BEN MORGAN: Why Ukraine matters to Europe, and should matter to the US

The Ukraine War may have dropped off the mainstream media’s radar, but it is still a vitally important conflict.  The war could pose an existential threat to the NATO alliance, and therefore to the global order. A threat US policy makers do not seem to have appreciated.

Analysing the Russian threat requires new thinking because the world and security assumption have changed. The binary nature of the Cold War era is long gone, replaced initially by a period of cooperation and prosperity during which large nations embraced free trade and then by a period of violence and uncertainty post 9/11.  But the Global War on Terror (GWOT) did not threaten the post-Cold War order, large nations generally worked together to suppress new terrorist threats. 

However, we now are entering a new period of multi-polar politics. An economically ascendent China is keen to reset the current global order to reduce the dominance of the US in world politics. Prior to the Ukraine War, Russia was an equal partner with China.  Putin understood that a global order led by the US limited Russian power, and found a powerful ally in China.  Although quite different in many ways, Russia and China saw advantages in working together to advance their agendas.  

Before the Ukraine War, Russia was a credible ally. Many analysts and commentators rated it the second most powerful military in the world.  It was regarded as technologically advanced, experienced in war and able to project power globally.  A force quite different to the untested Chinese military.

Invading Ukraine proved these assumptions wrong.  Initially, Russia’s military looked powerful but did not overwhelm Ukraine. Instead, significant weaknesses started to show. Russia could not coordinate joint operations its air, naval and ground forces were unable to operate in an integrated manner.  Russian soldiers were poorly trained and led, with very poor logistics support. Corruption was rife, further weakening its capabilities. 

Ukraine did not give up, or fail, its military fought hard and Ukraine received enormous amounts of support from around the world, the US and NATO countries donating military and humanitarian aid.  Even countries on the other side of the world like Japan, Australia and New Zealand provided support.  Many smaller nations understand that their borders are guaranteed by collective security arrangements, and that if Russia triumphed it would set a dangerous precedent.

Now Ukraine and Russia are locked in a stalemate, both sides hanging on, neither willing to give up.  But neither appears to have the resources to inflict a catastrophic defeat on the other and win the war. 

Putin’s problem is his maximalist objectives and too little combat power

Russia’s single biggest obstacle to winning the war is self-created. Putin’s conditions for victory are currently impossible to achieve and can be summarised as follows:

• Regime change in Ukraine. Replacing President Zelenskyy’s government with a new, tame, pro-Russian administration.

 

• Ukraine disarmed. The demobilisation of the Ukraine’s existing military, and its replacement with a smaller more easily dominated force.

 

• No NATO membership for Ukraine. Aside from stopping NATO membership protecting Ukraine, Putin wants the nation to focus politically, economically and culturally on Russia rather than ‘facing’ Europe. 

Putin’s aim is probably to create a state like Belarus, independent in name only.  Achieving these objectives is currently impossible because Ukraine’s people do not want to be a Russian vassal, and many nations around the world are supporting them.  The motivation to fight, combined with international support, makes Ukraine too tough an opponent. Russia simply does not have the military power to catastrophically defeat Ukraine and force these conditions on the defeated nation. 

What is Putin’s plan?

I do not understand the Kremlin’s calculus so defer to two Russia expert when trying to assess the situation, Sir Bill Browder and Mark Galeotti.  The former is a financier, who worked extensively in Russian and is famous for his conflict with the Kremlin. Browder describes the gambling culture of senior Russian leaders, their comfort with risk and propensity to bluff.  

Galeotti is a historian with a particular interest in transnational crime, and regarded as an expert on Russia.  He describes Putin’s regime as an ‘ad hoc-cracy,’ a government that typically reacts to events in a poorly thought through manner rather trying to shape events by planning.  

The views of both provide human insight into Russian strategy.  It appears that Putin’s gamble to invade Ukraine has not paid off, and since then the Russian campaign is a series of ad hoc responses to the situation. We can extrapolate that Putin’s strategy is ad hoc and is simply to keep bluffing for as long as he can, throwing manpower at the problem and hoping for a failure within NATO that will limit support to Ukraine and change the campaign’s dynamics.  

The current White House’s policies regarding Ukraine and NATO incentivises this behaviour.  Uncertainty about the US’s role and commitment to Ukraine and NATO may encourage deeper division amongst members, a situation Putin appears keen to reinforce by leveraging his relationship with President Trump.  

A global perspective 

The situation in Europe has wider implications and China, Russia’s most important partner benefits from any tension within NATO.  In 2023, NATO’s Strategic Concept identified China as a threat and the need to deter potential aggression like an invasion of Taiwan.

Now NATO countries warships regularly exercise in the Pacific and conduct ‘freedom of navigation’ patrols in the Taiwan Strait.  Last year, NATO countries practised moving two dozen fighter aircraft and their support teams around the Pacific and on the ground, there are more exercises and activities with the alliance’s Indo-Pacific partners, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.  European defence companies are also working closely with defence industries in the Pacific region. 

Chinese strategists are sure to see the risk posed by a united NATO that is willing, and able to support US deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.  And that it is in China’s strategic interest to support any Russian attempt to weaken the alliance. 

Therefore, China covertly supports Russia buying oil and supplying essential electronic equipment because the Ukraine War puts pressure on NATO.  On 4 July, CNN reported that “Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s top diplomat that Beijing can’t accept Russia losing its war against Ukraine as this could allow the United States to turn its full attention to China, an official briefed on the talks said, contradicting Beijing’s public position of neutrality in the conflict.”  A statement that summarises China’s position, Ukraine is potentially a useful diversion of military resources away from the Indo-Pacific region.

The best way to ensure Russian victory is to reduce support for Ukraine, and senior Chinese diplomats are unlikely to speak without thinking. So, this statement is probably designed to reinforce the narrative that Russia will win in Ukraine.  China’s support propping Russia up and allowing it to keep fighting. A narrative that encourages NATO members that are less concerned by the threat of direct attack to see the potential for a long and costly Ukraine War, that they will need to help fund.  

The objective is probably to create a ‘wedge’ between NATO members and try and split the alliance.  Any split reduces its collective power and ability to deter aggression, whether in Europe or worldwide. 

Defining Russia’s threat 

However, the threat Russia poses is not a conventional threat, Putin is unlikely to achieve his maximalist goals in Ukraine, and he would be foolish to launch a large-scale invasion of any NATO country.  Instead, he is more likely to choose to influence the Ukraine War by creating an asymmetric threat, an expensive ongoing dilemma for European nations to manage.  

A situation that forces the nations bordering Russia to demand more from the alliance.  A demand that other countries far from Russia may not be willing to meet, creating political tension within the alliance that may cause a split. 

A worst-case could be some form of hybrid action. For example:

• Enforcing a territorial claim in the Baltic.
• Capturing a small area of disputed territory in the Baltic republics or near Kalingrad.
• Capturing territory in the Finnmark, Finland’s northern-most county. 

A small operation designed to force a decision about whether all European nations would commit to support a full-scale military response.  A test to see how strong the alliance’s bonds are, especially when many countries will struggle to meet new spending goals or to support Ukraine. For instance, would Polish politicians be willing to accept the risk of being attacked by Russian missiles and drones to support the defence of a small part of the frozen Finnmark?  Likewise, would Spain or Portugal wish to be committed a potentially large war to protect a small and isolated territory of an alliance partner? It is an interesting question.

If NATO’s response is united and firm, an operation like this would be unsuccessful.  But if there is hesitance or indecision, it could create the conditions for debate and possibly a split.  

Conclusion – Why Ukraine is important

In conclusion the Ukraine War is about deterrence, not just in Europe but around the world.  By supporting Ukraine, alliances like NATO and individual countries across the globe are demonstrating that unilateral aggression is not acceptable.  That collective security based on an international rules-based order can deter large countries taking the law into their own hands. If a breakdown can be forced, then this alliance and its deterrent value around the world is weakened.

A situation the US should actively be trying to avoid but that its actions appear to be encouraging. The recent stall in support for Ukraine sent a dangerous message, and President Trump’s angry words about Putin mean little if they are not backed by action.  Therefore, now more than ever it is important that Europe, the US and other countries maintain their support for Ukraine because a united approach to deterrence disincentivises military escalations in Europe, and around the world.   

 

Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack