Connect with us

Eastern Europe

Ukraine Crisis: Playing the Card Game Between the United States and Russia

Published

on

Some people felt the world had changed overnight after Putin declared two unique regions, namely “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic,” as independent states and despatched soldiers to conduct out “peacekeeping operations,” and an all-out heated confrontation looked imminent. In reality, the US and Russia have been putting each other to the test over the situation in Russia and Ukraine, and Putin’s actions thus far reflect a new round of testing based on the results of the previous stage of testing. There are still cards to be played by both parties.

Long ago, many levels of government in the United States claimed to have intelligence suggesting that “war is imminent.” Only by claiming that Putin “will use force” would Putin be motivated to demonstrate the “wrongness” of the US in not using force. And as long as no force is used as a result, the US’s fundamental goal has been achieved. According to Brookings Institution researcher Jessica Brandt, the US gave extensive intelligence on how Russia would construct a “false flag operation” excuse to disrupt Moscow’s plan to strike Ukraine.

Furthermore, the US must disrupt Russia’s position and create the impression that “there are American individuals in Russia and everything is under US control,” so that Putin’s priority shifts away from “catching the traitor” and toward “creating issues.” As a result, because the war did not erupt quickly, the United States first assumed that playing the first card would be effective.

However, after the US played the card, Russia refused to take it. Because Russia has the potential to investigate internal concerns whenever the US publishes reliable intelligence, the process by which the intelligence is acquired and the individuals who offer it may be disclosed. As a result, the Russians may purposefully fake a shooting and fabricate some “false information” in order to put the US intelligence infrastructure to the test. However, the Russian side may find out later.

However, the Russian side may later discover that many of the US judgments are based on external information analysis, such as predicting the future trend of the situation based on satellite images of military mobilization and predicting intentions based on the time when the information was released. Take, for example, Donetsk. The pro-Russian military began evacuating the villagers on February 16, but the crucial information was not made public until the following weekend. The timing of the speech, according to the US, is meant to create a “false flag operation,” hinting that war is pretty close.

Following Russia’s clear appeals to the United States and the West, the Biden administration and major European states indicated sanctions for Russia’s likely actions. Finally, as if on cue, a flood of potential fines appeared. Among them are the inclusion of significant Russian banks such as Sberbank and VTB on the US Treasury Department’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” (SDN) list, as well as Russia’s prospective removal from the “Global Interbank Financial Telecommunication Association.”

(SWIFT) system, to financial measures such as freezing Russia’s foreign loans and even the ability to use US dollar settlements; from a total embargo on Russian products containing American technology, to technological measures such as disrupting the supply chain required for Russia’s advanced technology; and more.

There are targeted sanctions against Putin’s inner circle, as well as military methods and measures to assemble armed rebels to engage in guerrilla warfare in Russian-controlled territories if Russia ever seized Ukraine. After many games, the White House’s “Tiger Team” thinks that these penalties will impose significant costs on Putin’s force deployment.

Russia still didn’t want the cards after the US played it this time, but instead dealt with the cards that were given to it. Because, once the cards are displayed on a large scale, it will be rather obvious which cards are still in the hands of the US and which are not. Russia made it clear early on that the US would not send troops to the front lines of the conflict. Aside from the sanctions’ lack of suitable objectives, the Biden administration’s haste to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan a few months earlier gives evidence.

The Russian side acknowledges that the symbolic act of “crossing the Russian-Ukrainian border” is extremely important to the US, but it appears that “how to cross the border” is not fully specified, leaving opportunity for Russia’s next card down the line. Furthermore, because Russia has been arranging a deck of cards and is cautious to show them, it has not revealed too many chips in its hands, and there are naturally a restricted amount of combinations that may be played.

In this round, Russia first permitted China to play the “Winter Olympics” card – after all, China has assisted Russia in blocking quite a few “excellent cards” during the Trump administration, giving Russia an unorthodox strategy. Then, using the information and chips gained in earlier rounds, Russia will play a huge hand to test the true pressure that the US and the West are ready to accept. Because the US is primarily concerned with ensuring that “Russia cannot breach the line,” it simply states that the border will be changed and that the Ukraine region will first become “independent.”

From Russia’s standpoint, it is not necessary to send forces on “peacekeeping” missions after the Russian-Ukrainian border has been crossed. When the Russians played it’s hand, Biden merely issued an ordinary executive order prohibiting US corporations from engaging in new economic activities in Ukraine’s two different regions, such as investment, trade, and banking. In reality, there is just a little overlap between these two zones. The following day, the US government implemented more specific sanctions.

