political suggestions
Version 1.1/4.4, 2024-12-22
Some ideas for certain aspects of the war which are currently not handled well by NATO (in my opinion).
The only public statements from governments of important NATO countries about the aims of western support for Ukraine are about protecting Ukraine, restoring its territorial integrity. But the real aim must be to get rid of the threat that Russia poses. The core of this threat is not Russia's armament but Russia being a mafia state which does not care about the human rights of its own citizens, not even their lives, and (of course) not about the sovereignty of other countries.
International law prohibits interference in internal affairs but with Russia having attacked several neighbour states in recent history, regularly ignoring the international law of war and threatening military violence against NATO countries on a daily basis, the threshold of self-defense has been reached. Most probably these are just empty threats as military action against NATO would result in an embarrassing defeat within hours and noone in the Russian armed forces should be interested in starting a nuclear war, especially not for a dictator who has ruined the country and was not protected by anyone when PMC Wagner set out to a trip to Moscow...
Being a mafia state alone does not make Russia a threat. The other requirement is a sufficient government budget for sustaining large armed forces. So the only useful approach by the West would be to make the clear statement that the sanctions will not be lifted until human rights are respected in Russia (i.e. free press, free and fair elections, punishment of war criminals).
Most Russians can be assumed to be aware that the destruction of the Russian economy will not stop before the sanctions are lifted. There will not be free and fair elections with Putin in power so everyone there would be aware that in order to save their own economic future their have to get rid of the war criminal in the Kremlin. It must be clear that even winning the war (whatever that could mean) would not save Russia so it would not save Putin either.
All important members of NATO seem to be quite afraid that more effective arming of Ukraine might cause Russia to escalate against Ukraine or even NATO members. This is an important problem as it prevents NATO from providing the necessary means.
Even though the risk seems extremely low (see above) it seems in general to be a good idea to avoid escalation. BUT: Even though military support includes some risk of escalation there is no good reason to assume that restraint in arming Ukraine is any kind of guarantee for avoiding a Russian escalation. The unpleasant truth is that Russian escalation is a political effect, not a military one. The assessment of experts for Russian politics is that Putin will start a war with NATO if that seems to be the only option to keep him in power i.e. save him politically. Even support on a very low level (i.e. Ukraine losing slowly) would not prevent the breakdown of the Russian economy (not in some far future) which will be the end of Putin. A mafia state without money just stops working, existing.
So the best (but unfortunately quite unclear) path would be to move Russia into a position (economically, militarily, and politically i.e. with respect to Russia's allies, mainly China) in which a direct confrontation with NATO offers minimal political benefit. The safest approach seems to be to run Russia into the ground economically so that there is nothing left which Putin could promise to anyone. The longer the personal economic situation is really bad, the worse it gets, and the more Russians are affected by this, the less Russians will follow the the war crimonals in the Kremlin into a suicide mission against NATO.
Formally this means that
the economical and military degradation should be as quick as possible
the speed of the economical and military degradation should increase over time
the increase of the degradation should be so slow (this value may change over time) that it seems impossible for Putin to work as justification for a military escalation (i.e. such an escalation should increase the domestic political pressure on Putin, not reduce it)
It would probably help to announce higher levels of punishment for Russia weeks in advance.
Many Russian bombings (especially away from the front) are war crimes. Russian propaganda TV has publicly admitted that many times (not the assessment as a war crime but the facts which constitute war crimes). It is unbearable that NATO is not doing anything to stop this. From a moral perspective: These actions alone should be enough for NATO to threaten Russia with a direct military confrontation. Of course, that is not going to happen.
Improving Ukraine's military situation in general will not stop these war crime attacks. Unless Russia becomes militarily incapable to successfully execute these attacks. But this would require a huge amount of air defense and/or offensive long range action in Russia against the missiles and drones and would be the solution which requires the biggest armament effort. This is not going to happen in the near future but it should be natural that these war crimes have to stop now.
