The curious thing behind the ramping up of a possible war between Russia and Ukraine is how the important actors have all limited their options, either overtly or implicitly or by secret agreement, so as to create a kind of Marquis of Queensbury set of rules about how the contest will proceed. The United States has taken off the table sending American troops to Ukraine, which means that they will have to fight it out alone against the very formidable Russian military. Biden suggests that the Russians will take serious casualties, but could probably occupy the entire country, and so will rely on economic pressures to make the Russians relent or arrive at some settlement, perhaps with an increased area under Russian control, or economic pressure so significant that Russia has to accept a humiliating surrender, which would not make Russia look well to China, which Biden believes is the real reason for Russian swagger so that it does not become a very minor antagonist to China. NATO has also stipulated its own self control. It will send munitions to Ukraine but will beef up the military only in the nations already affiliated to NATO to insure that the conflict doesn’t spill over into the Eastern Front NATO members. Even more important are the unstated constraints on Russia and the United States. There is no discussion at all about nuclear weapons even given the fact that Russia and the United States have the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. It seems that nuclear weaponry between the two is passe, and reading the arrangements that ended the Cold War, it seems that the general in charge of the Soviet Rocket Forces is selected or approved of by the United States and so I presume that the guy to be in charge of NORAD is vetted by Moscow. Also, I presume that there are secret agreements between Russia and the United States as to limits on cyberspace. Neither will pull down the electrical grid of the other even if the two will be mischievous and try to get into secret codes of the other so as to spy on one another.
It is very unusual in warfare for nations to show their cards and say what they will or will not do. The usual gambit is to say that everything is on the table, which means that the opposition can face disasters that they can hardly imagine. Truman in his Potsdam Declaration informed Japan that horrible things would happen if Japan did not surrender but Truman never mentioned atomic weapons even though the A Bomb had already been tested. The United States as do other countries do prepare rules of engagement so as to organize their own military, as happened when the United States defined “free fire zones'' which meant that any civilian was regarded as a belligerent if he was found to be running, and many Vietnamese civilians were killed as a result, but that was done by and for the Americans rather than the Vietnamese and resulted in more rather than more limited loss of life. The United States did not flood the Red River valley during the Vietnam War but that was not announced in advance and decided not to do so because it would offend world opinion rather than as a matter of principle. Prudence dictated that the United Nations should not approach the Yalu River in the winter of 1950 during the Korean War, but General MacArthur did that anyway, and to bad results. But here we are trying to limit a war between Russia and Ukraine in advance.
These guarantees for a Ukraine-Russia war will result, it is hoped, in a confined war not an all out conflict, and one conducted largely through conventional warfare. The two parties and the American allies of Ukraine would see how conventional warfare develops. and let it see how that develops. What happens in such a war is uncertain. There has not been a war between well equipped armies since China entered the Korean War and what happened there became a stalemate. Since then, the United States was defeated by a guerilla war and by a highly motivated nationalist insurgency against a highly sophisticated modern military and the United States defeated militarily the Persian Gulf War and then the early part of the Iraq War by using much more advanced and trained military against Arab nations, only to fall short because of the ever shifting political tides of those opposed to the United States. Korea was seventy years ago and we will see what advances in conventional military armament can do. It would be like seeing what you could learn about bombing from the air in the Spanish Civil War. It seems altogether too risky, whether by Putin or Biden, to risk very much on being surprised at what can happen. Conventional warfare is too much like having a joust between representatives of conflicting princes about the outcome.
Moreover, it would be easy enough to miscalculate or become hetedd and therefore injudicious about what would happen if a party was losing or, in the American case, that Ukraine was losing too quickly. The rules might be upended or qualified. Cyberspace might stretch what was verboten. Nuclear arms might be mobilized just to threaten the other side and so end the conflict rather than start a war. Sanctions might seem overly onerous as a way to settle or resolve the conflict. That is always the trouble with war. It might turn out to be a bigger morsal than your side can chew and that leaves you to swallow a bitter pill or escalate instead. That is why it is wise not to threaten war as a solution to problems. Wars get out of hand however much a side wants to contain them. Better for Putin to accept that diplomacy, through American intervention with Wendy Sherman acting as handmaiden and with the full approval of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had managed to get Ukraine from East to West influence. War is not the solution unless there are vital national interests and Putin may think that indeed there are those.
At best, a war, even if brief, would be an end to the peace in Europe since the end of the second World War, leaving aside the Balkan Wars that resulted from the disintegration of Yugoslavia after the Soviet Union ended. A heavy loss of life and treasure on ukraine; a need to reorder the Eastern frontier between Europe and Russia;. I don’t know what it would mean in American domestic politics because voters generally support wartime presidents but Republicans might treat Biden as weak for whatever reason he did not get a maximum outcome even though, so far, Biden has been remarkably belligerent about a marginal geopolitical issue. Well, it would shift the public focus about the economy and Covid, even though the fortunes on those two matters are looking up for the midterms in that Covid will be contained and the economy is doing so well. But who knows anymore what motivates voters and Biden is playing Ukraine straight, as an aggression against it, whatever my own misgivings about the move East.
Latest rumors suggest a way to avert war. Zelensky could say unilaterally that there is no plan for Ukraine to enter NATO, and that prohibition is Putin’s main demand. Biden could accept that as Ukraine determines its own future, Biden no need to guarantee the right of Ukraine to join NATO if it says it doesn’t want to. That would leave Biden and Putin both off the hook and Biden gain domestically for having talked tough and gettick back to what he cares about, which is to restructure the domestic economy and various entitlement programs to make them poverty and recession proof. A more suitable aim than jousting about nothing much which is what Hitler got him in trouble, looking for military solutions rather than dominating Europe economically and culturally. Putin be warned.