For some reason, everyone seems to be missing the obvious reason why the US (and NATO more broadly) aren't attacking Russia directly: because we never have. Nor has Russia ever directly attacked us. This has been hard military doctrine in the nuclear era.
Instead, both countries have fought lots and lots of proxy wars, the most famous being Vietnam and Afghanistan. Ukraine is just the latest, and we're no more likely to attack Russia directly this time than we've ever been. Vladimir Putin helpfully reminded us of this a few days ago when he put his nuclear forces on alert.
Thomas Friedman once suggested that no two countries with McDonald's outlets would ever go to war. That's basically what Norman Angell said in 1909, and for a few years everyone thought he was a genius. But he was wrong then and Friedman's updated version is wrong now. The real lesson of modern war had to wait a few decades, and it's the same today as it was in 1950: No countries that are both nuclear powers will ever go to war.¹
Until they do, of course. This is a lesson of modern war, not a law of nature.
¹Aside from the occasional border skirmish, anyway.
Yeah, but it seems to me the interesting question is exactly the opposite. Why did the western media fixate on how powerful and masterly Putin is and how quickly he would overrun Ukraine?
I think the answer is the media, especially at the overpaid top, worships dictators, for various psychological reasons.
You see this with Trump as well. Once Trump was elected, the media ran to every diner in the country to try to "understand" his supporters, rather than interviewing the people who then methodically took the House, the Senate, and the Presidency away from him.
People are sick of oligarchs and dictators but the media hasn't noticed because they love dictators, for the ratings I guess.
Probably similar to how there is constant remarking on Biden's low approval numbers, despite Biden enjoying significantly higher net approval ratings (frequently by double digits) than did Trump. Trump is judged by how Trumpy he is; Putin is judged by how much of a sneering thug he is; neither, sadly, are judged by how awful they are for their countries and others.
Yeah, agree.
Kind of interesting to compare it to China and what it did with Hong Kong. Why was China successful? 1) They pretty much already controlled the territory; their moves amounted to imposing domestic policies on an already-acquired (in 97) territory. 2) China was smart about moving step by step. They didn't invade HK. They methodically put the leaders of the opposition in jail, layer by layer and not all at once. Meanwhile the heads of the foreign investment banks in HK, who are pals with lots of political leaders in HK and China, didn't have their lives disrupted in the least, so they went along with HKers in their 20s getting tossed in jail.
Note, the only strategy China could try in Taiwan is the Ukraine strategy (because they don't already control the territory - to say the least - in Taiwan) which is one reason they'll never do it, in my opinion.
If you have been to China, or know many Chinese, you would not be so sure. I have been shocked by how many intelligent, decent Chinese citizens have told me that Taiwan is theirs and they will take it back. I assume it will happen in the next 3-5 years.
I've spent years in China.
As the saying goes, the enemy also has a vote.
I highly recommend spending some time in Taiwan if you get the chance. Talk to people about how they feel about an occupation by the mainland. Plus it's a really nice place.
I would love to. Have had only one friend from Taiwan and she was great. I hope that I am totally wrong.
The nearly unanimous voice on China-Taiwan relationships from Chinese friends made me realize the power of propaganda.
There might be something to this but the US intelligence community delivered very accurate assessments of Russian capabilities. At least on paper, Russia was well positioned to simply overrun Ukraine in a matter of hours, days at most. There was some discussion of the issue that Kevin very presciently raised about the untested nature of the supposedly new and improved Russian military.
Also, there were interesting reports about members of the Russian general staff raising the remote possibility of another Winter War for Russia. The reports were few in number and extremely vague but for anyone in Russia to even mention the Winter War implies that someone saw things somewhat like Kevin did.
And all credit to the Biden administration for lining up a massive, highly coordinated multifaceted response of sanctions and resupply. But it’s also true that Putin outlandish self portrait of a Bond villain was way over the top and combined with a really amazing defense and PR effort by the Ukrainians has set the stage for a possible (but still low probability) reprise of the Winter War.
