From: jameskerlindsay
The decision to use armed force is not taken lightly, as the implications of conflict can be extensive [00:00:37]. Beyond military dimensions, broader political, economic, domestic, and international factors must be considered [00:00:45]. Even if a war is militarily “won” easily, the wider effects can be severely damaging, embodying the concept of a pyrrhic victory where the cost outweighs the gain [00:00:56]. A complex range of costs and benefits must be weighed before military action [00:01:10].
Case Study: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Concerns have grown that Russia is preparing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, having amassed over 100,000 troops near the border and imposing unacceptable de-escalation conditions [00:00:00]. This situation serves as an important case in point for examining the factors considered in a decision to go to war [00:01:15].
Background of the Conflict
Ukraine, located in Eastern Europe, is the 45th largest UN member by area and has a population of around 44 million, with ethnic Ukrainians comprising 78% and Russians 17% as per the 2001 census [00:01:44]. Russia, the world’s largest country, has a population of approximately 144 million [00:02:14].
The current crisis stems from the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union [00:02:25]. Following independence, issues such as nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the status of the Soviet fleet in the Crimean Peninsula (ceded by Russia to Ukraine in the 1950s) remained [00:02:35]. Ukraine transferred its missiles to Russia in exchange for a Russian guarantee to respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity [00:02:48]. The navy was later divided, with Russia gaining control of the port in Crimea until 2042 [00:02:58].
While Ukraine joined the Commonwealth of Independent States, many Ukrainians sought closer ties with the West, including EU and NATO membership [00:03:07]. In November 2013, Ukraine’s pro-Russian president blocked an association agreement with the EU, leading to mass protests [00:03:20]. After the president fled to Russia, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, then supported a separatist insurgency in the eastern Donbas provinces [00:03:30]. Fighting continued despite ceasefire agreements, resulting in around 14,000 lives lost and 1.5 million displaced by 2020 [00:03:46].
Russia cemented control by granting Russian citizenship to inhabitants of the east and openly stated its desire for Ukraine to remain firmly within Russia’s sphere of influence [00:04:04]. Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people” and that “the true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia” [00:04:17]. In December 2021, Moscow presented draft treaties to the US and NATO, demanding an end to further NATO expansion, including to Ukraine or any former USSR territory [00:04:33]. NATO rejected this, asserting that membership is a matter for the organization and applicants [00:04:52].
Russian Objectives for Invasion
Russia’s significant troop buildup, estimated at 120,000 troops within 200 kilometers of the border, signals a strong resolve over Ukraine [00:05:02]. While protecting ethnic Russians was an objective in 2013, Russia now controls key ethnic Russian districts [00:05:52]. Further expansion would involve areas predominantly inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians, which doesn’t clearly support full control of Ukraine given the enormous military, economic, political, and diplomatic costs of occupation [00:05:59]. A partial invasion would likely make the rest of Ukraine even more anti-Russian [00:06:24].
Although Moscow views NATO as a threat and claims NATO promised not to expand into the former Soviet Union, an invasion might not change the current situation [00:06:36]. While NATO has been hesitant to admit Ukraine with its conflict, an invasion could encourage NATO enlargement elsewhere [00:06:48]. Notably, Finland’s president and prime minister have hinted at NATO membership if Russia acts in Ukraine [00:07:10]. Given Finland’s 1,300 km border with Russia, this would lead to more NATO presence for Russia, not less [00:07:20].
The most plausible objective for an invasion is to stop NATO enlargement to Ukraine and secure Russia’s hold over already controlled territory [00:07:27]. Invading eastern Ukraine could provide leverage to formally secure Ukraine’s acceptance of Crimea’s annexation and perhaps the transfer of Donbas [00:07:38]. Even without immediate formal acceptance, Russia would see this as a powerful message about its global standing and willingness to act in its interests [00:07:51].
Consequences of Conflict for Russia
Military Risks and External Intervention
While Russia’s forces vastly outnumber Ukraine’s, Kyiv has significantly improved its military capabilities since 2013 [00:08:10]. Observers suggest a successful invasion would require more Russian troops than currently assembled [00:08:22]. Direct outside military support for Ukraine would be limited; no country will fight for Ukraine, as going to war with Russia is out of the question for NATO [00:08:30]. However, NATO, the EU, and US President Biden have warned that further aggression would have “massive consequences and would carry a high price” [00:08:45].
Political Consequences
The political effects of an invasion on Russia would be mixed, perhaps not as severe as imagined [00:09:07]. As a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia would face no formal UNSC resolution against its actions, though there might be one from the General Assembly [00:09:14]. While any action would deepen political estrangement from the West, Russia has already drifted away from Europe and the United States [00:09:25]. Many other countries might be ambivalent about taking tough action, as Russia maintains significant influence and is adept at leveraging its capabilities for maximum geopolitical advantage [00:09:38]. President Putin may feel he can absorb new political costs [00:09:47].
Economic Consequences
EU and NATO action would be most effective in the economic sphere [00:09:52]. Although many sanctions have been imposed since 2013, other areas could be targeted [00:10:01]. Energy is one area for potentially decisive action, as Europe is a key market for Russian natural gas [00:10:12]. However, Russia has record gold and foreign exchange reserves, providing a “war chest” to weather immediate sanction consequences [00:10:24]. Putin also knows that cutting off energy would significantly impact already high energy prices in Europe, incurring a major domestic political cost for Western countries [00:10:33].
A longer-term option is to shift away from Russian energy sources [00:10:44]. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken suggested Germany cancel Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline bypassing Ukraine and linking Russia and Germany [00:10:50]. While this would hit Russia hard, especially as Germany is Russia’s largest gas market, it wouldn’t have an immediate effect [00:11:03]. Cancellation would also raise concerns about Europe’s long-term energy strategies, as Russia and many in the EU view the project as a point of Russian leverage over Europe [00:11:12].
Conclusion
An invasion could deter NATO enlargement to Ukraine, provide leverage to secure Russian gains in the east, and send a powerful message about Russia’s resolve [00:11:31]. Although military costs could be high, Russia knows that external intervention is improbable [00:11:48]. The decision hinges on Russia’s objectives and its ability to withstand the longer-term political and economic effects, which may not be as severe as many perceive [00:11:55]. The threat of an invasion remains very real, and even if diplomatic efforts succeed for now, the possibility of future military action is a real prospect [00:12:10].