A response like this from the US contradicts the previous statement that “severe consequences will be implemented as soon as Russia takes action.” This is comparable to how, when the Russian side played a card, the US side just pressed a small card to respond since it had not planned ahead of time how to deal with it. As a result, Russia took advantage of the situation and played the next card, “sending forces to preserve peace and carrying out particular military actions in local locations,” putting the US’ bottom line to the test once more.

If the comparable sanctions are too low, it is like eating rotten fruit; if the penalties are too strong, it may have a disastrous impact on the domestic economy, which is already suffering from high inflation but is still infected by the virus. The election chances have weakened significantly. Further importantly, the US has previously declared that the Russian army has been in eastern Ukrainian soil for some time, thus there might be other explanations for whether or not more Russian soldiers arrive in the region. The United States has lost its desire to fight against the odds for a variety of reasons.

Of course, even if he can’t afford it right now, Biden will try to make a move. After all, the domestic opposition Republican Party has been eyeing it for quite some time, waiting for the Biden administration to make mistakes and appear foolish on the Russia-Ukraine issue in order to use it as hype material for the midterm elections, in order to win more seats in Congress and even reclaim two senators. However, because Biden’s current foreign policy is mostly motivated by domestic issues, the possibility of a symbolic move outweighs the situation of dividing apart the cards in his hand and only playing this hand, which is akin to shooting oneself in the foot.

When the Russian army began to advance into Ukraine from the ground, air, and network, and artillery fire and deaths began to occur, the game appeared to have changed fundamentally. The US continues to tighten the quality and number of sanctions, but Putin appears to have stopped paying attention to the cards the US is playing. He looks to be aware that the opposition team will only play one card, ready to strike. However, Russia has not yet won, and the might of the United States means that it must have more and better cards than Russia. However, America’s current shame is mostly the result of playing bad hands before to the start of these rounds.

Assuming that the current global poker game is reduced to a three-pronged confrontation between the US and the West, Russia, and China, the best situation in such a system may be for the other two parties to shoot each other while still leaving enough strategic space and flexibility to deal with the region. The second best case scenario is that one of the parties joins you to compete with the third; the worst case scenario is that the other two parties decide to join forces with the third.

Russia initially saw the intensification of competition between China and the US and expected to quickly enter the first situation; however, the Biden administration has consistently ignored China’s positive reputation and forcefully tried to push China to Russia’s side, despite China’s high-profile willingness to cooperate with the US.

As a result of pressuring China to accept the second requirement, the US found itself in the third worst position. Some may claim that the United States is neither alone and helpless since it has the AUKUS tripartite mechanism, the QUAD quadrilateral system, the Five Eyes Alliance, the Seven-Nation Alliance, NATO, and the European Union, among other things.

War, although being a card game, is not for children. It’s filled with gunpowder smoke and comes at an outrageous cost. Some of the cards in decision-makers’ hands may represent their life. The international card game does not have to be a “zero-sum game.” To enhance the image of a large country in the new era of opportunity, all parties must calm down and return to the negotiating table. May the world be at peace, and may humanity never again gamble with other people’s lives.

Raihan Ronodipuro was awarded the Chinese MOFCOM Scholarship and earned a Master of Law in International Relations from the School of International and Public Affairs at Jilin University in China. He serves as an Associate Researcher in the Department of Politics and Security at the Center for Indonesia-China Studies (CICS).

Continue Reading
Comments

Eastern Europe

A Weapon of War: Rapes in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Published

on

Warfare has always involved violent activity. It is the state-sanctioned, societally accepted form of murder determining which nation-state or non-state actor has power over an enemy. Like any area of society, however, warfare is governed by a series of laws and regulations (commonly known as the Law of Land Warfare) being codified in international law in 1899, 1907, and 1929 and by individual nation-states afterward. While these rules are often followed by at least one entity in a military conflict, there usually is a violation of the Law of Land Warfare in any military action.

While every violation is incredibly serious and important, one that often stands out in military conflicts is sexual assault or rape.

