Editor’s note: This opinion piece was written by Robert Kennedy, president of the Atlanta Council on International Relations
More than 1,500 years ago Chinese philosopher and strategist Sun Tzu said that “to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”
Translated into the current situation in Ukraine, on whose border Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops, this means deterring Russian President Vladimir Putin before an invasion occurs.
Deterrence works on the mind of the opponent, and it works best when it raises concerns over potential consequences of contemplated actions. Putin is a gambler bent on reasserting Russia’s place as a world power and re-establishing its hegemony over the territories lost following the demise of the Soviet Union. His obstacles to this are the U.S. and NATO.
However, he is not reckless. In 2014, sensing he could get away with the use of “little green men” in the Crimea, he broke the 1994 Budapest accord, in which the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia agreed “to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” He also violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. His popularity soared in Russia, and the country has withstood the economic sanctions that were subsequently imposed.
Today, Putin’s popularity is waning in Russia, so he is weighing the potential benefits to his popularity at home of staring down the West and reacquiring all or part of Ukraine against the potential costs of serious economic sanctions.
In those calculations, Putin holds some important economic cards of his own in terms of oil and gas needed by Western Europe, especially Germany. But it is much more than an economic calculation for Putin to consider getting his nose bloodied in a military conflict that holds the danger of escalation. Moreover, in such a conflict, despite the geography involved, the U.S. holds significant cards of its own.
In 1938, when they gave up the heavily German populated Czech Sudetenland to Germany, United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier thought they were choosing peace. In so doing they strengthened Hitler at home, increased his appetite for conquest abroad and effectively triggered World War II.
If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine through the use of military force, it will send a dangerous message to other countries of the region, most notably Estonia and the other Baltic states, as well as other countries around the world, including North Korea, Iran and especially China, as it contemplates future action against Taiwan. The message: the United States and other democratic countries are weak-willed and unwilling to risk war with Russia, unless their absolutely vital interests are at stake. Such an approach will weaken NATO and undermine U.S. credibility at home and abroad. It does not serve to reduce tensions or the risk of further conflict. It will also undermine the rule of law in the world arena and put a stake in the heart of the post-WWII War world order.
If the U.S. wishes to preserve the peace in the region and elsewhere around the world, it should not remove the military option from potential responses to Russian aggression in the Ukraine. The Ukraine per se may not be of vital U.S. strategic interest but preventing war in Europe is. The U.S. credibility as a guarantor of peace, and NATO’s credibility as a military deterrent is of vital interest to the United States, as well as to our friends and allies in Europe and around the world.
Even though Washington, unfortunately, has already telegraphed a “declaratory policy” of not using force to assist Ukraine, it still can raise the ante in Putin’s calculations about potential consequences of a military invasion of Ukraine, by positioning itself for the use of military force. A promising first step is the Pentagon’s announcement that 3,000 U.S. troops are being deployed to NATO allies in the region.
While Russia has already decried the U.S. for supposed “escalation,” moving forces to the region should raise the question in Putin’s mind of whether Washington has changed or will change its mind about refraining from the use of military force.
Some will argue that this will increase tensions. They are absolutely correct. The tension placed on Putin over having to engage with the U.S. to acquire Ukraine is what deterrence is all about.
Robert Kennedy is the president of the Atlanta Council on International Relations and serves as professor emeritus at Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at the Georgia institute of Technology, where he taught for 20 years. His distinguished career at the intersection of education and defense and security includes stints as director of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; deputy commandant at the NATO Defense College in Rome, and a variety of other positions and commendations. He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from Georgetown University and a B.S. from the United States Air Force Academy. See his full bio here.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board so Directors or Advisor or members of Atlanta Council on International Relations.