Biden and Putin brinkmanship

The United States and Russia are now engaged in a dangerous game of diplomatic brinkmanship over Ukraine with the future of long-term relations between Washington and Moscow at stake. In anticipation of an invasion by Russian troops, the prospect of a medium-scale Nato reinforcement of allies in eastern Europe to deter further military expansionist ambitions is looking unavoidable. President Biden and President Putin may have had their brief moments of laughter and courteous welcome when they spoke on the phone on Tuesday. But the threat of an invasion of Ukraine and the disastrous consequences that could follow a Russian military attack have presented the leader of the western world with his toughest foreign policy challenge. The worst scenario he faces is war between Russia and Nato, something inconceivable in the last three decades of post-Cold War Europe. Biden has to choose the right balance between deterrence and what would be viewed by Putin as provocation. Sending US troops and firepower to Ukraine now to preempt a possible Russian invasion in January or early February would unquestionably be seen as highly provocative by Moscow, and could lead to unpredictable consequences. Biden has already publicly ruled it out. Putin had probably calculated that was not a realistic US option but the American president’s confirmation of his decision will have comforted his Russian counterpart. All the Pentagon has done is ship small arms and ammunition to Ukraine this week, the last part of a $60 million security package which was announced in August. Had Biden retained the preemptive option, he would have faced opposition from Congress and also from the American public for a high-risk venture in a country which is not a member of the Nato alliance. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan less than four months ago after a war that failed to produce the desired result remains in everyone’s minds. “Some people might argue for sending forces to Ukraine but the country is very difficult to defend because it’s so large and exposed. In the east facing Russia there are no natural defences and the Russians have the advantage of concentration and they can move their forces more quickly,” said Mark Cancian, a retired colonel in the US Marine Corps who also worked at the Pentagon on defence force structure issues. He is now a senior adviser at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. “This is not the Soviet Union with an army of unskilled soldiers. They now look a lot like us, mostly volunteers, well trained and with excellent equipment. They would be a tough opponent, so if the US sent token forces to Ukraine that would be very risky and could lead to casualties,” he said. The focus is therefore on post-invasion planning. That in itself, it is hoped, will be a deterrent to Putin who in his video call with Biden underlined his longstanding anger about the positioning of Nato troops so close to Russia’s borders in Poland and the Baltics. Currently Nato has four multinational battlegroups, totalling around 4,500 troops, in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They are there at the request of the host nations and Russian arms control inspectors have the right to monitor training exercises. What if, however, Biden and other Nato leaders decided to punish Putin, post-invasion, by deploying full armoured brigades, each with up to 5,000 troops, to these countries? Would that be a deterrent to any further expansionist ambitions in the Kremlin or increase tensions to a dangerous level? “Similar reinforcements occurred at several points during the Cold War, especially during the crisis over Berlin [1960-1962], and seemed to have a good effect,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a former Pentagon official and retired senior US army officer. The US and Nato deployed several brigades in the city which was inside communist East Germany and surrounded by Warsaw Pact forces. The Soviets could have captured Berlin but not without killing thousands of western troops, and that proved a sufficient deterrent. Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, said this week that the US was ready to reinforce Nato allies on the eastern flank, including Romania. After Russia’s annexing of Crimea in 2014, US paratroopers from 173rd Airborne Brigade were flown into Poland and the Baltics, and US Air Force F-16s mounted combat patrols over the region. Since then, while the US and Nato have retained a constant military presence in these countries to reassure them of the alliance’s commitment to their defence, overall the American troop and firepower footprint in Europe had been increasingly winding down. In 1989, there were 5,000 US army tanks in Germany. Seven years ago, there was not a single American tank left in Europe. However, the troop and tank withdrawals were reversed as a result of a reassessment of Russia’s belligerent approach towards the western alliance post-Crimea. From 2017 the US began sending a rotational heavy armoured brigade with M1A1 Abrams tanks to the European theatre. Nato also has a quick-reaction spearhead force of 5,000 troops with supporting special operations, maritime and air units which is supposed to be ready for action within 48 hours’ notice. So there are now more options for Nato military commanders to boost defences in eastern Europe. It will be something Putin will have to take into account as he ponders whether to send 175,000 troops into Ukraine. Cancian who served in the Gulf War in 1991 and in the Iraq war from 2003, is not convinced Putin will give the go ahead. “I find it hard to believe that Putin will invade Ukraine. It’s a big step. He already has the eastern tip of Ukraine and I doubt he would want to pay the economic and diplomatic price for seizing a bit more territory,” he said. However, he warned: “It has been his custom to do these mobilisation exercises. It’s a way of keeping the pot stirring and it’s good to get everyone accustomed to seeing Russia [rehearsing] an invasion and then pulling back until one day he will actually do it.” “This is on a grander scale than previous mobilisations but if I was to bet on it I would say this is just another scare and threat and he will then deescalate,” he said. “The Ukrainian army is also better now. They have been fighting for seven years and they have had training from the US and Nato, and they are getting good equipment, although compared to the Russians they would be outclassed,” he said. However, most of Ukraine’s military infrastructure is in the western part of the country. So even a rapid advance by Russian tank formations would not initially have a significant impact if Putin’s aim is to overwhelm the whole country. It would not be a swift victory. Certainly not a repeat of the unopposed annexing of Crimea in 2014.