Thanks, Matt. The part about Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is particularly worrying.
The Economist summarizes Russia's recent grey-zone attacks on Europe:
"Italian jets on a NATO mission shot down an explosives-laden drone that had flown into Lithuania from Belarus, and others scrambled to intercept two Russian fighter jets that violated NATO airspace. In the same week, Russian drones struck a train in Ukraine within 2km of a Polish border crossing, soon after Boris Johnson, a former British prime minister, and several European security officials had travelled through. In the Netherlands the railway network was recently disrupted by the co-ordinated placement of pipes and cables on tracks around the country.
"More significantly, in August an explosive-laden drone was flown into a cargo plane used to transport weapons for Ukraine at Germany’s Leipzig-Halle airport, though it failed to detonate."
How European countries are responding:
"Many countries are taking defensive measures, such as installing protection against drones at airports and around other critical infrastructure. Some argue that Europe also needs to take stronger collective measures to raise the cost of hybrid attacks for Russia. It can retaliate by restricting the number of visas issued to Russians, expelling diplomats, closing consulates, imposing harsher sanctions and possibly by launching covert actions of its own against Russian interests.
"'What Moscow respects most is strength,' says David Cattler of the Centre for European Policy Analysis. Unless Europe shows it is tough enough to deter provocations, Russia will continue to escalate. So far, its provocations have had no catastrophic results—but they might have done. Obstructions on tracks might derail a train. Drone attacks at airports could bring down an airliner. The riskiest approach would be to let Russia keep pushing until something cracks."
Really good essay Matt. The combination of deterrence and rational actors has been a solid safeguard up to now and I think Trump has a strong survival instinct which is no doubt part of his narcissistic personality. I read talk of Putin being boxed into a corner followed by reports of "accidental" drone action in one of the Eastern border countries from time to time. Most recent Lithuania. I agree that North Korea is watching Putin's every move and calculating. I also think personality plays a huge role in statecraft - neither Putin in the Ukraine or Trump in Iran know how to back away without losing face. We all know why Trump doesn't use his oft repeated, "I won the war," line and pull out. The problem is he has reactivated the Middle East as a serious flash point and Iran is now wagging the dog by keeping the Strait closed and attacking the refineries of US allies. The Houthis have nothing left to lose and appear to be fighting mad about the many historic wrongs perpetrated in their part of the world. It is a confounding and volatile time.
It does feel increasingly unstable and fragile, especially as additional conflicts/incursions emerge. I agree that rational minds seem likely to prevent escalation but,
-a young assassin's bullet in Sarajevo in 1914 undid all the "rational" efforts, and
- status quo is continued anxiety, what will it take to get back to "some" more balanced and sustainable position? Does that only happen when everyone's forces and resources are close to full strength?
Couldn’t the fact that Ukrainian forces have outperformed NATO forces in drone-heavy exercises actually point toward part of the solution - or at least, the potential consequences for Putin if he once again succumbs to strategic hubris? Ukraine is arguably becoming one of Europe’s most valuable military assets, rather than simply a country Europe has to defend.
(This is also why our deal with Ukraine is the one I’m most excited about).
I don’t know, watching Trump refuse the Saudis the military support they expected when they actually needed it this weekend does make me think we really, truly can’t count on the US to honour its commitments anymore - which is of course pretty scary in a world largely built on the assumption that it will. But my gut also says there may be an opportunity here for countries that will honour their commitments to reassert themselves together. Here’s Ukraine’s chance to make sure the countries supporting it know that the relationship can go both ways, right?
All the “realist", we’re going back to a world where a handful of great powers determine what happens to everyone else stuff sticks in my craw not only because it offends my disposition - I also think it misses genuinely new shifts by focusing too much on historical patterns. Bigger powers keep discovering that sheer size doesn’t necessarily beat smaller, more nimble adversaries that can adapt faster, while technology seems to be giving individual countries capabilities that used to belong mostly to much larger powers.
I really do think the US is accelerating toward its end of empire, and the rest of us need to take that very seriously, very quickly. But Ukraine gives me some hope about what comes next. Maybe whatever that is ends up being more atomized, more distributed and, most importantly - and perhaps surprisingly - more resilient than the usual “multipolar world” framing suggests.
Short version. Deterrence works. It worked very nicely during the Cold War.
Thanks, Matt. The part about Russia's "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is particularly worrying.
The Economist summarizes Russia's recent grey-zone attacks on Europe:
"Italian jets on a NATO mission shot down an explosives-laden drone that had flown into Lithuania from Belarus, and others scrambled to intercept two Russian fighter jets that violated NATO airspace. In the same week, Russian drones struck a train in Ukraine within 2km of a Polish border crossing, soon after Boris Johnson, a former British prime minister, and several European security officials had travelled through. In the Netherlands the railway network was recently disrupted by the co-ordinated placement of pipes and cables on tracks around the country.
"More significantly, in August an explosive-laden drone was flown into a cargo plane used to transport weapons for Ukraine at Germany’s Leipzig-Halle airport, though it failed to detonate."
How European countries are responding:
"Many countries are taking defensive measures, such as installing protection against drones at airports and around other critical infrastructure. Some argue that Europe also needs to take stronger collective measures to raise the cost of hybrid attacks for Russia. It can retaliate by restricting the number of visas issued to Russians, expelling diplomats, closing consulates, imposing harsher sanctions and possibly by launching covert actions of its own against Russian interests.
"'What Moscow respects most is strength,' says David Cattler of the Centre for European Policy Analysis. Unless Europe shows it is tough enough to deter provocations, Russia will continue to escalate. So far, its provocations have had no catastrophic results—but they might have done. Obstructions on tracks might derail a train. Drone attacks at airports could bring down an airliner. The riskiest approach would be to let Russia keep pushing until something cracks."
Really good essay Matt. The combination of deterrence and rational actors has been a solid safeguard up to now and I think Trump has a strong survival instinct which is no doubt part of his narcissistic personality. I read talk of Putin being boxed into a corner followed by reports of "accidental" drone action in one of the Eastern border countries from time to time. Most recent Lithuania. I agree that North Korea is watching Putin's every move and calculating. I also think personality plays a huge role in statecraft - neither Putin in the Ukraine or Trump in Iran know how to back away without losing face. We all know why Trump doesn't use his oft repeated, "I won the war," line and pull out. The problem is he has reactivated the Middle East as a serious flash point and Iran is now wagging the dog by keeping the Strait closed and attacking the refineries of US allies. The Houthis have nothing left to lose and appear to be fighting mad about the many historic wrongs perpetrated in their part of the world. It is a confounding and volatile time.
It does feel increasingly unstable and fragile, especially as additional conflicts/incursions emerge. I agree that rational minds seem likely to prevent escalation but,
-a young assassin's bullet in Sarajevo in 1914 undid all the "rational" efforts, and
- status quo is continued anxiety, what will it take to get back to "some" more balanced and sustainable position? Does that only happen when everyone's forces and resources are close to full strength?
Couldn’t the fact that Ukrainian forces have outperformed NATO forces in drone-heavy exercises actually point toward part of the solution - or at least, the potential consequences for Putin if he once again succumbs to strategic hubris? Ukraine is arguably becoming one of Europe’s most valuable military assets, rather than simply a country Europe has to defend.
(This is also why our deal with Ukraine is the one I’m most excited about).
I don’t know, watching Trump refuse the Saudis the military support they expected when they actually needed it this weekend does make me think we really, truly can’t count on the US to honour its commitments anymore - which is of course pretty scary in a world largely built on the assumption that it will. But my gut also says there may be an opportunity here for countries that will honour their commitments to reassert themselves together. Here’s Ukraine’s chance to make sure the countries supporting it know that the relationship can go both ways, right?
All the “realist", we’re going back to a world where a handful of great powers determine what happens to everyone else stuff sticks in my craw not only because it offends my disposition - I also think it misses genuinely new shifts by focusing too much on historical patterns. Bigger powers keep discovering that sheer size doesn’t necessarily beat smaller, more nimble adversaries that can adapt faster, while technology seems to be giving individual countries capabilities that used to belong mostly to much larger powers.
I really do think the US is accelerating toward its end of empire, and the rest of us need to take that very seriously, very quickly. But Ukraine gives me some hope about what comes next. Maybe whatever that is ends up being more atomized, more distributed and, most importantly - and perhaps surprisingly - more resilient than the usual “multipolar world” framing suggests.