While it is one of (if not the) most abhorrent criminal actions known to man, rape has and always will be a commonality in warfare and violent conflicts. It is practically as old as warfare itself. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “… [wartime] rape was long considered an unfortunate but inevitable accompaniment of war—the result of the prolonged sexual deprivation of troops and insufficient military discipline” with the Second World War being a prime example of wartime rape on both sides of the conflict. Until the prevalence of international law in the late 20th century, wartime rape was “mischaracterized and dismissed by military and political leaders—in other words, those in a position to stop it—as a private crime, a sexual act, the ignoble conduct of one occasional soldier, or, worse still, it has been accepted precisely because it is so commonplace”, according to academics writing in Johns Hopkins University’s SAIS Review of International Affairs.

Partly due to an increase in unconventional conflicts involving non-state actors, “the international community began to recognize rape as a weapon and strategy of war, and efforts were made to prosecute such acts under existing international law” including Article 27 of the Geneva Convention and multiple declarations by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights, the Fourth World Conference on Women, the International Criminal Court, and the UN Security Council. These declarations and codifications further allowed for the protection of men, women, and children in combat zones from rape in addition to making crimes of sexual assault eligible to be considered as crimes against humanity or war crimes.

While international law is clear and the penalties for such actions heavy, nation-states and non-state actors can choose to disregard such laws. This is best exemplified in the current era with the Ukraine-Russia Conflict.

While most persons first heard of the rape of Ukrainians by Russian troops in mid to late April of 2022, roughly two months into the invasion, reports and developments on wartime rape by Russian troops was circulating heavily. The UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), looking at information received and vetted between the 22nd of February and 26th of March, reported there were “heightened risks of conflict related sexual violence (CRSV)” in addition to “a high number of women and girls [who are feeling Ukraine] face high risk of human trafficking and sexual exploitation”. While these reports were based on secondary sources or “made by alleged witnesses”, it is worth noting that Ukrainian law enforcement and the Prosecutor General of Ukraine all began investigating multiple reports of sexual assault of Ukrainians by Russian troops and that, generally, victims of rape may not report for a variety of reasons.

Other international entities, including Human Rights Watch, the New York Times, and BBC News, all reported further allegations of rape by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, yet these were relatively overshadowed by the news of active combat.

One of the first major outlets to report on this was The Guardian on 4 April 2022 which documented reports from victims and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on rape in Ukraine. Interviewing Kateryna Cherepakha, the president of sexual assault charity La Strada Ukraine, “We have had several calls to our emergency hotline from women and girls seeking assistance, but in most cases it’s been impossible to help them physically. We haven’t been able to reach them because of the fighting … Rape is an underreported crime and stigmatised issue even in peaceful times. I am worried that what we learn about is just going to be the tip of the iceberg”.

Throughout April and into May, rapes in Ukraine were reported on more heavily as victims, Ukrainian officials, and every day Ukrainians were speaking up. This drew the attention of many international entities including the International Criminal Court which launched “a war crimes investigation”, citing the rapes as being a key piece of evidence, and the European Parliament which condemned the use of rape as a weapon. The UN’s special representative on sexual violence in war also received “reports, not yet verified” concerning the sexual assault of men and boys throughout Ukraine stating “It’s hard for women and girls to report [rape] because of stigma amongst other reasons, but it’s often even harder for men and boys to report … we have to create that safe space for all victims to report cases of sexual violence”. The UN as a whole has demanded the allegations “be independently investigated to ensure justice and accountability”.

Throughout this military endeavor, Russia has denied allowing the rape of civilians (or any such war crimes) to occur, these denials being bolstered by various American and Western podcasters and questionable news sites. While Russia and other Putin apologists can try to deny such war crimes or illegal violations of the law of land warfare is taking place, others experienced in the field of sexual assault and human rights have contested this. Hugh Williamson with Human Rights Watch (HRW), speaking to CBC Radio, said HRW was “being very cautious … It’s taken us some time to piece it together, to make sure we are absolutely sure it is true and verifiable. We’re not saying this is very widespread, but we worry that it could be”.

While it is still quite difficult to ascertain what exactly is occurring in Ukraine, given the fact that a full on war is being exercised, it is likely to believe that some manner of war crimes, including sexual assault, is occurring. The fact that Russia has historically engaged in misinformation campaigns, knowingly spread false information in regards to the Ukraine crisis, and in the past engaged in war crimes throughout Eastern Europe in the post-Cold War era all indicate strongly that Russia can and will do whatever possible to try and conceal any negative news or obscure any real actions occurring.

