In an important intervention in the debate overwhat the West’s response to the Russian invasionof Ukraine ought to be, a recent report publishedby serving US military officers Colonel John B. Gilliamand Major Ryan C. Van Wie makes the point ratheremphatically that the ongoing Russian military struggles should not be misconstrued to mean Moscow’smilitary machine does not have the wherewithal tocredibly threaten member-states of the North AtlanticTreaty Organisation (Nato).
The argument of these US military insiders, whichit is fair to assume is an accurate reflection of Washington’s position on the issue, is that a narrow focuson Russia’s tactical and operational struggles whileomitting to factor in flawed Russian strategic decision-making which underpinned the invasion is a“dangerous approach”. The thinking is that it is correct to expect Russia’s significant losses in theUkraine will degrade its ability to conduct large-scaleoffensive operations against Nato in the short term,but it is too soon to write off the medium to long-term threat posed by Russia to Western Europe. Theauthors of the report assert that Nato leaders wouldbe unwise to think that just because an immediateRussian military threat has receded, further investment in Nato military forces and its expansion is notneeded.
It has been secretive Russian political decision-making and faulty strategic assumptions whichhindered effective operational planning and forceemployment in the Ukraine, according to them,rather than the fighting ability of Russian soldiers orthe technology of its weapons systems.The fact that this argument has found resonancein Washington is evident from the encouragementbeing given to Sweden and Finland to join Nato; thebudget for the trans-Atlantic military alliance too hasreportedly been enhanced. Experts also warn againstassuming the “enabling strategy” employed by Natoin Ukraine would work elsewhere and resting itsfuture plans on the belief that the solidarity among itsmember-states would continue indefinitely. Thehawks in the US military establishment recommendthat Nato doubles down on the alliance’s conventional deterrence posture to keep Moscow in check.But, as critics point out, it is precisely this sort ofapproach which has contributed to the current face-off between the West and Russia as it disregarded theKremlin’s genuine security concerns and providedPresident Vladimir Putin a justification for the launchof his so-called “special military operation” againstUkraine. As the Russian military reviews its performance on the battlefield, it is expected to makechanges to address its failings.
If Nato continues in its expansionist mode; makesthe war in Ukraine a rallying point for the West toband together more firmly under the aegis of Nato,and enhances the alliance’s military capabilitiesrapidly, there is no saying how President Putin mayreact. It’s a dangerous game and focusing on brokering a peace and/or ceasefire in Ukraine may be thebest option for America and its European allies ratherthan pushing Moscow into taking ever more maximalist positions.
