With the latest developments in Russia, I want to reiterate: the Kremlin isn’t playing chess, while the U.S. and West play checkers. I despise that metaphor because it encourages people to misunderstand what’s actually going on. In reality, everyone is playing chess, but Russia is making up its own rules.
What do I mean?
I’ve said this before, but one of the defining features of Vladimir Putin’s Russia is its willingness to break rules. I think we cannot disconnect this from the fact that it is not a democratic polity. Democratic leaders have to worry that unpopular decisions will lead to lost elections. Putin definitely worries about public opinion, but Russia’s government also shapes public opinion and exercises significant control over media (note what Russian state TV is saying about Ukraine).
What worries me: I think Russia understands that Western governments are heavily constrained by rules, public opinion, and domestic concerns. For that reason, the Western response to aggression against Ukraine will only be more sanctions not so different from the previous ones.
People often ask: Does Russia really want to invade Ukraine again and face the consequences? Is Putin really not afraid that Navalny will die, provoking domestic unrest and international condemnation? The risk here is that the Kremlin may feel it can withstand the consequences.
I fear they are betting that whatever happens, if Alexei Navalny dies, it will be easier than having him as a political force in the country. And that the West will do little to protect Ukraine should Russia send troops in. If you’re Kyiv or Navalny’s family, this is not encouraging.
I don’t have a perfect answer for what a stronger US/European Union response looks like. But I think it’s important to recognize that part of the challenge Russia poses to Western policymakers is that it recognizes that democracy (for all its benefits) imposes constraints on state actions.
As we’ve seen since 2014, Russia does not face those constraints to the degree that the US and EU do. And overcoming this dynamic is extremely challenging.
Would Russia tread more cautiously around Ukraine if it believed NATO troops would deploy there the moment it sent tanks over the border?
Yes, of course.
But that’s also why Ukraine is not going to get NATO membership. The member states don’t want to send in troops. It’s unpopular to send one’s own citizens to risk their lives and die in a foreign land. Why do you think Russia’s direct military involvement in Donbas was so hush-hush and there were efforts to keep the families of fallen Russian soldiers quiet?
I believe this will be one of the defining challenges for US and EU foreign policy in the future: How do you confront authoritarian states that are willing to violate international norms and use that to their advantage. It’s not unique to Russia. China has decided to settle its perceived domestic security threats through the genocide of its Uyghur and Muslim minorities. But because that takes place inside China’s borders, we don’t sense it so acutely.
With Russia — the annexation of Crimea, intervention in Donbas, the Czech ammunition depot explosion, targeted killings abroad, persecution of Navalny, and now military buildup on Ukraine’s borders — we are increasingly forced to confront it, even when we live far away.
This will be a big test for the US and EU, one I am afraid they don’t have the resolve to pass.