Looking at this from a legal perspective, the case for Russian culpability in regards to war crimes and particularly sexual assaults in Ukraine is already being made. With the UN’s special representative on sexual violence in war accurately asserting “Today’s documentation is tomorrow’s prosecution”, proving such crimes will be difficult. Speaking to Dara Kay Cohen, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, NPR reported, “It is very rare to ever have smoking gun evidence that rape was ordered from the top down … There is some degree of accountability, but it is rare. But I think that that does not imply, however, that we shouldn’t be doing our best to collect all of the documentation that we possibly can in order to potentially hold perpetrators accountable”.

Proving or disproving sexual assault in wartime is a difficult task, even more so given the fact that the armed conflict is still occurring. It is without question that there is animosity between the Western world and Russia, which makes there a certain degree of speculation about how prevalent these assaults are. However, at this point, one must look at the facts on the ground.

It is very well documented that multiple Ukrainians are reporting assaults from a wide variety of locations and their stories all follow a similar tone common in military conflicts. The forensic information already collected by independent Ukrainian doctors, prosecutors, and the UN who examine the bodies of those deceased indicates multiple assaults by Russian troops. Intercepted telephone calls from the family of Russian soldiers to the soldiers currently taking part in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also indicate a condoning of such illegal and brutal activities.

At this point, it is undeniable that these reports are impossible to ignore with the forensic, eyewitness, technical, and historical evidence all painting a sinister picture of rape in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

The Media Fog of War: Propaganda in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Published

on

The current conflict between Russia and Ukraine has once again opened up the old wounds of east vs. west, continuing the long-established tradition of distrust and sometimes even open hatred from these two centers of power. This can be seen across the spectrum of media outlets in the west along with their counterparts in the east, as both sides push forth propaganda and favorable coverage so as to always show their side in a favorable light. With western media outlets, their coverage of the war has been very positive for the Ukrainians while showing the exact opposite when considering Russians. Western media quickly picks up Ukrainian propaganda pieces and repeats them for their audiences at home, who then take to social media to gloat over Russian losses and embarrassments. 

Stories like the “Ghost of Kyiv,” the Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island, and others which have later proven to be inaccurate or not based in truth spread like wildfire across media outlets (Thompson, New York Times, Washington Post, etc). Certainly, a story about a Ukrainian fighter pilot shooting down several Russian jets is noteworthy and a country facing assaults from a greater power needs to boost morale every chance it gets. However, the willingness to circulate the Ghost of Kyiv tale across western media outlets displayed a clear bias for the Ukrainian side of the war in the west and, even though many have poked holes in the myth of this mysterious fighter pilot, people still disregard its “fake newsiness.” Thompson pointed out that some users on social media shared a willingness to believe in the propaganda, even knowing that it was made up: “if the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope,” remarked one user on Twitter. This set a dangerous precedent as truth became a casualty in the war in favor of people wanting to simply find stories that would support their favored narrative and consequently ignore more accurate reporting.   

Propaganda can be a useful tool for any country fighting to protect itself, but it can also lead to the spreading of falsehoods abroad and even lead some westerners to become inspired to take up arms in a conflict they probably should not get embedded within. Over 20,000 foreign fighters have signed up to fight for Ukraine in an International Brigade after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a call for help. Many of these people have little to no combat experience but were persuaded to fight for Ukraine so that they could be on “the right side of history” or combat injustice in a conflict that has been lauded as a brave underdog battle between the aggressor state Russia – longtime enemy of the west – and the small “noble” nation of Ukraine (Llana, Christian Science Monitor). Propaganda tales amplified by the media are largely responsible for bringing these foreign soldiers into a complex situation that they are not prepared for, ultimately risking an exacerbation of the war rather than a resolution of the conflict.

Stories like these have fortified in the minds of western audiences a strong dislike for Russia, its citizens, and its military. On social media channels, people were quick to put up symbols associated with Ukraine, most commonly, the Ukrainian flag, to show their support for its struggle as many, especially those in America, seemed to instinctively root for any underdog in a war. Support for Ukraine, though, naturally leads to discrimination toward Russians. Disregard for the suffering of Russian soldiers, a willingness to ignore the reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the ostracizing of Russian citizens from the rest of the world – whether physically via travel or economically via sanctions – will have negative repercussions for the international community for years to come. Many celebrate every victory that Ukraine scores against Russia, heedless of the human cost of the war in general. This may very well deepen the divide between east and west before the war ends and force many average Russian citizens into a retributive hatred for those in Europe and North America who treated their country so harshly when they themselves were powerless to stop or prevent the Ukraine-Russia war.  

