Why Putin's Very Bloody Ukraine Micro-Advances Are Yielding Decreasing Gains

Putin's troops are undersupplied, under-trained, unmotivated and poorly led. He has squandered repeated opportunities to take advantage of Ukrainian weaknesses but the earlier waste of men and materiel renders his army incapable of capitalizing on its ostensible strengths. 

He is desperate to force a negotiated truce by committing war crime atrocities like bombing children's hospitals, as his forces did today, because his military cannot win on the battlefield. But this merely serves as a reminder to Europeans and Americans that his barbaric rule is unacceptable to the civilized world, as French voters reminded him yesterday. JL

Phillips O'Brien reports in his substack:

Very little has changed since last week when Russia made a series of very bloody micro-advances.  Its a kilometer here and there, with no evidence that Russian can breakthrough and exploit. At Chasiv Yar, the Ukrainians still hold the city. Ukraine is willing to cede small bits of territory to inflict casualties and keep its casualties down. This is a continuation of what we've seen and will see for the rest of the summer. Putin is fighting the war because if he loses his regime could collapse. He is doing everything possible to win—slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people, destroying Russian military equipment at a clip, turning Russia into an economic vassal of China, and committing war crimes daily.

This week a group of 50 academics and annointed “experts” released a public letter calling for Ukraine to be kept out of NATO. In some ways it was extremely predictable. There were people like Mearsheimer, Posen and Walt, who had been telling us for years that Russia was a “great” power and that therefore Ukraine had to be sacrificed to Russian interest. Moreover, they said before February 24, 2022, this was nothing personal. All great powers do this, regardless of leadership (in other words, Putin doesnt matter). They also said that Russia, being a great power, would overwhelm Ukraine in short order in 2022. Its important to remember this—because they are returning to many of the same arguments they made then even when they have been shown to be false.

btw, I delve into this in a book I’m working on called War and Power—which will be published in 2025. Will say much more about this book soon.

The letter starts with an odd historical background narrative. The first point it makes is that NATO Article 5 will “bind” the USA to fight for Ukraine. Remember this point—because the letter goes on and twists it in the next paragraph.

NATO’s Article 5 is widely considered to bind members of the alliance — in practice the United States above all — to go to war to repel an attack against any member. If Ukraine were to join NATO after the current war, the United States and its Allies would be understood to be making a commitment to fight Russian forces over Ukraine, should Russia invade again.

Then it makes the case that the USA was right not to fight for Ukraine now (because of escalation) and that therefore, it seems, it should not fight for Ukraine in the future. There is no attempt to say why Ukraine is different from other parts of the old USSR such as the Baltic States—that are now in NATO. Are they therefore not in US interest as well? One might say that what the authors are saying is that the Baltics are not in US interest either—but they don’t have the courage to do that.

Then the letter basically contradicts itself in a breath-taking fashion. The real problem the authors say is not that that the USA would have to fight for Ukraine if it were in NATO—the problem would be that the USA would actually choose not to fight for Ukraine even if it were in NATO. This paragraph is so strange that I will put the whole thing here and then break it down into its constituent parts.

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking. Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war. If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance. The result could be a direct NATO-Russia war or the unraveling of NATO itself.

Lets start with with first two sentences.

Some claim that the act of bringing Ukraine into NATO would deter Russia from ever invading Ukraine again. That is wishful thinking.

This is a remarkable claim on face value. Russia has never attacked a NATO country and indeed has done everything possible not to attack a NATO country. Russia is clearly terrified of NATO, and one reason Russia has attacked Ukraine (as opposed to the Baltics for instance) is that Ukraine is not in NATO and was not covered by article 5—and the Baltics were.

Russia has never invaded a NATO country because it is deterred from doing so. At least the authors should have the intellectual courage to admit this.

Also, the paragraph completely misses the transformation of much of European NATO’s thinking since 2022—basing much of its argument on a prediction that even if Ukraine were in NATO—NATO would not fight for it—thus showing the alliance was bluff.

Since Russia began invading Ukraine in 2014, NATO Allies have demonstrated through their actions that they do not believe the stakes of the conflict, while significant, justify the price of war. If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would have reason to doubt the credibility of NATO’s security guarantee — and would gain an opportunity to test and potentially rupture the alliance.

Its hard to know where to start with such a series of sentences, which would be laughable were they in an undergraduate essay. Its basically saying “I have no past evidence for my main argument, so I will make up a future scenario where what happens will prove I am right.”

NATO never fought for nations that were not in it before and has always deterred for nation’s in it. There is zero evidence that if Ukraine were in NATO, somehow it would be treated differently. Indeed, the whole history of the integration of the former parts of the USSR and Warsaw Pact shows the exact opposite (and of course is not mentioned in the letter).

They idea that somehow thinking about security, national interest and Ukraine has been constant since 2014 also misses out that there has been an extraordinary change since 2022, and many European states, for instance, have come to see Ukraine as vital to their national interest. At the same time NATO has been invigorated since 2022—with Sweden and Finland joining. NATO is not seen as more of a guarantee of security than the opposite.

And states in Central/Eastern Europe do absolutely see and independent and free Ukraine in NATO as vital to their own security. Moreover, there is no evidence that were Ukraine in NATO, its security would be viewed as less central to the alliance than say the Baltics (which are getting more and more investment). Indeed the whole thrust of NATO is to be more united when it comes to defending the integrity of their members—not less. This is why European states want Ukraine in NATO—because they know it matters.

Finally, even if there might be some uncertainty about whether the rest of NATO would fight for Ukraine were it in—that uncertainty is an argument to add Ukraine. It is strategic ambiguity at its finest. Russia would have to make a major gamble—and guess that NATO is a strategic paper tiger when it comes to Ukraine. What’s the harm in that—that strategic ambiguity has a deterrent factor all its own. The letter itself shows the power of such ambiguity—when it shows the effect of escalation thinking on deterring aid for Ukraine so far as stated above.

So the whole paragraph is bizarre. It main argument is based on a future scenario that almost certainly will never happen, and the effect of strategic ambiguity—which the letter already acknowledges—is overlooked.

If this paragraph is intellectually weak then the next paragraph is just pathetic. Its the obligatory “poor Ukrainians” paragraph that appears in every piece by people who don’t want to support Ukraine. It also seems to get the whole war wrong as well (realists really don’t understand war and power—its amazing).

Look if you don’t want to support Ukraine, that’s your choice. But don’t pretend that what you are doing is better for Ukrainians, when they are choosing to fight for their very existence.

Here is how this paragraph begins.

Dangling NATO membership for Ukraine does a disservice to Ukrainians who are bravely fighting for their independence. The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war and killing Ukrainians so as to forestall Ukraine’s integration into NATO.

This just completely misses the war at present. You can’t add to Putin’s incentive to keep fighting the war. He is fighting the war because if he loses his regime could collapse. He is already doing everything possible to win the war already—slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people, destroying Russian military equipment at an unprecedented clip, turning Russia into an economic vassal of China, and committing war crimes daily.

The paragraph (indeed the whole letter) plays a clever trick on the reader by not mentioning Putin—only Russia—as if the present Russian regime doesnt matter. The incentive to keep fighting is now mostly through the present regime—and to be frank that cant be made greater.

Moreover, if “Russia” knew that Ukraine were going into NATO I could construct a future where this will end the war sooner (if realists can make up a future that suits their interests—I can too). If its made clear that Ukraine will go into NATO, it makes continuing the war futile for Russia. Indeed, it would be more likely to weaken the Putin regime than anything else, as it will have shown how the regime has basically committed a strategic act of self-harm.

So once again, this letter presupposes future action for which there is little evidence, and does it in such a way that it sheds crocodile tears for Ukraine. It also fails to acknowledge that in fighting as they are—Ukrainians have made their choice. This is deliberately missed at the end of this paragraph, where the group basically takes upon itself to lecture Ukrainians on how they should make their own choices.

Ukraine faces difficult choices of enormous consequence for its future. Ukrainians deserve to weigh their strategic options through clear eyes, not through rose-tinted glasses held out by outsiders who do not have the support of their countries.

Ukrainians know there is no guarantee of NATO membership, they knew it on February 24, 2022—and they have still decided to fight (when it should be remembered many of these realists wanted to abandon them).

The last paragraph of the letter simply repeats many of the errors. Once again it claims, without evidence, that having Ukraine pledged to NATO would lengthen the war, and it claims that Ukraine’s fate is not in NATO interest (without mentioning the view of many of those in Central/Eastern/Nordic Europe).

Ultimately this is a letter written to justify earlier failures of the authors. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Share

Biden, Ukraine and NATO.

 

President Biden sat down with George Stephanopolous for an interview to try and put to rest the many doubts that are swirling about the president’s fitness to stay in the race. I am not commenting on those worries here—I just wanted to highlight what he said about NATO and Ukraine. Frankly it was a little weird—but might help explain a little why US policy has been so uneven.

You can read a transcript of the whole interview here.

The most detailed mention by Biden of NATO and Ukraine is, to put it kindly, a little grandiose.

Note—transcripts that are verbatim like this are often strange to read, because people dont always speak in coherent sentences. Biden does not here, however, that is not unusual. If you read a verbatim transcript of a Trump interview—it would be far more incoherent.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: George. I'm the guy that put NATO together, the future. No one thought I could expand it. I'm the guy that shut Putin down. No one thought could happen. I'm the guy that put together a South Pacific initiative with AUKUS. I'm the guy that got 50 nations out-- not only in Europe, outside of Europe as well to help Ukraine.

First—Biden is claiming that he was the one that expanded NATO (presumably through the addition of Sweden and Finland). This is a constant in the interview. Biden mentions being the person who expanded NATO a few times (whereas he only mentions Ukraine once—in the above response). Certainly Biden was part of the process—but the real credit for NATO expansion goes to Putin. Before Feb 24, 2022, there was no sign that the USA or Biden wanted Finland or Sweden in NATO.

The second point about shutting Putin down makes no sense. Biden is helping Ukraine keep fighting, but is deliberately not giving Ukraine the weapons it needs to “shut Putin down”. He is more helping Ukraine to try and hold Putin back not to be defeated.

The final point about leading an international coalition to help Ukraine is probably the most accurate claim. Biden did an excellent job of that right after Feb 24, 2022. However it should be noted that since then actually Biden has been a follower as much as a leader. Its often been European states leading on what they give to Ukraine and how it can be used—as the US following.

What was missing was any idea of how Biden sees the war developing and whether he wants Ukraine to win or not. Now it was only a 22 minute interview, and not everything could be covered. However, what was here was not the most impressive or reassuring.

A Few More Russian Micro-Advances

Very little has changed since last week when I attempted to describe Russian advances as a series of very bloody micro-advances.

There were a few more this week, which caused a little flurry of panic. But once again, its a kilometer here and a kilometer here—with no evidence that Russian can breakthrough and exploit.

At Chasiv Yar, the Ukrainians pulled back to the Canal, but still hold the city. It does seem that Ukraine is willing now to cede small bits of territory to inflict casualties and (one hopes) keep Ukrainian casualties down. This is basically a continuation of what have seen and almost certainly will see for the rest of the summer.