Austin’s call for a weakened Russia hints at ‘long twilight struggle’
When Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin declared at the end of Monday’s visit to Ukraine that America’s goal is to see Russia so “weakened” that it would no longer have the power to invade a neighbouring state, he was acknowledging a transformation of the conflict, from a battle over Ukraine to one that pits Washington more directly against Moscow.
United States President Joe Biden entered the war insistent that he did not want to make this a contest between the US and Russia. Rather, he was helping a small, struggling democracy defend itself against takeover by a far more powerful neighbour. “Direct confrontation between Nato and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent,” he said in early March, just two weeks into the war.
He has committed to keeping US troops out of the fight, and has resisted imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine that would risk putting US and Russian forces into direct combat. Yet, as Russian war atrocities have become more evident and Ukraine’s need for heavy armour has increased, the lines have grown blurrier and the rhetoric sharper. At the same time, in word and deed, the US has been gradually pushing in the direction of undercutting the Russian military.
It has imposed sanctions explicitly designed to stop Russia from developing and manufacturing new weapons. It has worked — with mixed success — to cut off the oil and gas revenues that drive its war machine.
The immediate impetus for Austin’s carefully orchestrated declaration, several Administration officials said, was to set up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with what one senior State Department official called “the strongest possible hand” for what they expect will be some kind of ceasefire negotiations in coming months.
But over the longer term, Austin’s description of America’s strategic goal is bound to reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin’s oft-stated belief that the war is really about the West’s desire to choke off Russian power and destabilise his government. And by casting the American goal as a weakened Russian military, Austin and others in the Biden Administration are becoming more explicit about the future they see: years of continuous contest for power and influence with Moscow that in some ways resembles what President John F. Kennedy termed the “long twilight struggle” of the Cold War.
Austin’s comments, bolstered by statements by Secretary of State Antony Blinken about the various ways in which Putin has “already lost” the struggle over Ukraine, reflect a decision made by the Biden Administration and its closest allies, several officials said yesterday, to talk more openly and optimistically about the possibility of Ukrainian victory in the next few months as the battle moves to the Russian-speaking south and east, where Putin’s military should have an advantage.
At a moment when US intelligence officials are reporting that Putin thinks he is winning the war, the strategy is to drive home the narrative that Russia’s military adventure will be ruinous and that it is a conflict Putin cannot afford to sustain. But it is a strategy that carries some risks.
“There is a very narrow line to tread here,” James Arroyo, a former senior British national security official who now serves as director of the Ditchley Foundation, a thinktank that focuses on promoting democracy. “The risk is that ‘degrade Russian military power’ could easily shift into a degradation of Russia as a power generally — and that Putin will use that to stoke nationalism.”
There is a second risk: that if Putin
believes that his conventional military forces are being strangled, he could step up cyberattacks on Western infrastructure, chemical weapons or his arsenal of tactical, “battlefield” nuclear weapons. It is a possibility that was barely conceivable eight weeks ago, but is regularly discussed today.
The trip by Austin and Blinken was scripted to make the case that although the Russians have the advantage on paper, the odds actually favour the Ukrainians, largely because they have the motivation to preserve their homeland.
“The first step in winning is believing you can win,” said Philip Breedlove, who served as the supreme allied commander Europe, the top Nato military officer, until 2016. He added he was glad about Austin’s language, even if it risked provoking Russia, because “the Ukrainians have to believe that we intend to give them what they need, because that is what will be required for them to win”.
What they needed was heavy artillery, and as the Biden Administration and other Nato nations have rushed to get that weaponry into Ukrainian hands, the Russians have become increasingly vocal in their warnings that the shipments themselves are an act of aggression — and could be targeted.
The artillery, however, can be justified as largely defence weaponry — they cannot strike far into Russia itself. But Austin’s statement about keeping Russia from being able to invade anew, in Ukraine or elsewhere, articulated a strategy that has been hinted at, both in public statements and in the type of sanctions that the West has imposed on Russia in the past eight weeks.
Administration officials deeply involved in the sanctions strategy say it was designed to get worse over time.
As capital dries up for investment in new capability, as chip supplies dwindle and energy revenues decline, the squeeze will become more apparent. In time, it will bleed into consumer goods.
Biden’s aides say they understand that sanctions alone cannot do the trick — what is needed is a highly coordinated mix of sanctions, military pressure and diplomacy. That is a difficult task with smaller states.
With a country the size of Russia, armed with nuclear weapons, it becomes a far riskier proposition.