Mitch-
You got "part" of that right.
I am quite confused by the FAILURE of Russian intelligence in their assessment of Ukraine's capabilities to resist against the Russian army.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that Russia can over run Ukraine but like any world leader Putin wanted to do it with as few troops as possible and at a lowered cost.
I can't help but think he was told it would take 75K troops a few show tanks and air power and we'd be "home" in two weeks. And the world wouldn't think twice about it.
I would hate to be in the KGB right about now.
"I would hate to be in the KGB right about now"
Well, given that the KGB dissolved in 1991, at the very least you'd be out of a job. 🙂
I think that the failure of Russian intelligence is completely in line with everything we know about Russia--it's a gangster state headed by a murderous autocrat. Why on earth would such a system have an accurate read on reality? The whole country is based on graft, skim, and telling the bossman what he wants to hear. And said bossman-ur-bossman is an elderly isolated thug obsessed with the collapse of the creaky rusted hulk of a Soviet state and who dreams of a Russian empire despite his country's GDP being a paltry Brazil-level sub $1.5 trillion.
Russia took more or less a decade to pacify Chechnya (after Uncle Vladi false-flagged his way into that one), and Ukraine has a population 30 times greater. It's very unclear why a clear-eyed Russia would think this was a good idea.
This is an interesting analysis along the lines you are putting forward:
https://johnganz.substack.com/
Great link- thanks Mitch
And no matter which intel agency they used it failed them. Truth be told there are times when military intelligence is far superior than the typical spook agencies like the CIA.
For Russia to misplay this THIS badly is quite embarrassing and shows the failed "nature" of the "limited war with fewer civilian casualties" thought process
They will SUCCEED - of that there is no doubt in my mind.
The long term costs may make this whole thing not worth it.
I think it was also an act of colossal hubris to stage everything and have such a slow buildup to the invasion. It gave the Ukrainians and the west a lot of unnecessary time to prepare their defenses. Particularly since the new Russian army hadn’t ever been tested. That, combined with unfounded assumptions about how the Ukrainians would fold like a cheap suit and Putin’s bizarre behavior has created the still very, very remote of another Winter War.
Clearly, the major failure of intelligence was Russia’s but it’s also difficult to predict that the entire world would turn on Russia and begin to impose sanctions. I do think that it was right that Putin was expecting a lighting war that would be over even before it began. He would ride out the customary angry speeches and performative but meaningless sanctions. It was a miscalculation but not one that I think anyone saw coming.
At the same time, we’re entering a new phase. Very much what we saw in Chechnya. And the two questions are: How will the west respond when Putin inevitably strikes back at us? And will we keep ratcheting up the sanctions to damage Russia’s economy and push the oligarchs to act against Putin?
Thanks for that link. I didn’t know of John Ganz, but I read a couple of his articles, and am very impressed - thoughtful analyses, clear argument, well written.
He's a very good thinker and writer. If it's an area of interest for you, he has great series on the Dreyfus affair and the situation with the 3rd Republic in France. Highly recommended.
If Artie Sulzberger or Jeff Bezos had their druthers, they would be an American Berlusconi.
This is the same level of analysis as saying "Putin is doing it because he is crazy".
If Russia was believed (by many people who should know, not just pundits) as easily capable to taking over Ukraine, and yet has not done so, perhaps they are engaged in a different game from what these military experts expected? Perhaps they are in fact playing 4D chess?
Everyone is saying that Russia is losing the propaganda war. As the Burmese saying goes, "Don't teach the crocodile where the water is".
Sure, the West is getting the early propaganda wins and memes, winning the Twitter war, but that was always going to be the case given who controls the internet and TV outside Russia. No point in even trying to fight that battle.