Russian businesses have also been subject to discrimination in the west. Companies like Starbucks, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Electric and McDonald’s all announced that they were temporarily suspending their operations in Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine (Williams, Fox10 Phoenix). Sanctions laid down on Russia in an effort to stagnate its economy also extend to banks, legislators, and even oligarchs but will leave a much more powerful and profound effect on the general populace. This punishment will trickle down to Russian citizenry who have played no part in the conflict at all but will suffer the most from these economic sanctions, simply because they live in the aggressor country.  

This negativity against Russia and its people already existed prior to the Ukrainian-Russian war, but was reignited by the conflict. Many people in the west find it easy to fall into the camp of attacking the long-standing “enemy” due to the history left behind by the Cold War, by the psychologically-imprinted suspicion of those across the sea who threatened us with nuclear weapons for so long. In places like the U.S., there almost seems to exist a willingness to not hear the other side’s point of view, a refusal to acknowledge the sufferings of very human foes who are not so different from their adversaries. The question of why many Americans would even feel the need to take a position in a conflict that has little bearing on their everyday lives could have more than one answer. The need to cheer on an underdog in a pitched struggle, the old hatred left over by the Cold War, or possibly a need to satisfy the age-old good guy vs. bad guy complex which has been hardwired into many people’s minds through television, movies, literature, and other parts of our pop culture. For many, there exists a need to satisfy one’s own moral superiority, a need to establish good from evil. The recent conflict between Ukraine and Russia has given many the outlet they seek for this vindication.  

The question of whether this treatment of Russia is justified or not lies primarily with an individual’s perception of the country as a belligerent at the international level or a nation trying to clearly define where its sphere of influence begins and ends. Russia invading Ukraine and starting a war rife with human tragedy on both sides was not done simply because Russia as a state is a villain or it gets its kicks by starting wars randomly. A deeper examination of the “whys” surrounding Russia’s invasion is desperately needed, where the proffered reasons are given legitimate analytical consideration. So far, this type of analysis has not been done. Ultimately, why it matters is because reaching into that understanding may help prevent a country like Russia in the future from feeling the need to invade at all.  

Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

When Will the War in Ukraine End?

Published

on

Predicting the beginning and the end of a war is always a difficult task.

Many people would think of the usage of models and data, which would most likely refer to data on combat power, staff computing operations etc. A more advanced approach for some would include the super-complex model such as war games. Overall, the use of these methods depends on the target audience. The approach and delivery are different for the media or academia, in which the use of data would be necessary for the audience to understand and verify the forecasted results.

If the target audience is neither the media nor the academia, the use of different approaches would be necessary. The results would be tested on the battlefield rather than relying on statistics in the decision-making circles. A practical example given here is making predictions through information analysis.

The focus of such analysis, is naturally, information. The first important piece of information about when the war in Ukraine will end is to refer to the news from Moscow that it plans to end the war in September 2022. The second piece of important news is that Russia has about 1,200 to 1,300 missiles in its inventory.

Combining these two pieces of information allows us to do a simple analysis. If we calculate the average number of missiles that Russia uses on the Ukrainian battlefield every day, we find that at least 300 missiles are launched in a month by the Russian army. Now we are in the month of May, and after 5 months, Russia’s missile inventory will be exhausted. This means that, by October 2022, the Russian military will have almost no effective weapons to attack Ukraine. By then, of course, or maybe at a sooner date, Russia will have to attempt to end the war.

A question that naturally follows this is, can’t the Russian army use other methods to continue the war?

The answer is no. Because the Russian Air Force has gradually lost its advantage in the Ukrainian sky, if the air force is used to penetrate the battlefield, the losses will be heavy. Hence, the offensive force that Russia can rely on now is only to project missiles from combat aircraft outside the line of sight. Another approach is to use the small but large number of World War II period artillery to bombard indiscriminately, yet the areas assaulted will be ranging from zoos to children’s playgrounds. Therefore, the Russian army seems to have fewer battlefield options than what most people imagine.

Based on some key information, together with an analysis on the information of Russia’s missile inventory, the conclusion is clear. All indications point toward the end of the war in Ukraine from around September to October 2022.

The accuracy of the forecast will be verified as the event unfolds, and this is positivist style of thinking.

For some people, models and data are the only way to forecast the future, rather than simpler methods like information analysis. In this situation, the outcome may be determined with the use of all available data after the war is over. However, we now have a clear and convincing conclusion used to judge the prospects of war.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending