The speech of US President Joe Biden is another piece in the context of managing the Ukrainian crisis between Russia and the West. A central argument in the sermon analysis is that the fact that the two real rivals are fighting with different weapons is something new in the modern history of relations between the great powers. This means that as a method it has not been sufficiently tested and raises reasonable fears that it may push for escalation instead of de-escalation.
Joe Biden announced the imposition of sanctions on the “Russian elite” and two Russian banks, one of which is associated with the Russian armed forces. He blamed Vladimir Putin directly for the situation. However, in the encouraging part of the sermon, he stressed that the door to diplomacy remains open, but the sincerity of the Russians’ desire to get involved will be judged by the actions and not the declarations.
The US President drew the line by saying that the US would defend “every bit” of NATO territory, approved the deployment of US forces in the Baltic states, apparently in the role of “detonator”, while pledging that Washington would continue to equip the “defense weapons” Ukraine.
The economic sanctions, although apparently affecting the Russian economy by cutting off access to international markets for lending through bonds, can not bring it to its knees. Biden made it clear that this is a first step and that sanctions will be escalated. These sanctions are more severe than the ban on investment, financing and, more generally, transactions with the “People’s Republics” of Lugansk and Donetsk.
The ruble and the Russian financial markets found themselves in free fall. However, it is rather obvious that the US also recognizes that economic sanctions are not enough to prevent the escalation of Russian military action if the Kremlin decides so. This should not have sounded too reassuring to the ears of the rulers in Kiev.
Biden’s assessment is that the Russian method sets the stage for the occupation of more Ukrainian territories than what the two “Republics” occupy. He expressed the hope that he would make a mistake. Equally strong, of course, is the counter-argument that the Russian leadership’s real goal is to convince Washington of its determination to move Washington to conciliation.
The real concern, as mentioned at the beginning, is to see in practice how each side “fights” with different weapons. One follows the traditional path of “tough” military power, while the other with the modern economic arsenal. The fact remains that Western troops do not exist on the ground to play the classic game of deterrence. Given the certainty of the ability of both sides to inflict severe blows on each other, to restore some balance through diplomacy.
The problem with this view is that if the Russian economy feels pressure because of sanctions, the obvious option is vertical escalation. The aim will be to expose the West’s reluctance to risk casualties in a war. This could lead to a decision to geographically expand the threats of Russian invasion and turn Ukraine into an enclosed state by cutting it off from the Black Sea.
In a more extreme scenario, if Russia also turned against the Baltic states (which is rather unlikely), it would leave no choice to NATO. It would force it and militarize the crisis. There, the Russian leadership could hope to get involved in diplomacy.
That is why it is reasonable to fear that – always in an extreme scenario – escalation will be seen in Moscow as a tool to achieve political goals. On the other hand, such an escalation would bring the West to “no further” with whatever that means. In such an environment, crisis management in terms of conflict prevention will be jeopardized. This is self-evident as uncertainties increase. The real problem is the miscalculation of the opponent’s intentions and margins that he considers he has, in combination with the desire of both their actions not to give the other side and the international audience the image of weakness.
One wrong move that violates a red line is enough to lead to disaster. Because there is no need for theoretical training to find that such situations between powerful forces with nuclear arsenals are escalating, so they are by definition highly destabilizing.
