Blinken is not blinking when it comes to Putin & Russia

Anthony Blinken is warning Russia of severe consequences if it invades Ukraine at the same time that Russia’s President Putin has proposed a deal with NATO.  What is going on?

It is well known that Russia has massed troops around Ukraine’s border.  It is a threat to the Ukrainian government which has refused to negotiate with the Russians on the future of the Donbass region where pro-Russian forces are faced off against the Ukrainian army.  Ukraine has deployed more than half of its armed forces there, making it vulnerable from other directions, such as from Crimea.

Ukraine has the third largest army in Europe after Russia and France, with about 255,000 under arms and some reporting that it has recently grown to 280,000.  It has a relatively small air force of some 83 fighter aircraft (all Russian origin) and in depth air defenses based on the S-300, BUK 9K37 and the TOR 9K330.  While Russian forces –land and air– are far more numerous, any war with Ukraine would be very costly for Russia.

The Russians have argued that Kiev should negotiate with the two Donbass “republics” under the Minsk agreements.  The second Minsk agreement was organized by Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany and the agreement was to be supervised by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Assuming that the cease fire and withdrawal parts of Minsk II are adhered to, which has not yet happened, the next critical step would be  local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian legislation and the Law of Ukraine “On temporary Order of Local Self-Governance in Particular Districts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts,” and also about the future of these districts based on the Ukraine law.

The OSCE is made up of 57 governments including the United States.  The members are those who signed the Helsinki Agreements in 1975 and later many (but not all) signed the Paris Charter for a New Europe in 1990.  The USSR (now Russia) was a signatory to the Paris Charter but not to the Helsinki Agreements.

While the Russians have been particularly critical of the OSCE, nonetheless Moscow appears to accept the role of the OSCE in the Minsk II framework.

However, Kiev which previously agreed (in 2015) to Minsk II, is at present blocking any further negotiations, saying in part that they do not want to negotiate in Minsk because of the Lukashenko regime there.  However the real reason seems to be that any local elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts they figure they will lose.

With Ukraine currently unwilling to negotiate the conflict remains unresolved and likely to break out on a large scale at any time.

Meanwhile the US and NATO are challenging the Russians by selling arms to Ukraine and by sabre rattling in Europe, especially in the Black Sea region and along the Polish border.

Russia’s President Putin says that his red line is any entry of NATO into Ukraine, although there already is a security partnership with Ukraine called by NATO an “Enhanced Opportunities Partnership.”  So far under the Partnership Ukraine had provided troops to Allied operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, as well as to the NATO Response Force and NATO exercises. Other Enhanced Opportunities Partners include Australia, Finland, Georgia, Jordan and Sweden. Sweden and Finland claim they are neutral countries. Georgia fought a war with Russia (and mostly lost).  Jordan is a peculiar partner and its participation probably enables the stationing of US and other forces on Jordanian territory.

Putin is now proposing to NATO a “deal” whereby Russia would get “reliable and long-term security guarantees” that NATO will not expand near Russia’s borders, meaning it will not expand to Ukraine.  At the present time there is a good deal of reluctance among some of the NATO partners to have Ukraine join NATO but there is also considerable pressure from the United States to upgrade the Ukraine security relationship and to support Ukraine if Russia would invade.

No one can say if the Putin requested deal has any traction or even if it is serious.  Blinken’s ill timed harsh statements aimed at Russia suggests that the United States may not be interested either in a dialogue or any negotiation with Russia.

The US position carries with it two problems.  The first and most obvious is that by not addressing Putin’s request, the US appears to be promoting rather than working to resolve the Ukraine conflict.  Furthermore it seems that the Biden administration would be willing to potentially throw US forces into Ukraine, something that the administration has been building towards for many months.  The recent NATO move, supported by the US, to kick the Russians out of the NATO mission in Brussels, and the decision to expel a large number of Russian diplomats in the United States while closing US consulates in Russia, suggests the idea is to reduce options on the possibility of constructive negotiations.  One can add to the equation NATO exercises in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, including flying nuclear-capable bombers near Russia’s borders.

The second problem is Ukraine and its future.  Ukraine has been pushing for NATO membership and equally for US forces to come to Ukraine’s assistance.  As already noted, the chances for NATO membership are not good as Europe has to weigh the consequences of a NATO-supported conflict in Ukraine. In part that might mean a more general war that could spread as far north as the Baltics, certainly will impact Poland, and which could cut off vital energy supplies to Europe.  It is a mistake to think Russia will allow NATO into Ukraine without attacking NATO assets including those outside of Ukraine.

Ukraine can come out a loser if there is any conflict, because even if the US decided to engage militarily in supporting the country, the damage a war could do would be catastrophic.  One only needs to look at what happened in Syria or what the Russians did to the Chechens.  The Russians have the advantage of a land border and a huge military apparatus.  The US has to operate from other nation’s bases, and can expect considerable pushback, perhaps enough to crack open the NATO alliance.

The US has no known security obligation to Ukraine.  Ukraine is not part of any collective security agreement and the US is not pledged to defend Ukraine’s borders or, for that matter, Ukraine’s sovereignty. Similarly NATO has no such obligation or responsibility.  The US and NATO do have a serious stake in stability in Europe, but Ukraine is not part of that equation and never has been.  None of this is to say that Ukrainian independence and desire for secure borders is in the least bit unreasonable.  But it is unreasonable for the Ukrainians to think NATO or the US are going to be their saviors, and certainly it is not in the alliance’s interest to permit Ukraine to potentially create provocations that could unwind the alliance. It is bad enough that the Russians create provocations!

It is also useful to remember that neither the US nor NATO nor Europe intervened when war broke out in Georgia or when the Russians grabbed Crimea.  These land grabs are indeed unfortunate and unnecessary, and Russia’s willingness to land-grab was a long term warning to NATO to strengthen its self-defense capabilities.  But Ukraine is outside that equation.

Destabilizing Europe and a European conflict are not something that is in anyone’s interest.

Is the Biden administration overreacting on Ukraine because of its debacle in Afghanistan, trying to win back their credibility and manhood.  One hopes this is not the case, but the peculiar enthusiasm to get into a fight with Russia is ominous and not appropriate.

Perhaps Mr. Blinken and the Biden administration should take a serious look at alternatives to armed conflict, starting with an effort to lower the heat as much as possible, and undertaking a tough-minded dialogue with the Russians, particularly with Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin.  The Russians need to do the same and one can read Putin’s latest statements about NATO as a possible invitation.

Blinking and negotiating make more sense than mutual threats.