I won’t go quite so far as saying that I materially agree with Ian Hill’s analysis at RealClearDefense
What does Putin want?
Firstly, he wants to bring Ukraine back within Russia’s orbit. This is partly for emotional reasons of national identity and imperial nostalgia: Putin, like many Russians, doesn’t really accept Ukraine as a separate country and people, and resents its post-Soviet independence.
But more than this, Putin has a wider geopolitical goal. He wants to redraw Europe’s post-Cold War security architecture.
In particular, he wants to forestall and reverse NATO’s eastward expansion. And as a corollary, restore Russia’s sphere of influence around its western borders, to give it strategic depth.
but I do agree with a lot of it. I think he overstates this:
It’s also about political insecurity. The Kremlin is fearful of open democracies flourishing on Russia’s doorstep (whether in Ukraine or Belarus), providing an unhelpful model for its domestic opponents and vectors of foreign influence.
Somehow he manages to omit the possibility of stationing missiles including tactical nuclear weapons right on Russia’s border. And the persecution of ethnic Russians in some of those formerly Soviet republics. But I think this is about right:
The bigger context is Putin’s overriding aim to reassert Russia’s standing and influence globally as a great power, especially in its near neighbourhood, and rebuild Russia’s hard power – a strong Russian military – to support this ambition.
So far, coercive diplomacy seems to have worked for Putin. He’s got the West’s attention – in buckets. Russia’s security guarantee demands, accompanied by bellicose rhetoric and the menacing buildup of over 150,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders (and more in Belarus), have forced Western leaders to engage with Moscow on Russia’s terms.
By limiting gas supplies, Russia has reminded European leaders of the leverage it enjoys through Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.
And he’s taken steps to reaffirm and deepen relations with China, to ensure Beijing has Moscow’s back in any crisis with the West.
Tactically, then, the threat of force has proved effective for Putin, securing the negotiating high ground and the ability to dial up and down the pressure on Ukraine, and the West.
which you will notice echoes what I’ve been saying around here. But I think this is open to question:
But if, as Western leaders are warning, Putin now decides actually to invade Ukraine, this could prove a strategic blunder, proving counter-productive longer-term for Russia. Far from drawing Ukraine closer to Russia, such intervention would alienate the Ukrainian people, and drive them closer to Europe. Russia’s invasion would be fiercely resisted by Ukrainians and inflame nationalist sentiment among the 43 million strong population.
Next, it would galvanise the cohesion and sense of common purpose within NATO, strengthening ties between the United States and its European allies. It would bring down far-reaching sanctions on Russia. This would badly damage the Russian economy, and worsen the livelihoods of ordinary Russians (with whom a war now with Ukraine is unlikely to play as well as the Crimea annexation did in 2014). And this would likely drive Russia into greater dependence on China.
That hasn’t happened so far. Germany has stalwartly refused to do anything that might actually bear costs for Germany. And I’m afraid this is fanciful:
Moreover, energy dependence works both ways. While Europe needs Russian gas, Russia also needs to sell it, and Europe is Moscow’s biggest customer. Cutting off gas supplies would ultimately be self-defeating for Russia.
Does he really think that Russia won’t be able to sell the natural gas it produces? Here’s a pretty good summary of the situation:
Russia has a range of options to destabilise Ukraine, short of fully-fledged invasion – including a limited military incursion ostensibly to protect Russian citizens in the separatist regions of Donbas in eastern Ukraine, waging cyber-attacks on Ukrainian institutions and infrastructure, and cutting off gas and electricity supplies to Ukraine. Or any combination of these.
which in general is what I think is likely. He concludes with what is to me an unlikely description of European steps to defuse the situation. Read the whole thing.
Putin just signed a decree to recognize the independence of the Donbas separatist areas.
A speculative guess on where Putin is aiming is what the US applied to Iraq between the Gulf War and Iraq War. If one wants a policy of “encourage regime change” but “no full scale invasion”….
I tend to believe its going to be a bit more kinetic than cyber-attacks because Russia stated NATO support (training/arms) for the Ukraine is a threat to Russian security (a separate but intertwined issue from NATO membership). The Russian defense minister said Ukraine has more javelin missiles then some NATO countries and those are not defensive weapons at the publicized Russian security council meeting today.
I believe another historical analogy would be the Sino-Vietnam war of 1979.
Putin is playing this very well (from his perspective).
Form a “defense” agreement with two “separatist” republics, move the military into those republics for “peacekeeping” while the bulk of Russian combat power remains on Ukraine’s border as a sword of Damocles should Ukraine try anything.
I hope there is military coordination with the US. We are flying near constantly over Ukrainian airspace, mainly ISR flights monitoring the border. One incident and things could go downhill fast.
I have the benefit of it being almost 10pm est now. It sounds like Donbas has been invaded. Now its just speculation about Donbas or all of Ukraine.