Crime and Punishment
Russia is losing badly in Ukraine. Could that push Vladimir Putin to do something even more catastrophic?
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.
It’s been an insanely busy week at Truth and Consequences HQ, so I will do a short, solo Zoom chat today. Join me at 12:30, and we can talk Ukraine, Russia, and whatever else is on your mind. The link is here!
War Is Hell
This is a truly astonishing statistic in yesterday’s New York Times.
In 36 days of fighting on Iwo Jima during World War II, nearly 7,000 Marines were killed. Now, 20 days after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia invaded Ukraine, his military has already lost more soldiers, according to American intelligence estimates.
The conservative side of the estimate, at more than 7,000 Russian troop deaths, is greater than the number of American troops killed over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Keep in mind that 7,000 fatalities is a conservative estimate (the Ukrainians put the Russian death toll at close to double).
The thing I find most shocking about this estimate — which would be higher than the number of Americans killed in 20 years of fighting both in Iraq and Afghanistan — is how is it possible? The Russians are not fighting large set-piece battles against equivalent numbers of Ukrainian troops.
Instead, it appears that the Ukrainians are mainly resorting to hit-and-run-style attacks intended to disrupt supply lines and slow down Russian tank convoys. Such attacks can do significant damage … but 7,000 fatalities? If you assume 20-25,000 wounded (wounded is generally 3X to killed), we’re talking about more than 30,000 casualties — that’s about 1/6 of the original Russian fighting force. It’s hard to get one’s head around it. And, as one analyst pointed out to me, “with more Ukrainian lethality, it could be much, much worse for Russia.”
I’ll be honest I’m a bit skeptical of these numbers, but if they are correct, it’s an unmitigated disaster for Russia. It suggests that Russian soldiers are poorly trained, their officers are not adequately protecting them, and battlefield medical personnel are not up to the challenge of caring for the wounded.
Indeed, this anecdote from the Times report is shocking:
Two American military officials said that many Russian generals are talking on unsecured phones and radios. In at least one instance, they said, the Ukrainians intercepted a general’s call, geolocated it, and attacked his location, killing him and his staff.
In all, Russia has also lost four major generals. Now, it’s true that the Russian military has a culture of placing generals closer to the front lines, but four is a significant number.
Not only do these casualties blunt the effectiveness of the Russian offensive (which, from all accounts, has stalled), but I find it hard to see how this huge number of deaths does not create a domestic political backlash. At some point, the nearly 200,000 troops in Ukraine will come home. Their tales of incompetence on the battlefield, combined with the extreme loss of life, will potentially spark discontent on the home front. This will be particularly true if Russian leaders can’t point to a significant victory from the war.
According to various press reports, Russia and Ukraine might be close to a diplomatic agreement in which Ukraine would adopt a position of neutrality, reject NATO membership, and cede Crimea and the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine to Russia. In return, Moscow would withdraw all its troops. On the surface, this might seem like a win for Russia. But the invasion of Ukraine was predicated on decapitating Ukraine’s political leadership (and described to the Russian people as such). Under this agreement, Putin would be stuck with Zelensky and will have lost Ukraine to the West forever. It’s tough to see how that amounts to a win.
But let’s say that Putin decides this is the best deal he will get. Such an agreement might lead to lifting international sanctions (though it’s no longer a foregone conclusion). But even if the global pressure on Russia is lightened, the European shift away from reliance on Russian petroleum exports will almost certainly continue. Western companies will not be chomping at the bit to invest in Russia. BP and Shell, both of which pulled out of multi-billion dollar deals with Russian oil companies, will not suddenly reconstitute them. Maybe an agreement with Ukraine prevents a total economic collapse, but make no mistake; there will be economic pain for Russia.
That is likely to create a political backlash since Putin’s rise to power coincided with Russia’s emergence from the financial crisis of the late 1990s. Many Russians have tolerated Putin’s increasingly authoritarian rule because he offered stability and economic prosperity after those dark days. What if that’s no longer the case?
Of more concern: what if Putin concludes that he needs a “win” in Ukraine to maintain his hold on power.
Is the Unthinkable … Thinkable?
Here’s where things truly get scary. At the outset, I need to point out that I am not a foreign policy alarmist. I co-wrote an entire book on how threat inflation and exaggerated fears have a corrosive impact on US foreign policy decision-making.
