Last February, Putin Crossed the Rubicon

A year since Russia invaded Ukraine, neither Putin’s goal for the war nor the reasons why America should care have changed. America supports Ukraine because it is in America’s interest to maintain a system we benefit from in terms of physical and economic security via a liberal-democratic rules-based order. Sovereignty and national self-determination will be meaningless if Putin or any other leader with imperial ambitions can arbitrarily attack a state they claim threatens their security while pretending to be the aggrieved party with all the guile of an arsonist posing as a firefighter. We cannot accept a new order imposed by authoritarian powers hostile to America’s world position and ethos of democracy. 

Despite efforts to portray it as otherwise, Putin’s invasion was not brought about by NATO expansion, but by an imperial desire to recreate Moscow’s post-World War Two sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. His blasé reaction to possible NATO membership by Finland and Sweden is proof of this theory. To achieve his goal, Putin is attempting to terrorize Ukraine into acquiescing to its own national self-destruction as a warning to other neighboring states who resist Moscow just as Chechnya was destroyed two decades earlier as a warning to other rebellious provinces in the Russian Federation. Motives hazy 365 days ago are now crystal clear when seen through the lenses of Bucha, Mariupol, and hundreds of places in between.

To this, the critics will ask: What interest of America’s does Putin threaten?

Preservation of the post-World War Two rules-based security order, to start, with the first rule being that borders cannot be changed by force or threats of force. As some have noted, success in Ukraine could encourage Russia to change other borders by force in the Baltics, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Caspian Sea region with only the Baltics protected by NATO Article V guarantees.

Another American interest is maintaining an international order that respects treaties and state sovereignty. These are essential elements on which international security and prosperity are based and which benefit America through stability and trade. Putin’s actions have violated every agreement signed by the Russian Federation regarding Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to choose its own associations and alliances. While the assault on Ukrainian sovereignty has been via conventional arms, Russia also conducts political warfare to subvert other nations’ sovereignty as it tried several years ago against Montenegro and is attempting now against Moldova.

But haven’t Russia’s heavy losses in Ukraine made this a moot point? 

To a degree, yes, but not entirely. Last year, I warned that if Russia conquered part or all of Ukraine and incorporated it into its Federation – along with a supine Belarus – this could increase its manpower, industrial capacity, and natural resources to a level that would again make it a security threat on par with the former Soviet Union. Therefore, as the 21^st century unfolded, the United States would face not one imperial superpower in China and regional power in Russia but two superpowers willing to overturn the current world order in Europe and the Pacific. That specific threat has faded thanks to Ukrainian courage and Western military and economic aid. Critics should remember that Western aid has not been a one-way street and has already resulted in mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, there are two other threats from Russia’s war in Ukraine: the threat of persistence and the threat of precedence. Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine has seized substantial Ukrainian territory, economic assets, and population. If Russian forces are not ejected, their continued presence will prevent economic recovery and condemn Ukrainian citizens in conquered areas to national genocide. The war can never end under conditions of stalemate. With stalemate, Russia will slowly rebuild its forces and Putin is already preparing to put Russia on a long term wartime footing. If this happens, Russia could still threaten the non-NATO countries mentioned above with conventional forces due to its inherent size in comparison to its neighbors. For example, Russia’s paramilitary National Guard alone has approximately 340,000 men while Belarus has an army of only 25,000 soldiers, Kazakhstan 25,000 soldiers, Georgia 30,000 soldiers, and the Caspian Sea countries of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan 55,000 and 25,000 soldiers, respectively. None of these countries have both the population and territorial depth advantages that Ukraine has had in its fight with Russia. Therefore, even a wounded Russian bear is still a dangerous one for its neighbors.

Even more dangerous to American interests worldwide is the threat of the precedence that will be set if Russia gains any benefit from its second invasion of Ukraine. The primary consequence of this threat is related to deterring possible Chinese aggression against Taiwan. If the Chinese Communist Party sees Putin profit from his war such as obtaining a land bridge to Crimea, it may influence considerations of a future invasion of Taiwan. Another dangerous precedence would be if Russian threats cause others to self-deter from providing necessary assistance because of fears of a possible nuclear exchange. That precedence applies obviously to the China-Taiwan scenario but could also apply to other nuclear or nuclear-aspiring powers. A clear example of nuclear threats supporting territorial expansion would undermine already tenuous nuclear non-proliferation norms and agreements. 

Last February, Putin crossed a Rubicon of his own making. His actions over the past year have made clear his larger intent to force Western recognition of Russia’s right to control a post-Soviet sphere of now independent Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact states.  Putin’s speech to the Russian nation on February 21, 2023 clearly reinforced that intent with its focus on the West as the main enemy Russia is fighting in Ukraine.  And so, only a major defeat can make Russian elites and society reconsider their nation’s orientation as Germany and Japan had to after World War Two. Without such change in Russia, the world is sure to face more of the same. 

Ukraine today is not a perfect democracy. But neither was Poland in 1939 when Britain and France decided that their principles and security interests made it necessary to draw the line against Nazi aggression along its borders. Now is the time and place to draw another line. The West should ensure that Russia never benefits from this aggression, that the status quo ante is restored, and that Moscow eventually acknowledges Ukrainian sovereignty. The United States, which in 1994 took the lead in convincing Ukraine to give up her nuclear weapons in exchange for assurances of security and territorial integrity, must lead this effort or else expect Putin’s actions to be repeated by him and others elsewhere to the further detriment of our own interests.

Philip Wasielewski is a retired 31-year veteran paramilitary operations officer of the Central Intelligence Agency.