How Will the West Respond to the Russian Operation in Ukraine?*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

The West is outraged. Russia dared to violate the global political order and begin an operation to demilitarize Ukraine. In the coming hours we can expect an announcement of "infernal sanctions” against our country for the “invasion of Ukraine.” What are the West's possible responses to Russia’s actions? Which of these will eventually be used and what will be the consequences?

On Feb. 24, Vladimir Putin announced that a special military operation will be conducted in Donbass, essentially to force Ukraine to make peace, to stop the routine shelling of cities and villages in the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics.

However, the meaning of the operation is, in fact, considerably greater. It needs to become not simply an operation to force Ukraine to peace, but also an operation to force the West to consciousness. To some extent, it could even be a sobering kick, which should either make the United States grow up or send America into a serious crisis.

Done Playing

Russia is a polite country; it has tried to refrain from lashing out for a long time. For years, it has been persuading the Western partners to respect the documents signed by themselves (for example, the strategic stability agreements) and by the Ukrainians (the Minsk agreements). For months, Russia negotiated with Joe Biden, who seemed to realize the importance of dialogue with Moscow.

During all of these months, Russia tried to convince American partners to consider Russian concerns, to guarantee our safety and to build an effective, inclusive security system in Europe together. And for this entire month it heard mantras about “NATO’s open borders,” about “the inadmissibility of Russian interference in the internal affairs of the alliance” and the fact that NATO is a defensive bloc. (Yugoslavia and Libya, of course, don’t agree with this.) Finally, we've heard that the real threat to European safety comes from “aggressive, revanchist” Russia that “dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union.”

As a result, desperate to convince the Western partners of the necessity to start a real negotiation process, Moscow took the last resort and set fire to the current world order so the West will have to build a new one together with Russia.

However, the demolition is not a simple process and requires great technological skill. In starting an operation in Ukraine, Russia didn’t simply show that it is ready to deliver on its threats (the Kremlin promised a technological military response if the negotiations with the U.S. failed) and not only demonstrated a readiness to escalate, but it has also brought the Americans to an extremely difficult fork in the road. After all, the Americans basically have three options of how to react to Moscow’s options; all of which hurt their own interests.

To Invade with Anything

The first option is to bring U.S. or NATO troops into Ukraine. True to his informal commitments to protect democracies from autocracy, Biden, with the stroke of a pen, sends the world’s best American soldiers to defend the Ukrainian administration (and the citizens of Kyiv, in passing). Perhaps he even personally arrives in the Ukrainian capital in order to designate American security guarantees in person and keep Russian troops from entering the citadel of Eastern European democracy.

The Americans rejected this option long ago; they have even recently reminded us that this will not happen. The reason is very simple: In the words of Biden himself, the U.S. is not going to risk the possibility of a clash with the Russian army, which could start a third world war.

And it would make sense to start one if we were talking about the invasion of California or New Jersey. But, no, the U.S. offered to risk a third world war because of Ukraine — a country whose protection is supported by only 60% of Biden’s voters and less than half of Donald Trump’s. (By the way, Trump has already praised Putin for recognizing the LPR and the DPR.)

The second option is in to impose sanctions instead of sending troops. Evil, all-encompassing and crushing for the Russian economy. This is precisely the route that the Americans are taking. Apparently, in the near future, Congress will will adopt Sen. Bob Menendez' package of "infernal" sanctions against the Russian financial system and tech imports. The largest banks will be hit, and a number of companies will lose opportunities for international cooperation and development. Some even talk about cutting Russia off from the SWIFT system, as well as the closure of the Nord Stream 2.

Anything To Lose

Yes, sanctions are extremely serious for the economy; however, the U.S. will also suffer. And not only because these total sanctions push Russia to embrace Beijing (after that, the path to global leadership will be as comfortable as possible for China). The economic sanctions against Russia will also impact the Western economy.

The German government has already announced its refusal to purchase Russian gas — but then where will they buy it? Chancellor Olaf Scholz froze the certification of the Nord Stream 2, but only under due to the outbreak of war in Ukraine. The security of the transit of Russian gas through the Ukrainian GTS is in question. As a result, the price of gas in Europe has tripled.

And this is all without accounting for the fact that Russia isn’t North Korea or Iran. It may consider serious sanctions as a casus belli incident and provoke a serious crisis in the global economy. The U.S. will be responsible for all this as a global leader. Biden doesn’t need such such prospects with midterm congressional elections on the horizon.

Finally, there is also the third option — to calm down, to accept Russia’s operation in Ukraine as a lesson learned, to exhale and to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia about a new security system. It would seem the most appropriate choice, the most adult option. However, even here there are pitfalls in the destruction of a global order based on American will and dominance.

The U.S., Russia and Ukraine do not live in a vacuum. Oher countries are carefully watching what they do. If the U.S. permits Russia’s action to change the status quo without punishment, then there is no guarantee that other states will not follow Moscow's path tomorrow. They will also want to spit on Washington's position and reconsider the status quo in their own regions.

For example, China, which is quietly observing the best way to retake Taiwan by force. If comrades in Beijing see that American determination has cracked, then the People's Liberation Army of China is quite capable of starting to cross the Taiwan Strait.

Therefore, yes, the path of negotiation was the only optimal path — until the chess pieces were swept off the board. Now the U.S. must choose between bad, horrible and catastrophic options to respond. Or turn to Moscow and ask to organize, together, some other way out of the situation that will not lead to the loss of American face.