OPINION -- I am a pessimist when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine situation. Talks at the White House this week between President Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders did nothing to improve my outlook. From my perspective, the meetings felt naive and short-sighted. While I am hopeful for peace, I have spoken to a lot of Ukrainians - and foreigners fighting in Ukraine - who have no intention to stop fighting. And our leaders, eager for a quick resolution, aren't recognizing the challenges on the horizon.
Russia must achieve something that Putin can sell to the populace as “total victory”, or risk angering the Russian people. As the Russian author, Eduard Topol, pointed out on August 11, there is precedent in Russia for a violent overthrow in the aftermath of wars: the return of Russian troops from Europe after the victory over France led to the anti-tsarist uprising in 1825; Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War led to the 1905 Revolution; the desertion of a million Russian soldiers from the Russo-German front during World War I forced Emperor Nicholas II to abdicate and resulted in the February Revolution of 1917; the peace signed by Lenin with Germany allowed the Bolsheviks to execute the entire royal family; the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in February 1989 marked the beginning of the USSR’s collapse.
While regime change is probably Putin's central concern, even if a ceasefire occurs on favorable terms (for Russia) what will Russia do with more than a million Russian soldiers, many of whom are former prisoners, returning from the Ukrainian front with post-traumatic trauma and other behavioral issues? The effect will be devastating for Russian society, which has little or no mechanisms for dealing with a crisis on this scale.
The same is true for Ukraine. If a ceasefire happens, there are no guarantees that former Ukrainian soldiers, disenfranchised with the terms of a ceasefire and unwilling to give up “a single inch” of Ukraine to Russia, will not fire their massive stockpiles of one-way attack drones into Russia in a “flight of the valkyries” style assault. The effect would be yielding the “high-ground” to Putin by painting Russia as the victim of unwarranted aggression and violation of the ceasefire.
Couple that with the fact that Ukraine will have to reduce or dismantle their military completely without significant infusions of international capital. If Russia has the high ground and they are being attacked, their invasion of Ukraine will appear justified.
Without a standing army and with Putin portrayed as a victim in the eyes of the international community, our administration will be unlikely to send military aid.
The best case scenario, in my opinion, is pressing for something that looks like a Russian defeat. There is a chance that Putin will be replaced by someone worse. But if so, China will be decisively engaged in crisis management, stymieing their (likely advanced) plans for an invasion of Taiwan. We will also have set a new precedent for what happens when a major power invades their neighbors.
This is a case study for the benefits of early and powerful intervention.
If we had gone all-in when Russia invaded we wouldn't be staring at an existential crisis, and the world would not be contending with the dangers of emboldened (and well-trained) cartels armed with autonomous killer robots threatening global infrastructure.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals.
Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
