President Biden and Vladimir Putin. Illustrated Getty Images, iStock
When Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, I expected the country to be defeated quickly and easily. The fact that Ukraine managed to defend itself and respond so impressively is a tribute to the fighting spirit of the country’s people, to the courageous leadership of President Vladimir Zelensky and to the support of NATO and the United States, which sent large quantities of aid and weapons.
According to several recent press releases, the United States has also shared intelligence with Kyiv, which has allowed the Ukrainian military to sink at least one Russian warship and kill several Russian generals.
I fully support the policy of providing intelligence to Ukraine to assist in its fight, including intelligence, which is inflicting painful damage on Russian forces. It is also good for Russia to know that we have played a significant role in allowing Ukraine to defend itself.
But it is very bad for this information to be made public. I do not blame the journalists who reported it. If high-ranking and reliable government officials reveal to a reporter information that deserves news, it is usually considered acceptable to publish it. I blame the officials – especially after the Biden administration made it clear that it did not allow the disclosure. This is a person or group of people bragging to journalists about their role in hurting Russia. This is extremely reckless and could lead to an extremely dangerous escalation of the conflict, which ends with the involvement of the United States and NATO in a direct military confrontation with Russia.
The problem with these stories, again, is not what they reveal. Russia’s invasion of its neighbor is the most aggressive military action undertaken in Europe since 1945, potentially putting NATO on the brink of a powerful threat to its east. This requires a strong response. If Ukraine was a member of NATO, we would be at war with Russia now. But since Ukraine is not in NATO, something less than a direct military confrontation is required.
The story continues
What the Biden administration has chosen is a form of proxy war in which Ukraine fights, chooses targets and fires weapons, but we often supply weapons and provide intelligence that allows Ukraine to choose targets wisely and accurately. This demonstrates the determination of the United States and NATO, while keeping us at least one step away from the direct involvement of Russian forces. It is good for Russia to know that our intelligence is strong enough to put their warships and senior military at serious risk – and that we are ready to share that intelligence with Ukraine. Both could lead to de-escalation, as Russia’s military command and President Vladimir Putin face the reality that it may be impossible for them to achieve anything beyond relatively minimal military targets.
But such a de-escalation becomes much less likely if America’s role in inflicting pain on the Russian military is publicly known. This is because much of the policy, even under authoritarian regimes, involves governing governance. In order to sell the policy of de-escalation to the Russian people, Putin must be able to present it as at least a partial victory. Otherwise, he will risk looking weak and opening up to a collapse in support and / or a coup attempt that could overthrow him and even die. Putin’s humiliation could also fuel patriotic anger among ordinary Russians, who could eventually seek revenge in the form of a bailout against NATO.
This is how praising reporters for the role of the United States in helping Ukraine inflict maximum damage on Russian forces could trigger an escalation spiral that culminates in a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia.
This is something that the Biden administration, at least at the highest level, seems to be aware of. But then why are some employees still blabbering on to reporters? Author Yuval Levin writes about the tendency in recent years to treat people who work in large institutions as platforms for personal attention and applause, rather than as structures that limit individual behavior and direct it to the goals the institution serves. I suspect this is happening here: insiders who know about our secret efforts on behalf of Ukraine have decided to brag about it to journalists, believing that it will improve their image in the relentless hierarchy of official Washington status.
This is nothing new. It took place on a small scale within the ring road long before Levin noticed its spread in the capital and in American culture more widely. But the leaks in Ukraine are much worse than the norm – because of their potential to upset the already very fragile relations between Washington and Moscow. It’s one thing for an intern in Congress to talk to a reporter about the state of the Capitol Hill budget negotiations. It is quite another for a Pentagon or ANS official to try to impress a journalist by saying that the United States was helping to blow up the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet during the war.
The Biden administration has all sorts of reverse channels to communicate our role to Russia in a way that will not destabilize the situation by making it public, thus putting Putin in a situation where he feels the need to avenge Russia’s damaged honor. . Whether and how to do this is the president’s call. This is certainly not something that someone has to decide on their own without permission.
If we are not careful, we will end up in World War III – and all because some boastful official thought it would be fun to appear in front of someone in The New York Times.
You may like more
Trump’s increasingly expensive lawsuits: “witch hunt” or a little justice?
5 cartoons about Roe’s expired draft
A Nepalese climber broke his own world record on Mount Everest
Add Comment