The facts on the ground look ominous. Russia has deployed more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border. The US, Europe and NATO have responded by warning Moscow that there will be a price to pay if President Vladimir Putin decides to invade. The situation has become a major risk factor for the global economy, financial markets and beyond,

It’s tempting to see the events unfolding as a fait accompli for war. Diplomacy looks ineffective after Russia made demands that have largely been rejected by the West. The risk of a conflagration is gathering momentum.

Despite the elevated tensions, experts are divided on the whether a full-blown war is likely. Depending on the analyst, the situation is dire or merely set to continue as is, which is to say a smoldering battle that’s unfolds somewhere between the gray zone of low-intensity conflict and a conventional war. The Capital Spectator sees the odds tipping in favor of the former. Here’s. why.

First, let’s recognize that Putin has been able to achieve quite a lot to date merely by threatening war and intimidating Ukraine and rattling the West. As former US National Security Council official Fiona Hill wrote this week, “Putin has the US right where he wants it.” She reasons that Putin’s strategic aim is more than reversing NATO’s “open door” policy to Ukraine. Rather, “he wants to evict the United States from Europe.” That goal isn’t imminent nor is it obvious at this stage that it will come to pass any time soon, if ever. Nonetheless, Russia is trying to achieve no less and along the way Putin is throwing the Western alliance off balance through various tactical efforts. To an extent, Putin has already been successful. “His posturing and threats have set the agenda in European security debates, and have drawn our full attention,” Hill notes.

Putin has surely calculated the risks linked to a full-scale invasion of Ukraine vs. continuing the asymmetric warfare tactics that he’s deployed for years. By contrast, launching a conventional war by land and air might bring the West into closer alliance against Russia – an outcome that Putin surely wants to avoid. By comparison, continuing hybrid war – disinformation, limited military incursions and other tactics – keeps Ukraine and the West off balance and promotes dissension.

Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, observes in Foreign Affairs that “Putin’s actions suggest that his true goal is not to conquer Ukraine and absorb it into Russia but to change the post-Cold War setup in Europe’s east… If he manages to keep NATO out of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and US intermediate-range missiles out of Europe, he thinks he could repair part of the damage Russia’s security sustained after the Cold War ended. Not coincidentally, that could serve as a useful record to run on in 2024, when Putin would be up for re-election.”

Meanwhile, Putin already has a fair amount of leverage short of a new war to tip the odds in his favor for his strategic aims. Controlling vital energy supplies to Europe – Germany in particular – is a critical factor. Indeed, Russia is already the main supplier of natural gas to Europe and the recently completed Nord Stream 2 project, once it’s operational, will strengthen his influence over the Continent. That project could be threatened with a blatant attack on Ukraine.

Germany is reportedly the weak link in the Western alliance with regards to presenting a united front against Russia. “Putin’s goal is to split the Europeans, and then split Europe and the US If the impression prevails that Germany is not fully committed to a strong NATO response, he will have succeeded in paralyzing Europe and dividing the alliance,” says a leading conservative lawmaker in Germany.

Eugene Chausovsky, a nonresident fellow at the Newlines Institute, outlines five variables that he thinks define Russia’s decisions on whether to intervene militarily in the former Soviet Union sphere.

The application of this framework on military intervention suggests that a looming large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine is unlikely. However, this does not preclude alternative, nonconventional military measures by Russia. These could entail various aspects of hybrid warfare, such as covert activity, political manipulation, cyberattacks, propaganda, and misinformation—including the signaling of a potential invasion that we are seeing now. There is also the possibility of Russian military buildups elsewhere, such as weapons deployments to Kaliningrad or in countries that are friendlier to Moscow, such as Belarus.

It’s important to recognize that Putin has already demonstrated some success by instigating various conflicts that fall short of fully uniting the West against Russia. True, currently there are multiple sanctions applied on Russia by the US and Europe and more are on the table if a new war starts. But Putin has built up defenses, in part with a closer alignment with China, to survive such efforts. Although the Russian economy suffers, Putin’s willing to make that sacrifice to pursue grander aims.

Note, too, that Russia continues to destabilize a portion of south-eastern Ukraine through an ongoing war started in 2014. Putin has also retaken the Crimea. It was no small public-imaging accomplishment when, earlier this month, the head of the German navy said Russia would never return the Crimea to Ukraine and that Russia’s leader deserves respect.

Putin is not averse to going to war and we can’t fully discount this risk. He’s done so several times over the years. But a full-scale invasion of Ukraine probably creates too many threats for this calculating tactician. The odds appear to favor more of the same: hybrid warfare that creates fissures in the Western alliance without triggering a tipping point that creates a more unified anti-Russian stance from the US and Europe.

“Forging a united front with its European allies and rallying broader support should be America’s longer game” for Russia policy, Fiona Hill advises. Putin’s goal of reducing those odds appear more favorable by extending and broadening his current campaign of disinformation, asymmetric warfare and other tactics vs. launching a full-scale war in Ukraine.

---

How is recession risk evolving? Monitor the outlook with a subscription to:
The US Business Cycle Risk Report

---