What is occurring in and around Ukraine at any given moment depends on where you sit. Russia claims one thing, while the United States and NATO claim something else.
Russian President Vladimir Putin talks about resolving his grievances diplomatically, only to then warn the West about neglecting Russia’s security concerns. Senior U.S. national security officials claim a Russian invasion is, if not imminent, then highly possible in the next week. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the man responsible for Ukraine’s defense, advises his people to go about their normal daily lives. Moscow releases video footage of Russian tanks crossing the bridge out of Crimea, only for the U.S. and NATO to dispute Russia’s de-escalation.
Fortunately, there are some baseline facts that have remained consistent.
First, nobody knows what is really going on inside Putin’s head. Despite all the commentary about what Putin may or may not be thinking, all of us are essentially engaging in speculation. Putin, however, is a notoriously difficult man to read. He can change course at the last minute. He keeps a small circle of advisers and often hesitates to reveal too much, even to his own ministers. Trying to decipher Putin’s motives on a daily basis is an exercise in futility, particularly for those on the outside who don’t have access to all of the intelligence reporting.
Second, we know with near certainty what the results would be if diplomacy failed and a war erupted: Ukraine would very likely lose.
Conflict would be utterly disastrous for the Ukrainian people. Depending on the scope of a Russian military operation, tens of thousands of civilians could die. Millions of people could become refugees, packing what they could and heading west, deeper into Europe. Regardless of how many plane loads of anti-tank munitions and anti-air missiles the West delivers to Ukraine, Kyiv is simply outmatched in everything from manpower and fighter aircraft to tanks and artillery.
True, Ukraine could make a Russian invasion costly, but its forces are highly unlikely to be able to change the end result. So, if the U.S. and its allies truly care about Ukraine’s well-being, they would make the common-sense compromises necessary (no Ukraine in NATO, no NATO in Ukraine) to prevent this disaster from happening.
Third, Ukraine simply matters more to Russia than it does to the United States or NATO. This has less to do with Putin’s desperate campaign to rebuild the fallen Soviet empire than it does with geography. Over the last thirty years, successive Russian governments have seen NATO, an anti-Russia defensive alliance, creep ever closer to its own borders. NATO has inducted a constellation of former Warsaw Pact countries in the process. Putin’s fixation on NATO enlargement isn’t something conjured up out of thin air; it has been a Russian concern from the moment the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. Boris Yeltsin wasn’t exactly enamored with the idea either.
The difference is, today, Moscow is in a position to prevent further NATO enlargement from occurring. This wasn’t the case in the 1990s, when Russia’s economy was in free-fall, criminality was proliferating, and the Russian military was getting its clock cleaned by insurgents in Chechnya. As demonstrated in 2014, the year of Crimea’s annexation, Russia is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure Ukraine doesn’t join the Western security order.
One hopes U.S. policymakers keep all three facts in mind as they spend hours deciphering the latest satellite imagery.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
