonstrate its independence and capability to its own citizens and the international community. This support, while crucial, also comes with an expectation that Ukraine will make tangible progress on the battlefield.
Western Support:
- Calibrated Assistance: The West has provided substantial military aid to Ukraine, but this support is calibrated to avoid provoking a direct confrontation with Russia. The aid has enabled Ukraine to resist but not enough to decisively win the war. This calculated support aims to bleed Russia’s resources without escalating the conflict to a broader war.
- Political Constraints: Western leaders face significant political constraints at home. There is widespread support for helping Ukraine, but there are also fears about the economic and military costs of prolonged engagement. Leaders must balance these domestic pressures with their strategic goals in Ukraine.
- Strategic Ambiguity: The West’s strategy involves a degree of strategic ambiguity. By providing enough support to keep Ukraine in the fight, they hope to weaken Russia over time. However, they stop short of actions that could lead to a wider war, such as imposing a no-fly zone or deploying NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine.
Long-term Game:
- Clock Game: Both Putin and Western leaders are playing the long game. Putin believes he can outlast Western political resolve and public opinion. He is banking on the notion that Western democracies, with their frequent changes in leadership and public aversion to prolonged conflicts, will eventually lose interest or the political will to continue supporting Ukraine.
- Western Patience: The West, on the other hand, hopes that prolonged pressure will eventually force Russia to reconsider its aggressive stance. Their strategy involves incrementally increasing the cost of the war for Russia—economically, militarily, and diplomatically—hoping this will lead to a change in Russian calculations.
- Sanctions: The West has imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia, aiming to cripple its economy and limit its ability to sustain the war effort. Over time, these sanctions were expected to erode Russia’s economic base and create internal pressures for change. However, this strategy has not yielded the expected results. Russia has adeptly exploited cracks in the sanctions regime and forged stronger relations with Russia-friendly nations. Additionally, Russians are well adapted to isolation and self-sufficiency, a legacy from the Soviet era.
- Betting on Rationality: Despite Russia's warnings about the risk of a broader war, Western leaders and Ukraine have downplayed these threats, betting on the rationality of Putin and his unwillingness to escalate the conflict to an unmanageable level.
- Global Alliances: Russia is acutely aware that many global players cannot afford a Western victory in this war. It has strategically coordinated with countries like China, Iran, North Korea, and various nations in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia to keep its economy afloat. For example, China perceives a Western victory as a potential prelude to it becoming the next target. Thus, China balances its stance between not making Russia strong but at the same time not so weak to leave China itself alone as the main focus of the Western confrontation.
- Historical Grievances: Putin argues that the West refused to address the causes of the war, which he claims began in 2014 after a pro-Russian president was toppled in Ukraine's Maidan Revolution. He casts this as a U.S.-backed coup, further entrenching his narrative of Western encroachment.
- Worst Breakdown in Relations: The invasion of Ukraine triggered the worst breakdown in relations with the West in 60 years, escalating into what diplomats consider the most dangerous phase of the crisis to date. It may not end with this war.
- Ukraine's Resolve: Ukraine has made it clear that it will not rest until every last Russian soldier is ejected from the areas of Ukraine they control, which Moscow now considers to be parts of Russia.
The interplay of these factors creates a deadlock where neither side is willing or able to make the concessions necessary for a negotiated settlement. Each side believes time is on their side, leading to a prolonged and bloody stalemate. This intractability is further exacerbated by the complex web of historical grievances, national identities, and strategic imperatives at play, making the conflict exceedingly difficult to resolve.
The Strategic Dilemma
The renewed support for Ukraine includes establishing a new NATO command for training and arms delivery coordination, delivering F-16 fighter jets, and a new security compact. These efforts indicate a shift in Western capitals to support Ukraine over the long term, as Russia’s aggression shows no signs of abating. However, the U.S. and its allies have adopted a cautious approach to prevent an escalation spiral with Moscow. This cautiousness highlights a significant contradiction in the West’s strategy: providing enough support to keep Ukraine in the fight but not enough to ensure a decisive victory.
Potential Paths
Given the complex and high-stakes nature of the conflict, the West has carefully weighed four potential outcomes since the full-scale attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022:
1. An Outright Ukrainian Victory
From the West's perspective, a decisive Ukrainian victory poses several risks. If Ukraine were to receive maximum support from the West and succeed in reclaiming all its territories, this scenario would theoretically be a triumph for Ukrainian sovereignty and Western support but at the cost of long-term instability.
Russia would feel cornered and resort to using nuclear weapons or provoke a wider war in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron, early into the invasion, suggested allowing Putin to save face by not defeating Russia outright. This approach has not significantly changed, reflecting the West’s concern about destabilizing a nuclear-armed Russia.
A weakened Russia could lead to greater security risks for Europe and broader Western interests, as no potential successor to Putin is expected to be more moderate.
Implications:
- Escalation Risks: Such a victory could provoke Russia into more desperate measures, including the potential use of nuclear weapons or the opening of new fronts in Europe.
- Long-term Instability: Russia would not quietly accept defeat. Instead, it would likely regroup and retaliate, leading to prolonged instability in the region.
- Russian Domestic Turmoil: A decisive defeat could destabilize Russia internally, potentially leading to civil unrest or the rise of more hardline leadership.
2. A Russian Victory
Conversely, a Russian victory would force Ukraine to capitulate, resulting in significant territorial losses and political subjugation. It would destabilize Europe and have far-reaching implications. It would embolden Russia, damage NATO's and the U.S.'s image, and undermine long-term stability. The West fears that a victorious Russia would continue its aggressive expansion, threatening Poland, the Baltic states, and former Soviet territories in Central Asia and the Caucasus.
This scenario is more undesirable as it would lead to a stronger, more aggressive Russia.
Implications:
- European Security Threat: A victorious Russia would pose a greater threat to European security, emboldening Moscow to pursue further aggressive actions in all three directions—west, east, and south.
- NATO Credibility: The credibility of NATO and the U.S. would be severely damaged, undermining the alliance’s ability to deter future threats.
- Regional Destabilization: Russia’s ambitions could extend to other former Soviet states, further destabilizing the region and challenging the international order.
3. A Negotiated Ceasefire
A ceasefire agreement would involve both sides making significant concessions, potentially freezing the conflict but not resolving it. However, such a ceasefire is overly complex due to the incompatible demands of the involved parties.
Putin would be unlikely to settle for anything less than the Istanbul agreement, which would have declared Ukraine a neutral (nonaligned) state with limited military capabilities, listing Russia and Western countries, including the U.S. and the UK, as guarantors.
However, the West sees a neutral Ukraine as a temporary solution that Russia will exploit to undermine and eventually topple the Ukrainian government to configure it more like Belarus. Putin’s ambition to resurrect the Soviet Union necessitates control over both Belarus and Ukraine, making a ceasefire unlikely to last in the long term.
Implications:
- Temporary Relief: A ceasefire could provide temporary relief and save lives, but it would likely be unstable and temporary.
- Strategic Pause: Both sides would use the ceasefire to regroup and rearm, potentially leading to a resumption of hostilities in the future.
- Unresolved Issues: Fundamental issues, such as Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, would remain unresolved, leading to continued tension.
4. A Prolonged War
As harsh as it sounds, the West sees a prolonged war as the most strategic option without engaging directly against Russia. It weakens and exhausts Russia, depleting its resources and preventing destabilizing actions elsewhere.
The West hopes that over time Russia will realize the war is unwinnable or not worth winning thanks to the sustained and gradually increasing support for Ukraine.
This strategy aims to wear down Russia while avoiding escalation, but unfortunately, it comes at a high cost for Ukraine.
Implications:
- Resource Drain on Russia: Prolonging the war drains Russian resources and weakens its military and economic capabilities.
- Western Patience: The strategy relies on sustained Western support and public patience, which can be challenging to maintain over the long term.
- Humanitarian Cost: The prolonged conflict results in significant humanitarian and material costs for Ukraine, including loss of life, displacement, and infrastructure destruction.
Final Thoughts
Given the complex and high-stakes nature of the conflict, these four potential paths are carefully weighed by the West. The NATO summit in Washington underscores the West’s complex and cautious strategy in the Ukraine conflict. While the measures taken aim to support Ukraine and pressure Russia, they also reflect a calculated reluctance to push for an outright Ukrainian victory.
The West’s approach is shaped by the risks of both a decisive Ukrainian victory and a Russian win, as well as the challenges of anything in-between. Ultimately, the prolonged war strategy, though costly, seems to be so far the most viable way for the West to manage the conflict without direct involvement, hoping to eventually achieve a more favorable resolution for Ukraine.
