Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine War, Putin wanted on a warrant, drone clash over the Black Sea, and GOP frontrunners embarrass the US and delight Putin.
(*note: AUKUS announcements will be discussed separately in Thursday’s cables)
Ukraine war updates.
Ukraine’s counteroffensive & outlook.
As Ukraine is preparing for the Spring counter-offensive, Bakhmut (against all odds) still holds.
In the meantime, it appears that Russia’s shortages in artillery shells are even more severe than first expected.
According to a WSJ report, Russia is firing some 10k shells a day - this is down from last summer’s 20k.
Ukraine in turn is firing 3k shells - down from 5k.
Not only has Russia’s fire rate decreased by 2x in absolute terms (meaning less damage inflicted on Ukraine), but the disparity in relative fires has also reduced from 4x to slightly above 3x.
Double bad news for Putin war crimes.
The week ended with two bad news for Putin:
1) Firstly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for his arrest.
Accusing Putin of committing war crimes, the ICC primarily focused on the issue of forced deportation of kids.
Essentially, Russian invaders took children out of orphanages and sent them back to Russia.
Perhaps this is Putin’s ingenious way of dealing with Russia’s looming demographic crisis.
World leaders largely stayed either mute or in support of this warrant (and as expected, President Biden was in support of the ICC warrant, labeling Putin as a war criminal).
Naturally, Putin is not going before the court anytime soon.
But the political and strategic implications are significant.
This is a great narrative for the West: labeling Putin as a wanted war criminal and an abductor of kids, makes it easier to justify opposition to him and his campaign in Ukraine.
It also makes it that much harder for the “Global South” to remain indifferent, or for China to openly back Russia.
And when it comes to domestic stakeholders, Russia’s elite can now be confident in the judgment that there is simply no future - no return to normal - with Putin at the top..
(side note: Putin has total control as of today, and so this is not too relevant today. But things may change based on the war’s trajectory. And if/when that happens, there is now a powerful additional incentive to get rid of Putin).
Finally, the pressure on Kyiv to ‘‘negotiate’’ with (in reality, meaning concede and submit to) Russia will further lessen: who now wants to be the leader calling on Zelensky to negotiate with a war criminal that had essentially kidnapped thousands of Ukrainian children?
2) Turkey to approve Finland’s NATO bid.
Turkish President Erdogan said on Friday that the Turkish parliament will begin the process of ratification of Finland’s accession to NATO.
This means that Hungary will also quickly follow (they would not want to stand out as a sore blocker of their fellow EU partner’s bid).
It is unclear whether Sweden’s ratification will follow anytime soon: Erdogan will likely use Finland’s approval as evidence of his goodwill, and by isolating the Swedish application, make it appear as a more legitimate and justified reservation.
In other words: look, I am happy to work with you all when it is appropriate, but the Swedish case is a bit different - I have legitimate grievances yet to be addressed.
That Erdogan will make use of this new political capital to secure further last-minute concessions from Sweden is also a likely outcome.
(side note: we have previously discussed this very issue of Swedish application, and whether it is prudent for Finland/Sweden’s joint bid to be severed, and if it is strategically sound for Finland to join earlier and prior to Sweden. You can read that analysis here).
Allied Support for Ukraine.
Israel wakes up to new realities.
That playing soft with Moscow would not pay dividends and will not stop Russia from selling Su-35s (and potentially S-400 air defense SAMs down the line) to Iran.
Simply put, Russia needs Iran more than it needs Israel: that it took so long for this reality to sink in, is of course disappointing.
But now that Israel has realized this new reality, there is not too much to stop them from arming Ukraine.
The first evidence of this is an Israeli decision to approve export licenses that could very soon see anti-drone jamming systems head Ukraine’s way.
This is big: the very first time since the war began that Israel approved defensive exports to aid Kyiv’s resistance.
The fact that Israel is starting with anti-drone jamming systems vs something more substantial (like the Iron Dome) is indicative of a desire to keep some bullets in the chamber to secure at least some concessions from Russia (perhaps a delay in the delivery of Su-35s or a promise not to supply the S-400s).
But sooner or later, Israel will realize that it is in its national interests to contain the Russia - Iran axis in Ukraine with full force and determination (corresponding to further major arms supplies) needed to send appropriate signals to Moscow and Tehran.
MIG-29s.
In the most welcome and unprecedented news, both Poland and Slovakia agreed to send their MIG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine.
