U.S. analysts Michael Kofman and Rob Lee argue in a lengthy posting on War on the Rocks that Ukraine’s patient tactics to some extent have been misunderstood and that its strategy of “advance[ing] incrementally with small units played to its strengths”, The Guardian reports. Unless there is a sudden political change in Moscow (or Kyiv), the war is likely to continue as it has done, meaning that what Ukraine particularly needs from the west is what they describe as “the necessary enablers – above all, artillery ammunition”.
Despite the disappointing performance of our sanctions so far, the Russian economy remains an important vulnerability for the Kremlin, Walter Russell Mead writes for The Wall Street Journal. As analyst Edward Luttwak points out, we can accelerate the degradation of Russia’s economy by focusing on critical components that Russia badly needs but can’t easily make or source. The Russian gas industry, for instance, depends on a range of cold-weather equipment that is made in the West.
Russia’s strategy to globalize the war has multiple dimensions, according to analysts Michael Kimmage and Hanna Notte:
- In its economic relations, Moscow has capitalized on the opportunism of countries indifferent to the conflict: the Kremlin aims to integrate Russia into non-Western networks of trade, defense, and commerce.
- Ideologically, Russia blames the war on Western deceit and Ukrainian betrayal, leveling accusations of hypocrisy against the United States and its allies.
- Diplomatically, Russia and the West are carrying the conflict into international institutions. Whether in the UN Security Council or at the International Atomic Energy Agency, whatever modus vivendi there had once been between Russia and the West has come apart.
Credit: NDI
By nurturing apathy and frustration with the war in non-Western capitals, Moscow hopes that other countries will join its ranks or at the very least distance themselves from the West, they write in How Russia Globalized the War in Ukraine, an article for Foreign Affairs:
Putin’s goal is not to create vulnerability in a specific area. Rather, he aims to foster global dependence on Russia’s policy decisions. These elements of global influence matter more to Putin than his good reputation in Africa or the Middle East, where Moscow’s withdrawal from the Black Sea Grain Initiative dismayed many countries.
It is better to emphasize Russia’s violation of international law than to cast the conflict in terms of democracy versus autocracy, a leading expert contends.
There is one area where the US and Europe should be doing more, and that is sustained outreach to the Global South, notes Angela Stent, author of Putin’s World and a senior non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution. Often these countries’ neutrality or tacit support for Russia is a product of long-standing ideological antipathy to the United States. Moreover, some countries understand that, as a result of this war, with shifting coalitions emerging, they may have more say in the global order going forward, she writes in China, Russia and the War Against Ukraine, an article for Internationale Politik Quarterly:
While not countering that view, the West should make a better case for why a war far away in Europe does affect their future. If Russia can get away with invading and annexing a neighbor’s territory, what does that mean for their future sovereignty and territorial integrity? It is better to emphasize Russia’s violation of international law than to cast the conflict in terms of democracy versus autocracy.
The University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland hosts a forum on “Democratic Backsliding and the Rise of Global Authoritarian Actors.”
Speaker: Joseph Siegle, research director at the National Defense University’s Africa Center for Strategic Studies. 12 noon. September 7, 2023. Venue: University of Maryland, 7805 Regents Drive, Thurgood Marshall Hall, Room 0102, College Park, Md. RSVP
