Vladimir Putin’s warnings to NATO to retreat from Russia’s borders expose his fear of failure, both in Ukraine and domestically.
Contrary to what he says, Putin is not afraid of a NATO invasion of Russia. Nor does he fear Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory or against Russian speakers in Ukraine. His core fear is that an independent Ukraine and a NATO umbrella for regional security will expose the failure of the Russian state and precipitate the collapse of his corrupt authoritarian regime. And paradoxically, another attack on Ukraine will accelerate that process.
While threatening Ukraine with an expanding military invasion by amassing an unprecedented number of troops along its borders, the Kremlin raised the stakes by issuing a diatribe against Washington disguised as a document. Moscow has demanded that NATO disarm itself by pulling out troops from all front-line member states, refuse to provide membership to any other European country, including Ukraine, and acknowledge Russia’s sphere of dominance in all countries bordering Russia.
The Biden administration has signaled that it will discuss these demands in the coming weeks after consulting with allies. It now faces two stark choices — either to try and appease Moscow or to stand firm, reject Putin’s ultimatum, and issue its own demands. Any compromises on the core principles of the NATO alliance will simply encourage the Kremlin to demand a further retreat and claim a victory over the West.
Instead of giving any credibility to Putin’s threats, Washington should use the opportunity to demonstrate NATO’s solidarity, strength, and resolve by specifying Allied demands on Moscow. Putin must return occupied Crimea and the Donbas to Ukraine, remove Russia’s threatening military presence against neighboring borders, and terminate attempts to integrate Belarus in Russia’s security structures.
To strengthen the Western hand in preparation for any high-level talks with Moscow, Ukraine must be provided with all the firepower it needs to make any Russian invasion as painful as possible. Additionally, a list of onerous sanctions against Moscow in the event of another military assault against Ukraine can be made public, including Russia’s full isolation from financial markets and a comprehensive oil and gas embargo of Russia’s exports that will push the economy toward bankruptcy.
But why does Putin want “security guarantees” when neither NATO nor Ukraine are threatening Russian territory?
The answer is a growing need for an international success amid mounting fear of domestic crisis. Public acquiescence and regime survival has been increasingly based on an aggressive foreign policy and anti-Westernism to demonstrate Russia’s international influence. However, Putin faces the danger of miscalculating his own power, and the domestic crisis will be accelerated by a military defeat amid economic decline for which the Kremlin will be widely blamed. A prolonged military quagmire in Ukraine with mounting losses for Russia’s armed forces may not be sustainable.
Regimes that lose wars or cannot win them when they have staked so much on victory invariably collapse in Russia. A major setback in war with significant casualties would propel power struggles and popular revolts against a discredited leadership and highlight the accumulated failures of the Russian Federation. The Tsarist empire collapsed during a war with imperial Germany, and the Soviet empire disintegrated in the wake of a failed war in Afghanistan. Putin’s power and credibility and Russia’s survival in its current territorial form would be the casualty of a broader war with Ukraine and a growing confrontation with the U.S. and NATO.
Janusz Bugajski is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington DC. His recent book, Eurasian Disunion: Russia’s Vulnerable Flanks, is co-authored with Margarita Assenova. His upcoming book is entitled Failed State: Planning for Russia’s Rupture.