There is an alternative. Russia will stop these attacks if they cause a lot more (military, economical, and / or political) damage to Russia than they seem to help Russia. There seems to be an easy possibility to achieve this: NATO should make the very public announcement that for every such war crime bombing Ukraine gets
the permission to shoot 1/5/10 (whatever seems painful enough) ATACMS / Stormshadow / Taurus (seems like a great reason to give some to Ukraine) on targets anywhere in Russia
or (maybe later, as an escalation) one long range cruise missile (capable of levelling a whole arms (components) factory anywhere in western Russia)
Putin would have a very hard time trying to rally the Russians around an escalation if NATO made an unambiguous Stop doing this OR ELSE...
statement, Putin decided to do (keep doing) it anyway and all of a sudden very bad things happen in Russia, exactly as announced. It might be quite helpful in general if the Russian population understands that NATO threats are to be taken seriously in contrast to the Russian ones.
Threatening vastly superior opponents used to be risky. Unfortunately the Russian experience is that they can say just anything towards NATO without any punishment. On a daily basis Russian propaganda TV talks about first military action against NATO countries, including nuclear strikes, the use of nuclear doomsday weapons against the United Kingdom, and recently the complete nuclear annihilation of the Polish people.
How is it possible that NATO lets this happen? Is the assessment that these are empty threats reason enough not to do anything about it? Just for the fun of it: Imagine something similar had happened in Reagan's time – there would probably permanently have been a B-52 with nukes in the air 50km off St. Petersburg...
NATO's inaction may even cause additional problems: It seems probable that these permanent, omnipresent threats would make it easier for Putin to escalate against NATO directly with military action (not the kind of action they are talking about, of course). And even if he has not the least interest in doing anything like that – it is at least good propaganda.
But if Putin would get a reaction from NATO which makes it impossible for him to continue ordering / allowing these insane statements in his propaganda media then the Russian people should react much less well to an escalation. And the propaganda effect would be gone. With no more threats from Russia the NATO countries might become more willing (or more quickly willing) to increase the armament of Ukraine.
What could (and actually would) NATO do that would force Russia to seriously change this behaviour?
The suggested solution is to choose a measure which has at least two components. One which on its own seems like a severe escalation to which Russia would feel forced to react (both politically and because of the economic damage). The second component should be something that has a direct effect on the e.g. economical damage caused (not so much on the humiliation part, though) but can be set to small values so that the damage to Russia becomes so small that it does not justify a military escalation (from the Russian perspective).
NATO should make the public announcement that in case of another threat of a military attack on a NATO state the Baltic Sea will be blocked for (e.g.) three days in the first event and after that for one week for all incoming civilian ships heading for Russia. Obviously it would be insane to block full oil tankers with military force so only the empty ones can really be stopped. And for the economic and political results it does not matter whether the incoming or outgoing oil tankers ships are blocked. Nuclear threats would result in a (e.g.) three-week blockade.
So what would happen?
Russia would publicly react with outrage and threaten military force to ensure passage for their civilian ships.
Russia knows that since the Baltic Sea has turned into NATO Lake there is no real threatening NATO there. But Russia would feel forced to keep up the appearance and activate its fleet in Kaliningrad. This would put further strain on the Russian military, increase the cost of the fleet and put an end to the impression of the inhabitants of Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg that the war is far away.
It is impossible for Russia to do anything with its navy against NATO blocking ships on route to St. Petersburg or Kaliningrad because those ships have to travel a huge distance through NATO waters outside the Baltic Sea. And it would not be necessary for NATO to stop all the ships.
Every day of delay in the oil export would result in a severe loss for Russia. The West would suffer from an increase of the market price for crude oil but the damage would be worse for Russia. In addition to the revenue loss Russia has the severe problem that stopping the production of oil wells in the permafrost causes the risk of permanent damage to the well and / or the pipelines resulting in a permanent production reduction.
The Russian population would not be happy with an escalation with NATO for which the only reason is Russia's attitude to threaten insane military action against NATO without repercussions. Especially given that no NATO country has made any threats against Russia. The support would be even less as there would not be a permanent blockade. Why risk war ships shooting at each other if the problem will go away on its own in two days?
It would be up to NATO to set the lead time of this announcement to its own advantage:
Russia can immediately stop threats against NATO on its propaganda media but it cannot immediately use its navy. So if NATO said Beginning tomorrow...
that would either force Russia to stop the threats immediately or put Russia in the situation that it could not react quickly enough.
If NATO said Beginning one month from now...
that would give Russia time to react but also to build up internal political pressure. The Russian people and the Russian army would have weeks to think about whether this is worth it.
NATO has the option to not start a blockade of the Baltic Sea even if that was announced. NATO could do something different which would be painful for Russia. This could be decided in the very short term. NATO might learn a lot about Russia's remaining capability for and difficulties with sending out the Kaliningrad fleet.
Such an action would make the recent joining NATO by Finland and Sweden extremely painful for Russia because this NATO extension has crippled their potential for military aggression in the Baltic Sea. This would put the long term damaging consequences of Putin's stuid war decision in focus, further undermining his image as a capable leader.
Lawyers may get a very strange feeling about this. But Russia is threatening NATO with military action (even if these threats are empty) so this is not about peace time internatinal law. This would be NATO measures below the military threshold in order to prevent a war. And who cares about the complaints of a permanent member of the UN security council which openly commits war crimes and has broken so much international law? A country which outlaws calling the war a war must accept that permanent war threats on its propaganda TV are attributed to the government.
Without a strong air defense Russia would be helpless against any serious military action by NATO. NATO is effectively an air warfare alliance which relies on air superiority.
The West should provide Ukraine with the necessary means (information, ATACMS, Stormshadow, HARM, JASSM, Taurus) and permit to go for the (long range) air defense systems (and their production facilities) everywhere in western Russia.
As soon as this causes a serious effect Russia will not be in a position to make any conventional threats against NATO any more; and until then the NATO reaction to Russian complaints and threats should simply be: "Stop making military threats against and sabotage and assassinations in NATO countries and we will stop taking out your air defense. Such a reaction would make Russia look weak anyway so the regime would try to avoid it. All professionals in the Russian armed forces will understand the situation when there is not much air defense left so a continuation of the threats against NATO might decrease the loyalty in the armed forces to Putin if they get the feeling that he gambles with sending them to a fight in which they would be wiped out.
A very pleasant side-effect would be that future air operations (not the drones but the F-16) would be much more possible. Getting its defense capabilities against NATO destroyed (and those against Ukraine severely diminished) would make the war even more unsustainable. Which army would just watch getting crumbled to nothing by the political leadership without doing anything about it, especially if military power is the only thing keeping your country together?
The capacity of the Russian government to suppress mass protests should have been severely reduced by the war. Regular crime is on the rise in Russia, not just due to the return of serious criminals from the front who have become even worse people there. Meanwhile a lack of police has been created.
Under normal circumstances the probability of protests in Russia is low. An important reason for this is that it is difficult for small protests to grow into large protests. This problem could easily be solved by the west picking a suitable date and making sure everyone in Russia knows about it.
Even under much better circumstances the "revolt" by the PMC Wagner showed that there was not much willingness in Russia to protect Putin. And now everyone who could (or even: would have to) protect Putin knows that noone else is willing to do that. They know that there is no army left who could support them. They know that the economy will collapse; they just do not know when exactly. Noone wants to be on the side of the losers, especially if the losers are wanted war criminals who have caused the death of hundreds of thousands of Russians and ruined the countries prospects for decades.
If the opponents of the regime know a long time in advance on which day to act then they do not have to be afraid because on the one hand the police cannot handle activity everywhere (if they are even willing to try) and on the other hand very small activities (against the police cannot do anything at all anyway) become a serious option because tens of thousands of small actions all over the country (which would not be noticed and have no political effect at all under normal circumstances) would have a huge combined impact. The knowledge of the amount of resistance among the citizens would deter most members of the authorities from strong support for the regime during the following days.
The general knowledge of this date would affect a lot of political decisions in the months before. The regime would be very afraid of what can happen. They have neither the money nor the people to make preparations. Even trying to make preparations would be very dangerous as it might make the regime look afraid. Being afraid would mean that there is a lot of resistance in the country. Acting against a lot of protesters also might trigger a revolt in the Russian army at the front.
Legally the western governments cannot call for a coup against Putin. But that is not necessary. "If you are not willing to tolerate any longer how the war criminals in the Russian government are not caring at all for the loss of life of Russian soldiers, how they do not care about the quality of life of the vast majority of the Russian poeple, and how they break the law in treating Russians who use both their natural and constitutional right to criticize the government, then make your disapproval known on this day; in whichever small or big way seems suitable to you and is comfortable for you." would be enough.
This date should be set several months in advance. This would offer several advantages:
With more time, more people would know about it.
With more time, more people will make the decision to use this opportunity.
With more time, the protesters can create better plans how to act.
With more time, the overall situation is Russia will have worsened a lot.
This can be made part of the announcement so approaching this date many people would think about whether the western prediction has become true. It would even be dangerous for the Russian propaganda to dispute these predictions as that would be remembered close to that date.
Ukraine and the West might prepare (at least that is what the Russian regime would expect) some very unpleasant surprises for Russia for the weeks and days up to this date.
A date with suitable cultural relevance for the Russians could be chosen.
A date which is somehow supportive for protests could be chosen. Like the beginning of winter 2025 when all Russians know that life will become a lot less pleasant during the next months.
A particularly useful date might be around the time when the number of Russia casualties is expected to reach one million.
The quality (additional types of NATO weapons, Ukraine's own developments) and quantity (increasingly dense net of air defense; increasing NATO manufacturing capacity for artillery ammunition; Ukraine's own arms manufacturing facilities (ammunition, drones, and missiles); tank manufacturing facilities) developments of the war situation are already on the side of Ukraine. The main problem seems to be the availability of soldiers (even though due to the development in Russia Ukraine could be the one better of with this aspect soon).
If the West offered additional money to Ukraine for hiring foreigners as soldiers then two useful useful effects might be achieved:
Obviously, the soldier recuitment problem would become weaker.
More important might be a political effect: There are a lot of people who really hate Russia and/or feel threatened by them, especially in the context of the current war: e.g. in Georgia, Belarus, Poland, the Baltics, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. Knowing that there are several thousand people who are trained in fighting the Russian army (with western weapons) and well connected to NATO.
NATO should prevent empty oil tankers which are in a shape so bad they are a serious risk for another ecologic catastrophe from entering the Baltic sea. This is probably only a small share of the shadow fleet so the impact on Russia would be rather small. It is extremely improbable that Putin would react with a (relevant) military escalation against NATO:
He lacks the military means to probably turn out the winner in such a confrontation. Losing a diplomatic test of strength on that level in his current situation would be an existential threat to his regime.
Every relevant additional military activity (even the mere concentration of troops) would be an additional strain on the Russian armed forces, probably causing problems for them in Ukraine. Additional problems in Ukraine would be nearly as bad as sending troops towards NATO and having to retreat in embarrassement.
A 10% (this is just a guess) loss in Baltic Sea export capacity (the actual export volume reduction would probably be smaller) would simply not be enough to justify (in the view of the Russian population) a strong reaction. The West has done worse to them and probably will in the future.
The Russian population is aware of the recent catastrophes in the Russian shadow fleet and does not support this. The Kremlin cannot rally their passive supporters for NATO reactions to events on the Russian side which in the opinion of the Russians should not have happened under any circumstances. Trying to do something about it would severely risk putting embarrassing actions of the Russian government in the spotlight of the Russian public.
This is not specific to the war, of course, but very important to the war.
The usual perspective is a comparison of "power" / economic dependency:
the US vs. Canada
the US vs. Mexico
the US vs. China
the US vs. the EU
Trump has not been elected for this. He is doing / achieving the opposite of what he promised during the election campaign. Only some share (probably less than half) of hos voters is supporting this economic shooting spree. So it seems that the situation would be described better with
A quarter of the US vs. (the richer) half of the US plus the rest of the western world (in a broader sense i.e. including Australia, Japan, and South Korea) plus at least Mexico.
So the western world should – very officially – not try to wage economic war against the US as a whole but only against the red states. Inviting the US opponents of Trump to join in. I.e. put tariffs only on products from the red states. This could be accompanied by the announcement that the tariffs will include the blue states if they do not join in (not with tariffs but in some similar way).
The combination of immediate severe economic problems and no hope of winning would send the stock value of companies which the republican party needs as supporters into freefall. The image of Trump as a strongman who can force everyone else into anything would be permanently destroyed. With the republicans panicking the western world might even demand increased support for Ukraine until a military victory.