Between two countries, around 12-16 MIG-29s will be sent in the upcoming weeks.
In March 2022, Poland embarrassed itself with the fighter jet debacle - showing unwillingness to act independently, and seeking excessive assurance from the US.
That was not a good episode for NATO (and Washington was largely to blame here) - but fast forward 12 months, and the two frontline NATO states are demonstrating increased assertiveness and resolve.
A new precedent is now set that NATO will supply Ukraine with fighter jet.
Another imaginary ‘‘red line’’ of Putin’s is once again crossed.
This will also add a signaling pressure on the US: if NATO is ok with sending over fighter jets to Ukraine, then why not ensure that they get the very best options: why not arm them with the F-16s?
There is no good answer for this, and the longer the US delays this decision, the worse it will look for Washington: as an ultimate guarantor of NATO, America cannot be seen to be hesitant when other NATO member states closest to Russia show such admirable resolve.
Good news on defense procurement.
The Pentagon has now established a Joint Production Accelerator Cell to optimize production capacity resiliency and surge ability.
Beyond the Ukraine war, the success of this project will have further implications on a possible future conflict with China.
In the meantime, the EU is finalizing a $2bn deal to jointly restock Ukraine’s ammo supplies (while refilling countries’ stocks).
Half of the funds will go towards reimbursing the countries that can donate ammo out of their own stockpiles immediately - the other half will go towards a joint purchase of $1bn in new ammo.
Although this news is most welcome, the scale is still inadequate.
For context, the EU spent 15x more on energy subsidies in 2022 than its total monetary aid to Ukraine.
The GDP of the EU, UK and the US altogether is approximately 28x larger than that of Russia’s.
Yet in spite of this advantage the EU and US have together spent only 0.3% of their combined GDP on the war effort in Ukraine.
And as analyzed by Daniel Gros of the Institute for European Policy-Making, since Russia’s manufacturing costs (in absolute $ terms) are much less than those of the US and EU, by spending only 4-6% of Russia’s GDP on the war, the Kremlin would exceed the West’s present current levels of investment on Ukraine.
So what happened? Didn’t America’s Defense Minister declare that Ukraine was ‘‘our war’’ just this past week?
If so, where are the ATACMS, F-16s, and a commitment to at least double the current GDP spend of 0.25%?
And if the EU can spend $860bn in energy subsidies, it can surely spend a mere quarter of that to help Ukraine: now that would be a game-changer, and a clear signal to Putin that he could not possibly hope to match the economic might of the West intent on securing Ukraine’s victory.
Unfortunately, the statesmanship and vision of this level is still lacking..
Russia and America clash over the Black Sea: more politics than a warning.
The past week was extremely eventful: from the new AUKUS announcements to the savior of major Western banks, the competition for media attention was unusually intense.
One particular incident however, stood out clearly: the clash of the Russian Su-27 fighter jet with America’s MQ-9 “Reaper” drone.
The collision took place in international airspace over the Black Sea.
Prior to the collision, two Su-27s dumped jet fuel on the drone (Pentagon released video), and flew in front of it in a “reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner” (according to a statement from US European Command).
Reaper’s propeller was thereafter damaged after a direct collision with a Su-27.
According to the US command, the drone became uncontrollable and had to be brought down.
Russians dispute this account - claiming that the drone could not recover after engaging in “sharp maneuvering”.
In other words, one could say that the sight of the almighty Su-27 stressed out this drone inducing it to commit suicide…
There was always little doubt that the story proposed by Russia was going to strain all credulity.
But why would Russia do this to begin with?
What was it that the Russian military was seeking to accomplish?
Well, the media hype is full of scare stories - with two stories/explanations dominating the narrative:
1) Some “analysts” and pundits claim that Russians are showing their teeth and trying to provoke a confrontation with the US, and;
2) Others claim (more credibly) that Russia was engaging in ‘‘coercive signaling” vis-à-vis the US.
Both explanations are, however, unsatisfactory.
The former assumes that Russia desires an actual confrontation with the US (something that they are in no position to handle - even if in a fit of delusion they truly wanted this to happen), and the latter interpretation is based on a premise that the Kremlin truly believes that this act could really deter the US.
It is more likely then, that Russia’s actions are more politics than strategy.
There are primarily two signals that the Kremlin may be sending via this provocation:
1) Signaling to the domestic stakeholders: yes we are under an existential threat, but look, we are not deterred - far from it, we are happy to confront and take down American drones.
(side note: the location of the incident - over the Black Sea, and mere 50 nautical miles south-west of Crimea, - is also a reminder to Russians that Americans are wandering far away from the home turf, and are in Russia’s backyard - further bolstering the argument of ‘‘NATO expansion that must be contained”)
2) Signaling to American voters - especially to the Tucker Carlson fan/isolationist/Trump/DeSantis base: look what your military is up to. Why are they lurking in our backyard? Your woke “DC Swamp” establishment is out for blood.
(side note: there is also an added post-fact upside for Russians of recovering this MQ-9 and studying/reverse engineering together with Iranian. Indeed, the intent to capture and study the fallen reaper was openly admitted by Russia’s Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev)
The possible intent is that Tucker Carlson and co picks this up and keeps asking his “rhetorical questions” such as: “why is our taxpayer’s money being wasted on sending drones to violate Russia’s backyard? Are we actively seeking a war with Russia now?”
Naturally, it is of course right that (as the US leaders reminded everyone) the Black Sea does not belong to any particular nation - and in fact, the Reaper had made this very trip hundreds of times over many years..
(side note: the purpose of these flights ranges from basic intel gathering & forward presence posturing, to some deliberate probing and activation of the Russian air-defense radars -this then lets NATO countries to locate batteries and identify their different radio-frequency emissions)
This simple truth might be lost on Russia (and Tucker Carlson fanboys) but, 1) The US drone was flying over an international airspace, and 2) when it comes down to it, NATO member states have considerably longer Black Sea coastlines than Russia.
So even by the standard of a more primitive argumentation, and even if the Black Sea was a backyard belonging to someone (which it is not), then Russia would still lose this dumb argument.
The US meanwhile, is right to present a forward presence at the border of its NATO allies.
And such flights must continue, whilst the Kremlin must receive private warnings (and it is likely that this has happened already) that future similar conduct would come with disproportionate costs to the Russian military..
GOP hopefuls respond to their puppet master and undermine America’s global credibility and prestige.
It is almost quaint to remember the days when the GOP establishment could drive narratives and influence the media - not the other way around.
There is a lot of legitimate reasons to question crystallized “establishments” in all public institutions - let alone those in major political parties.
But one cannot deny their otherwise useful social purpose: they kept the Overton window quite tight, and penalized fringe candidates spewing rubbish only to appeal to their particular base.
With the rise of social media, and the possibility to fundraise directly from a niche political base (nurtured with constant diet of hyperbolic infotainment, fake news, and pure hatred), fringe candidates like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene can hold the reasonable policymakers hostage - forcing them to back (even if passively) their exceptionally dumb policy proposals and toxic rhetoric.
But these clowns will never have a direct claim to power.
What is far more damaging to America’s political system, is when likely Presidential nominees (with a chance to actually win the Presidency) align with the very same sentiments.
And this is exactly what happened when GOP Presidential candidates responded to their puppet master Tucker Carlson’s questionnaire - when two frontrunners responded with answers that damaged America’s global standing and emboldened Putin - confirming his belief that waiting it out and prolonging the war at all costs is the correct strategy for Russia.
To the question “Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest?” Trump’s response was quite clear: “No, but it is for Europe”.
But this is after all Trump, and things could have been far worse (Trump also has a history of expressing warm sentiments towards Putin - and afterwards, following this with a sanctions regime harsher than that imposed by the Obama admin. Same when it comes to the provision of weapons to Ukraine. For all the political games, the Trump admin unlike - the Obama admin - did supply Ukraine with advanced defensive weapons like the Javelins).
But it was the response from Ron DeSantis that was far more damaging.
The Florida Governor deliberately muddled issues by mentioning China, and how confronting it was far more important than “becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia.”
Including China in any response in relation to the Ukraine war is now a standard operating procedure for all isolationists trying to justify indifference towards Russia’s invasion - doing so (at least in their mind) protects them from the accusations of being weak.
As in: “look, we are not afraid of confrontation, it is the matter of who we confront”.
Naturally, confronting Russia and China (or for that matter, Iran and North Korea) is not mutually exclusive.
In fact one could argue (wisely too) that ensuring Russia’s defeat (crushing Beijing’s main military ally, and affirming the principle that invaders would not succeed) is in fact, the best way to temper China’s expansionist and militaristic ambitions.
But back to DeSantis.. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of his comment was a deliberate description of the Ukraine war as a ‘‘territorial dispute”.
A territorial dispute?!
How can any serious statesman describe the biggest and longest ongoing war in Europe since WWII resulting in approximately 500k military casualties from both sides, brutal massacres and war crimes, and millions displaced from their homes (with their cities and core infrastructure reduced to Rubble) as a mere territorial dispute?
How fortunate are we all that the West did not have such short-sighted opportunistic political leaders back in times of World War II?
What if the UK was led by a leader that described France’s invasion and occupation as a ‘‘territorial dispute” on continental Europe?
If the UK and US of the 1940s had statesmen like DeSantis in charge, the world might have looked like a different place today.
And this is quite serious: combined, Trump and DeSantis account for more than 75% of Republican voters and Republican-leaning independents.
Their indifference towards Ukraine is not only poisoning the rhetorical well amongst the Republican/GOP leaning electorate, but this rhetoric will also affect the overall media landscape - and by generating the possibility that those in the middle/swing voters could also be persuaded against the support for Ukraine, together, Trump and DeSantis will add signaling pressure on President Biden to also equivocate and soften his rhetoric (if not his actions).
All of this will embolden Putin.
And no, it doesn’t even matter if those defending DeSantis by claiming that he is playing to his and Trump’s base, are correct.
Even if this is pure political play, and even if DeSantis is planning to act differently when in power, all of that is two years away.
In the meantime, this rhetoric works to confirm Putin’s belief that he is correct in his judgment that his staying power is higher than that of the West - and that he is therefore better off waiting it out.
And precisely due to this reinforced belief, Putin would not have any incentives to negotiate in earnest.
Why would he? If he can win by 2024/25, why make any territorial and/or political concessions now?
And so, even those talking about Ukraine-Russia “negotiations” are shooting themselves in the foot: there can be no genuine negotiations as long as Putin believes he can outlast the West and win outright.
Putin will now have more incentives to remain belligerent for much longer.
And this only means even more risk to America and its interests.
In addition, statements made by Trump/DeSantis will encourage hedging behavior amongst the US allies in the Middle East and East Asia.
If American leaders can so quickly change their minds on defending a major country in Europe (recall how DeSantis was in favor of arming Ukraine back in 2014 when he was in Congress - what happened since then? Only an actual Russian invasion that justifies doubling down on supply of weapons to Ukraine..) where is the guarantee that a similar change of heart will not happen in relation to defending Taiwan from China, or defending allies in the Middle East from Iran?
So then, no matter how you look at it, and even if DeSantis was knowingly chatting rubbish (appealing to his base), the result is going to be the same: damage to America’s core national security interests.
(side note: and besides, even if this is just silly retail politics, just stop it already…DeSantis needs to recognize and remember that he is no longer dealing with Disney or a bunch of woke weirdos. Chatting rubbish on an international arena is far more dangerous and damaging to the US: putting America’s national security interests, and safety, and prosperity of its citizens at risk by further emboldening an imperialist psycho)
What about others?
The good news is that the rest of the GOP field was wise in their judgments on Ukraine - defending the policy of US support.
The bad news is that the rest of the field - Sen Tim Scott, Chris Christie, Mike Pence and Nicky Haley - are extremely unlikely to lead the US as the next President (although Haley could become a VP pick).
Pence was previously admirably stern in declaring that there was ‘‘no room for Putin apologists in the Republican Party”.
(side note: in his latest response, he did however proceed to repeat one of the common bad arguments in favor of supporting Ukraine - that supposedly, if not stopped, Putin would proceed with invasion of NATO member states to the West of Ukraine. This is a highly unlikely scenario - and arguing this damages the credibility of Ukraine supporters everywhere. We have previously discussed this issue, and how to credibly frame the support for Ukraine here).
That the two most likely next Presidents from the GOP make such terribly unsophisticated analyses of the geostrategic landscape is of course highly discouraging (and a gift to Putin).
This is where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell must step in and declare that no matter who becomes the next President of the US, the core of the GOP’s Senate delegation would always back full support for Ukraine, and if needed, would confront the President of their own party to make this point.
Along with a decisive military and financial support, for the Ukraine war to end sooner than later, it is imperative that Putin is disabused of the notion that time is on his side.