The scariest story I have read in some time appeared three days ago in the Washington Post: "Russia planning massive military offensive against Ukraine involving 175,000 troops, U.S. intelligence warns."
One can hope that U.S. intelligence is as wrong about an actual "offensive" as it was about Afghanistan in August. Russia's military buildup, however, is incontestable: "The Kremlin has been moving troops toward the border with Ukraine" — with, as noted, estimates predicting a force of up to 175,000.
The strike force might be a mere bluff. Putin is demanding that the U.S. bar Ukraine from ever joining NATO and "that the alliance will refrain from certain military activities in and around Ukrainian territory." Russian propaganda, though, is frighteningly bellicose. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the U.S. about stockpiling military equipment on the border and intoned: "The nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning." (Shades of 1939 Germany having blamed Poland for Hitler's invasion.)
U.S. intelligence also notes that Russian media is amplifying harsh rhetoric about Ukraine and NATO, "in part to pin the blame for a potential Russian military escalation on Ukraine."
Russia once had valid reasons for building territorial buffers between itself and Europe. But military aggression by European powers has long been a thing of the past. If anything, the continent is one of pacifism. Putin knows that, thus his is more than vintage Russian paranoia. It is classic Russian aggression; or, at minimum, destabilizing saber-rattling, which could easily lead to a military conflict.
What was Secretary of State Antony Blinken's response last week to Russia's potential unleashing of a European war? He surveyed existing evidence of Russia's plans for a military offensive against Ukraine and "warned there would be severe consequences, including high-impact economic measures, if Russia invaded."
Sanctions! Mere economic sanctions. Putin and Lavrov must have toasted American "resolve" with a few shots of vodka that night.
I appreciate that Blinken was attempting to turn down the heat, as is the duty of any good diplomat. But to specify "economic measures" rather than underline "severe consequences" — and leave it at that — seems an invitation to aggression. Russia's leaders have never much given a damn about American rhetoric and half-measures. They do respect the very real possibilities of American power.
Should Russia militarily advance — further advance — on Ukraine while the United States sits back and calculates sanctions, outraged yelps of appeasement will be deafening, and not only from the crazies across the aisle. I tremble at the spectre of domestic and international outcries.
Appease Russia? Given the West's assembled firepower? After Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia and 2014 Crimean annexation and preexisting, separatist fomentation in Ukraine? The U.S. and NATO would just sit idly by? What's more, in the wings would be the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.
Nikki Haley recently sent out a tweet that was typically Nikki, hence typically nonsensical: "Biden’s failure to stand strong against Vladimir Putin is putting Americans in danger."
As silly as that was, it nevertheless contained an unintended sliver of truth. Should President Biden not confront Putin and Russia's aggressive designs forcefully, such a failure would only hasten the return of Trump or some similarly minded, authoritarian ignoramus. And that indeed would threaten America. Like all potential military conflicts, there are as many domestic considerations here as there are international.
***
To be clear, just in case some readers think I've turned recklessly jingoistic, I would not advocate American boots on the ground. I know of no one with a sinew of rationality who does. What I would advocate are economic sanctions now, as vigorous pushback against Russia's use of military intimidation and threats of war as diplomatic weapons. That should be flatly unacceptable on any international stage.
I would also argue that the U.S. should immediately begin amassing lethal matériel on the Ukrainian border. As I have already noted, Russia respects only firm and open displays of U.S. determination. Putin has engaged wanton brinkmanship, and calling his bluff is the only resolution. Otherwise, more threats and mobilizations will come, Eastern Europe will be left to hang precariously in the balance, and, in time, Russian aggression will most assuredly actualize.
I shall leave you with the wisdom of that famed, international-relations expert, Barney Fife: "Yeah, well, today's Russians are tomorrow's gangsters. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of them goin' wrong, you got to nip it in the bud."