In 1962 the world watched and held its breath for 13 days as a high stakes showdown took place between the then Soviet Union and the United States over missiles being installed in Cuba aimed at cities like New York. While it was ultimately resolved with the United States and Soviet Union coming to an agreement which included the removal of missiles from Cuba and the United States removing missiles from Italy and Turkey, those 13 days could have ended with grave consequences.
As Russia continues to mobilize troops along the border of Ukraine, the world is again watching as speculation is rampant about whether Russia will actually invade Ukraine. This speculation may be a moot point given the fact that it has already annexed Crimea while the international community considers Crimea to be occupied Ukrainian territory. Despite Russian propaganda that Ukraine is a threat, in reality Russia is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the US, UK, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement which guaranteed respect for Ukraine’s borders in return for relinquishing its nuclear weapons.
Needless to say, Ukraine might be regretting that agreement. Giving up their nuclear arsenal has not guaranteed the safety of its borders. In addition as Ukraine braces for a full scale invasion, the other signatories to the Budapest Memorandum seem to be weary of enforcing that agreement. Other nations who have aspirations of acquiring their own nuclear arsenal can use the Ukraine scenario as a rationale. Nations like North Korea rightly or wrongly can use this as an excuse to never surrender its nuclear arsenal. Iran would consider itself justified in moving towards having its own nuclear arsenal to defend itself against potential aggression. They both have seen how the abandonment of a nuclear program could make them susceptible to invasion.
The present incursion of territory that is considered part of a sovereign nation follows Russian occupation of territory of the Republic of Georgia as well as the takeover of Belarus. In full view of the international community, Russia is encroaching upon territory in sovereign states without incurring sufficient repercussions to alter its behavior. The sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine in 2014 and annexing the Crimean Peninsula had little or no effect.
It is true that Russia has been invaded several times throughout its history which can give credence to a belief that they are trying to protect its western flank from NATO expansion. Unfortunately, Russia’s incursion of sovereign territory negates any rationale about this being simply a defensive move as Ukraine does not pose a threat. It is interesting to note that the idea of defense was the same rationale given by Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Secondly, to let a Constitutional republic in name but an autocratic government in action invade another country without consequence sends a dire message to other fledgling democracies who may be in the line of sight of an autocratic government. The message would be that the United States and its allies will not assist democratic nations if they are attacked by a neighboring autocratic nation. An example may be Hungary which borders Serbia or North Korea and South Korea.
There is a lot of speculation as to why Putin is engaging in these actions. Some say it’s a defensive move while others say its a desire to recreate the former Soviet Union. It should be noted that one thing that Ukraine and Georgia share is their request to become formal members of NATO. While both nations presently participate in military exercises with NATO, their membership is still under review. One of the criteria for membership is as follows “ States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.” Needless to say both countries have disputed territories by virtue of Russian encroachment. Putin whether by design or default has seemingly used the rules of NATO to hamper the process of both nations in their quest for membership .
The most strategic reason from Russia’s point of view would be to exact concessions from Biden about NATO expansion along its western front. Nonetheless, these acts of aggression must be taken seriously and met with the severest retaliation possible short of military action which President Biden has taken off the table which leaves it with fewer options. The red line that Biden has placed before Russia is one of aggression. Given that Russia has already annexed Crimea and invaded the Republic of Georgia, the question is what does the United States consider to be an encroachment upon territorial integrity.
While Biden has intimated he may deny Russia from participants in the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication known as SWIFT, it must be remembered that the United States doesn’t own or control SWIFT. It is owned by a cooperative of financial institutions which operates out of Belgium. The United States is a member of SWIFT and has great influence but there is no guarantee that the rest of the institutions will go along with that decision. Secondly, Russia has built its own alternative to SWIFT namely the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS) which will enable it to conduct its financial transactions without SWIFT. While there would be an immediate drastic effect on Russia as a result of being removed from SWIFT, it would live with a system more cumbersome and costly but enabling Putin to continue to engage in other acts of aggression without consequence.
President Biden has also intimated a suspension of the Nord Stream pipeline which if cut off would deny a stream of currency to Russia. While Germany has agreed to suspend Nord Stream if Russia invades Ukraine, the issue becomes how does Germany define invasion.
From an offensive perspective, the US must arm Ukraine with the most advanced weaponry, short of nuclear capability, to defend themselves against further Russian aggression.
Another offensive move would be to build up military operations within some of the fourteen nations which border Russia including Finland, Lithuania but also Poland.
It is conceivable that these acts of aggression would not be occurring in Ukraine and Georgia if the two nations had obtained NATO membership.
In order to get around the NATO guidelines about disputed territory, both nations can conceivable do as Finland did in 1940 under the Moscow treaty and cede disputed territory to Russia. This could be done as long as there would be a commitment from NATO that membership would immediately follow. This would automatically make further incursions by Russia subject to NATO’s Article 5.
The United States is in a potentially no win situation. As stated, President Biden has made it clear that it will not use it’s military to protect Ukraine. If Russia moves its forces further into Ukraine and Biden applies sanctions to no avail the United States will be seen as a paper tiger. If Germany changes its mind about Nord Stream, the western alliance will be seen as weak. If removal from SWIFT does not have the intended effect, Putin will have carte blanche for his aggression. Like a petulant child Putin is testing western democracies to see what he can get away with.
No one wants to be accused of acting in a Chamberlainesque manner in regards to Putin’s aggression but realpolitik makes it imperative for nations to proceed with extreme caution. Biden in particular as he has been criticized for the tactical aspect of the Afghanistan withdrawal cannot afford another incident where the optics overshadow the substance of his response. At present, Biden is right to have taken a military option off the table. While the United States military has been formed to fight on multiple fronts nonetheless, a military response to a Russian invasion could create another crisis namely if the United States is distracted by Russia, China might see this as an opportunity to invade Taiwan. In that scenario most military models show, that it would be a logistical nightmare to try and protect Taiwan.
Biden at present is taking the right steps by talking with allies and getting buy-in for some of the options. Biden like John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis is maintaining a calm demeanor and has been careful not to escalate the situation with unnecessary bluster. Kennedy’s calmness in the face of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs led by General Curtis LeMay who wanted to launch a full scale invasion of Cuba, prevented what could have been an unmitigated disaster. If the underlying rational for Putin’s action is his perceived fear of NATO’s expansion, a deal will ultimately be negotiated. The question is what will the United States and its allies give up in return for Putin pulling his troops back from the Ukraine border. The next few days may prove to be an inflection point for this crisis in particular and the role of the United States in general. At this stage no-one can predict how this will end but Biden is a steady hand who like Kennedy may be able to resolve this crisis in a diplomatic manner that maintains the peace and prevents possible Russian expansion across Europe.