But, I am getting concerned about the potential for nuclear weapons to be used. I don’t think it’s likely to happen, but with nukes, even a 1 percent possibility is enough to sow concern … because there’s no coming back from nukes.
In particular, I was struck by the conclusions from a new report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released this week:
“As this war and its consequences slowly weaken Russian conventional strength. Russia likely will increasingly rely on its nuclear deterrent to signal the West and project strength to its internal and external audiences.”
Putin placed Russia’s nuclear arsenal on a state of higher alert several weeks ago. However, the move was largely interpreted as a bluff, and the Biden administration responded by making no change in America’s nuclear readiness.
But Putin’s gambit happened before things began to fall apart in Ukraine.
And as the DIA report suggests, “‘Moscow’s doctrinal views on the use of tactical, non-strategic nuclear weapons to compel an adversary’” into pursuing negotiations ‘that may result in termination of the conflict on terms favorable to Russia or deter the entry of other participants when Russian offensive progress of its conventional forces looks like it might be reversed or the conflict becomes protracted.’”
In other words, under increasing pressure, Russia could use the threat of a tactical nuclear attack to try and force Ukraine’s hand in negotiations. For example, “either Zelensky relinquishes power, or we liquidate Lviv.”
If Putin doesn’t want to go that perilous route, he could also consider the use of chemical weapons. As we’ve seen over the past few days, Russia has no qualms with targeting and murdering innocent civilians. The use of chemical weapons would put NATO in a very difficult position of how to respond to such a clear violation of international norms.
There is, however, another potentially troubling scenario: Putin could threaten a NATO country with a conventional or nuclear attack unless the West lifts international sanctions on Russia. Further down the force menu, Putin could ramp up attacks along the Ukraine/Polish border to stop the flow of arms shipments into the country. This would risk a direct military confrontation with NATO. While such a move would seem incredibly foolish, Putin may conclude that getting involved in a conflict with NATO would bolster his domestic credibility, particularly if NATO refuses to take the political bait and respond with force.
To be clear, I don’t think Putin is seriously countenancing the use of nuclear weapons but rather might seek to intimidate Kyiv and/or the NATO powers in order to get Russia a better deal in diplomatic negotiations. For all of Putin’s irrationally, I doubt he’s simply forgotten or is ignoring the risks of nuclear war. But then again, he appears to have completely ignored the dangers of invading Ukraine. And if Russia begins down such a path there is always the potential for a dangerous escalatory spiral.
To a large extent, we’re in unchartered territory. When you’re dealing with an irrational international actor, who appears to have cut himself off from contradictory information, has surrounded himself with supplicants and enablers, and has no real check on his political impulses, it’s hard to get a read on what comes next. When you combine the fact that this actor has backed himself into a corner and may believe that he needs a “win” to extricate himself and preserve the stability of his regime, the situation becomes even more unstable. Unpredictability in global affairs is always problematic — but it’s much of a situation when nuclear weapons are involvedd.
Again, I need to clarify that what I’ve described above are unlikely, worst-case scenarios (I don’t advise building a bomb shelter in the backyard). But the very fact that we’re having these discussions makes the current situation in Ukraine — and the instability in the Kremlin — so incredibly concerning.
What’s Going On
This Associated Press story on the situation in Mariupol is not for the faint of heart. The images are traumatizing, but at the same time, it’s important to bear witness to the utter depravity of the war Russia is waging on the people of Ukraine.
The situation in Kharkiv is equally desperate.
This is an excellent piece by Josh Rovner on the ineptness of Putin’s strategy in Ukraine and a possible pathway to extricating him and Russia from the current crisis.
This is a fascinating interactive article on what two years of a pandemic have meant for New York City.
Scott Sagan takes an in-depth look at the potential for nuclear war with Russia.
This video of Arnold Schwarzenegger talking to the Russian people about the war in Ukraine is brilliant.
Musical Interlude
I was going to go with Elton John’s “Madmen Across the Water” but truth be told, this live version of “Burn Down The Mission” is about 1,000 times better.
"It's all in the lap of the gods, and no one knows what will happen when they stand up." (Will Cuppy: Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody). I'm not making light of the circumstance, but sometimes a bit of humor makes the tragedy bearable.