So look beyond the *immediate* wins. Russia is both being very gentle and (as far as I can tell) essentially honest in its claims. Meaning that at some point, after the immediate war calms down, they're in a very good position to tot up
- who behaved what way in this war? (Ukraine, or US in Iraq vs us.)
- who told the truth in this war vs obvious lies and immediately exposed propaganda?
And that's going to be a non-trivial point in the favor in terms of the long (generation or so) game, especially in terms of winning the favor of the incompetent but entitled middle class youth of the West, the ones always looking for a reason to hate the system they live under...
Russia is both being very gentle and (as far as I can tell) essentially honest in its claims.
Tell that to the folks in Kharkiv. Also, what honest claims have the Russians made? That Ukraine is a nazi state? Or that they were committing genocide against the population in the two breakaway provinces?
Incompetent with a poorly thought out battle-plan and unbelievably crappy logistics, yes. Gentle, definitely not and moving in the direction of how the Russians subdued Chechnya. Not a lot of people can make the Nazis look like humanitarians by contrast but Russia certainly gave them a run for their money in Chechnya.
This is precisely why, if I were responsible for the defence of Iran, I would be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The US has been threatening Iran for quite a few years, and Iran has no chance of defending itself against American attack without nukes.
It's clear that it was unwise of Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons it was left with when the USSR disintegrated. If it had kept, and maintained, those weapons it would not be under Russian attack now.
G. W. Bush made Saddam Hussein the poster child for why a nation should develop nuclear weapons.
Sadly true. Even more sad that powerful people are not yet ready to acknowledge it.
G. W. Bush made Saddam Hussein the poster child for why a nation should develop nuclear weapons.
Indeed Ukraine is pretty clearly an example of why states shouldn't give them up.
Conversely, Argentina, Brazil, & South Africa, though not necessarily for the right reasons ZAF's outgoing Afrikaaner minority government feared nuclear-armed Blacks), relinquishing their arms should be a model for removing offensive nuclear power from the globe.
While your theory, to date, is valid I am uncertain if this rule will weather.
- India and Pakistan are clearly unhappy neighbors, both with nuclear weapons. - - South Korea, clearly have the technical ability to produce 'the bomb: further, North Korea is a semi irrational state.
- Iran SEEMS to be on a path for a bomb. Isreal has nuclear weapons.
etc
I think at this point the Nonproliferation Treaty’s a dead letter. Certainly all of Russia’s neighbors will want nukes. And I agree the Iranians would be insane not to finally build them.
Mitch Guthman - agreed 100%
Leaving one wondering if Putin will let that keep him from attacking supply lines at the borders between Ukraine and NATO neighbors…. And what NATO would do if he did…
Maybe we find some little green men of our own, too. Some little green airplanes, too. But certainly keep ratcheting up the sanctions on the oligarchs to encourage them to make a move.
Also possibly a thought for the day for Putin’s praetorian guards: Vlad is probably the world’s richest man. If Putin and his children are no more, that’s an immense amount of many that’s up for grabs. In a single well planned day, enough to make everyone rich beyond their wildest dreams.
It's not 2000 years ago. Assassinating Puttin isn't going to give you access to his foreign bank accounts.
It’s exactly 2000 years ago in Russia. I think you’re overlooking how Putin got his wealth in the first place. If Vlad got no heirs, everything goes to whoever has the power. Gifts, wills, and trusts operates a lot differently in the mafia.
“There can be something a little distasteful about Western onlookers (myself included) cheering on Ukrainians for a cause that our countries are not willing to join, a stance that risks raising the price of a peace that will be paid only with Ukrainian blood,” Tom McTague writes from London. “Nevertheless, it is possible to recognize this, to be inspired by what Zelensky represents, and then to be shamed by his example.”
There’s also something distasteful about posers waxing lyrical about a war that he knows his domestic political opponents are too intelligent and responsible to start. It’s a free shot for him to talk about the nobility of the war he truly hopes they will never start even as he poses himself a serious man who advocates serious things like war.
But I wonder if he’s aware that there’s now some kind of Ukrainian foreign legion being formed. It’s a perfect opportunity for him to br brave for himself instead of for other people.
In Spades! Disclosure: I have family in the military.
Like +10.
Two nuclear powers fighting each other is absolutely possible without resorting to nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons for small shit, however, is verboten and stupid. India and Pakistan did it in 1999.
That's not why US/NATO is staying out of Ukraine.
They're staying out of Ukraine because Putin's ego is fatter than yo mama's ass, is so big, and he's a sadist. He'll kill everyone if given the chance, but especially in defense of his ego. He burned people alive in Syria, targeted aid workers and hospitals, and even admitted to testing new weapons. Backed into a corner, he'd order a tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine's city centers and blame the US for forcing his hand to win at all costs.
Richard Engel asked today on Twitter if America could sit and watch as a massive Russian column rolled into Kiev. Seemed like a dumb question. Is that why you wrote about a direct war with Russia?
India and China have engaged in a number of skirmishes along their ill-defined border for decades, up to the present day. Though the level of hostilities never rose anywhere near what one would call a war, such things have escalated elsewhere in the past ….
I have been wondering if Belarus' forces get directly involved, what will NATO/US do? Will they stick with the crippling sanction regime or will they directly intervene and destroy Belarus' military once it hits Ukrainian soil?
They do not have a mutual defense agreement (like NATO), though they have a joint defense agreement.
or will they directly intervene and destroy Belarus' military once it hits Ukrainian soil?
No, NATO will not. For the reason cited by Kevin. Directly attacking Russia's ally would carry a massive risk of escalating into a NATO-Russia (nuclear) war.
If Putin remains in power it’s a matter of time until he declares Belarus to be a subject of the Russian Federation. Lukashenko has probably demonstrated sufficient loyalty to be allowed to remain as the head of the ‘republic’.
Never mind nukes, the two nuclear-armed powers have both agreed not to use guns.
That's not why US/NATO is staying out of Ukraine.
Yes, the reason US/NATO won't directly intervene military against Russia in Ukraine is as exactly as Kevin lays out: the tail risk of a nuclear exchange.
It's hard to imagine why NATO wouldn't send in forces in the parallel universe where nuclear weapons haven't been invented. A Russian conquest of Ukraine is obviously highly contrary to the national interests of Western states, and it is abundantly clear their militaries would rout Putin's forces.
"A Russian conquest of Ukraine is obviously highly contrary to the national interests of Western states" No it isn't. That's why we've been telling the Ukrainians for 20 years you're never becoming part of NATO because we're never sending troops to defend you.
No. The reason NATO hasn't expanded to include Ukraine is fear of provoking conflict with Russia. Poland and the Baltics were free of Soviet domination as recently as 1939 (at the time of their joining). Ukraine began falling into Russia's imperial territory in the 16th century, and has thus long been viewed from Moscow's perspective as, well, Russian soil. Pretty clearly many Russians still view Ukraine that way. NATO expansion to include Ukraine was (and is) rightly viewed in Western capitals as a move likely to be seen in Moscow as highly provocative.
If you want to quibble with my use of "highly" above, fair play: It is the case that Western countries (including the US) did perfectly fine for ages while Ukraine was Russian territory. All I meant by that is, in 2022, Western states would obviously rather not see the Putin regime waging wars of aggression and conquest on their doorstop.
It is a strong national interest of the US that European borders not be altered by force, since violations of that principle led to two horrifically destructive World Wars, costing us more than a third of a million dead.
Russia apparently
sees this differently, having lost 29 million dead in those same wars.
If the US were concerned about tail risk of nuclear war, they wouldn't have intervened and participated in proxy wars with Russia.
This is not entirely true.
It has been long confirmed that Russians flew of many of the combat air missions in Korea during the Korean War. This fact was just never advertised. Presumably, the US could engage in a similar covert mission over Ukraine now if we wanted to.
The US had no proof (most of the combat took place over North Korea) and the Soviet Union didn't publicly complain when we killed their pilots; they weren't willing to admit their pilots were flying and even less will to admit we were shooting them down.
One does wonder about the possibility of night missions by stealth aircraft over Ukraine, particularly by stealth unmanned aircraft.
This is not entirely true.
Yes, it is entirely true that the US has never directly attacked Russia and vice versa. Which is what Kevin wrote. Participation by US/Soviet combat personnel in proxy wars doesn't constitute a "direct" attack. Rather, it constitutes indirect military conflict. I'd be very surprised if a situation similar to the Vietnam situation you cite didn't also occur in Afghanistan in the 1980s (probably not fighter pilots, but the odd CIA officer sporting a shoulder-launcher?). Again, proxy war.
"Yes, it is entirely true that the US has never directly attacked Russia " Complete crap. The allies sent in 100k troops from 1918 to 1920 with an additional 50k allied ex Austro-Hungarian POWs
Complete crap. The allies sent in 100k troops from 1918 to 1920
Did you actually read Kevin's post? He was clearly referring to the post-war period after the USSR's acquisition of nuclear weapons...
Pedantry isn't a good look for you.
Well I am glad that memyselfandi brought up the US war against the Bolsheviks, boots on the ground in Mother Russia...it may not mean much to us, but this does loom large in the Russian consciousness I think....
(BTW, a few of us Veteran's did discuss tonight buying tickets to Budapest, which was my last driving entry point into Ukraine...but someone noted that tickets now were $3,500.00 + {I do not know if this is true, but it is what I was told}.
I could still make a good sniper I think...I emphasis it is not easy to kill another human being...I am certain I will have some serious answering to do to God when I pass....even in war, you are killing a fellow human being for which you must answer. Unforgivable).
Maybe it is good I am so busy with so many duties...(grin), the coward's way out.
Best Wishes, Traveller
From Business Insider:
“The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.”
...the obvious reason why the US (and NATO more broadly) aren't attacking Russia directly: because we never have. Nor has Russia ever directly attacked us. This has been hard military doctrine in the nuclear era. Instead, both countries have fought lots and lots of proxy wars...
Kevin is certainly right about all of this. The main reason the world hasn't experienced a nuclear exchange is, as he suggests: nuclear powers strongly prefer to use proxies whenever possible. It's all very sensible.
I do wonder, though, why the prudent warnings we're hearing with respect to direct military involvement by the US or NATO in Ukraine don't apply nearly as often with respect to Taiwan. Is it just that everybody is in on the game of "strategic ambiguity" (ie, keep Beijing guessing)? I can understand why US defense officials may want to project ambiguity, but it seems like a very great number of non-government pundits and opiners are likewise seemingly "open" to the desirability of America's going to war with the PRC to defend Taiwan. Such a war might very quickly result in a nuclear holocaust.
PS—Is it just me, or do other non-youngsters out there get the distinct impression that Millennials and GenZers—cohorts that didn't grow up amongst frequent visions and reminders of armageddon—don't quite viscerally grasp the danger the way older folks sometimes do?
PPS—I bow to no one in my desire to see radical change to deal with the climate crisis ($13 gasoline, bring it on!), but I've long harbored the feeling that this danger, as grave as it is, doesn't equal the more immediate, existential risk of a nuclear war, and that, relatedly, the world hasn't prioritized non-proliferation (and eventual elimination) of these existentially dangerous devices nearly enough*. Maybe putting this issue back on the front burner will be one positive outcome flowing from the Russia-Ukraine war.
*Given a sufficient amount of time, logic suggests the probability of the use of nuclear weapons somewhere on earth approaches 100%.
" Is it just that everybody is in on the game of "strategic ambiguity" (ie, keep Beijing guessing)?" This is entirely about US domestic politics and nothing to do with China since it has, until recently, been very clear that China had neither the capability or desire to attack Taiwan.
The US will never give up its nuclear weapons so non proliferation was always a game designed to end in failure.
You are confusing nonproliferation with nuclear disarmament. Both the US and Russia have in the past reduced the sizes of their nuclear arsenals; but progress on that front has been stalled by intermittently poor leadership in both countries.
:For some reason, everyone seems to be missing the obvious reason why the US (and NATO more broadly) aren't attacking Russia directly: because we never have. " Except the the americans, french, british, italians and japanese with the greeks, and romanians did in 1918-1920.
The nuclear era—a term *expressly* used in the very post you're (pedantically) complaining about—started some three decades after the episode you're (inanely) citing.
Remind me to leave you off my debate team.
Well, s/he won’t be able to travel outside Russia now anyway.
A very fair and truthful comment. But history is long and filled with little counterpoints. Seventeen days after Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the Soviet Union did so as well. The USSR and Germany had a non-aggression pact that included dividing Poland between them.
The USSR happily supplied Germany with raw materials as it attacked France, Belgium, Norway, and the UK. The last trains full of war supplies passed into Germany from Russia after Nazi armies rushed into the USSR.
Without the non-aggression pact, would Hitler have attacked Poland? Who can say? But it seems to me, that the USSR was fully guilty in starting WWII. They ended up suffering terribly and doing most of the fighting that ended it. But Stalin was fully complicit in starting it.
Think about Putin's comments and accusations about Ukraine this context. The Soviet Union is the chief collaborator of Nazis.
Just pointing out that Stalin was trying to make an anti-German deal with Britain and France until the very eve of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, but they wouldn't go for it- rightly so, as the Soviets insisted on occupying Poland so any fighting would not take place on Russian soil. Stalin foolishly believed the Nazis would not be strong enough to launch a war on the Soviet Union for two years, and he was frantically using the time he thought he had gained to prepare for what he regarded as the inevitable war- by, among other things, moving war production east to the Urals.
Every time I found a free epub reader I liked I've immediately discovered it was made in Russia. This has happened ca. four times.
Only Russians will make a decent epub reader for free, which seems immediately suspicious.
Is Google Playstore going to help out humanity and remove the huge percent of their apps that are Russian?
It was nice of Mr. Drum to call it “hot war” in his post.
Bruno Le Maire, France’s economy minister, said Europe was going to wage “total economic and financial war against Russia” with “formidable” sanctions. “We are going to cause the Russian economy to collapse,” Mr. Le Maire told Franceinfo radio on Tuesday morning.
Maybe it's time for me to re-read the old Fred Pohl book, "The Cool War." Armed combat replaced with ... international ratf*cking.
Instead, both countries have fought lots and lots of proxy wars, the most famous being Vietnam and Afghanistan
And *each* time they say "oh, this time will be different...we'll be greeted as liberators. It definitely won't bog down with an entrenched resistance movement fighting a rearguard guerilla war... etc., etc."
Well, I guess we're not the ONLY ones who believed we'd be seen as liberators
Lets rephrase this lesson just a little bit: The US will never involve itself in a direct military conflict with Russia (or China, India, Pakistan, North Korea)*--so long as Joe Biden or someone else sane is President**. If Russia will act the same way when it is "losing" somewhere depends on their leadership. Last time they were in such a situation the leader was Gorbachew***--someone sane.
If next time is under Putin all bets are off--he resembles Trump more than I like to see.
* I am not mentioning the UK and France. I can't see how that would happen. Iran though will have to be added potentially.
** Here is to the hope that Trump will be the last loony in the job!
*** I am too lazy to look up the correct Anglosaxon spelling of Russian names.
We in the US got rid of our madman President, hopefully for good, after one four-year term. Putin is way past his ‘pull by’ date. Please, nations of the world, stop electing dangerously unstable people to high office.
The UK may have elected a fool (BoJo), but at least he seems harmless, well, harmless to non-British, anyway.