Today, Explained - Why Ukraine has to fight Russia alone

Episode Date: March 2, 2022

And how the fight might end. This episode was produced by Hady Mawajdeh, edited by Matt Collette, engineered by Efim Shapiro, fact-checked by Laura Bullard and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit Superstore.ca to get started. Madam Speaker, the President of the United States. President Joe Biden delivered his very first State of the Union last night. It was the first pandemic State of the Union, believe it or not. Last year, COVID-19 kept us apart.

This year, we're finally together again. Tonight... He had to talk about inflation. I think I have a better idea to fight inflation. Lower your costs, not your wages. But he spent a whole lot of time talking about Ukraine and Russia. Six days ago, Russia's Vladimir Putin sought to shake the very foundations of the free world, thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways.

But he badly miscalculated. Biden shouted out his sanctions, said he was crippling Russian banks, investigating Russian oligarchs, supplying military aid to Ukraine. He said everything but the United States will join Ukraine to help defeat Russia. In fact, he said the opposite. But let me be clear. Our forces are not engaged and will not engage in the conflict with

Russian forces in Ukraine. Our forces are not going to Europe to fight Ukraine, but to defend our NATO allies in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west. Biden just got the country out of one forever war, and he clearly isn't trying to get the country into another one. But a lot of people are struggling with that, that nagging feeling that the world is leaving Ukraine all alone to fight tyranny. We've heard this question over and over from listeners and friends and family. Why isn't anyone going to fight alongside Ukraine?

Well, the two-word answer is nuclear weapons. We asked Zach Beecham at Vox to help us understand the answer. Russia has them. In fact, they have about 6,000 of them. Russia, together with the United States, control 90% of the world's nukes. And a war between the two of them could very well mean, and I want to be really, really clear about this. I'm not being hyperbolic. A U.S.-Russia nuclear war would be an extinction-level event, most likely. So the reason that the U.S.

is not getting involved, as much as it sympathizes with the Ukrainian plate, is that any direct conflict between the United States and Russia risks probably an accidental escalation into World War III and nuclear war. Nobody wants that. But when you get into a shooting war, things can spiral out of control very quickly, and the risks are way too high for anyone to seriously contemplate them. And that just isn't a deterrent for the United States. That's a deterrent for any NATO nation, right? Because the whole deal with NATO is, if one country goes, we all go. Correct.

And this was the guarantee that if Stalin or Khrushchev had attacked in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States would come again across the Atlantic to protect Europe. That has happened one time after September 11th. It has never happened in the context of a major land power war between major powers because the whole point of NATO is to deter a conflict like this. NATO exists not because the U.S. is envisioning a war with Russia or some kind of aggressive invasion or wants one to happen. It's because it wants to stitch together a bunch of Western powers and did during the Cold War to present a united front to prevent Russia from thinking, or then the Soviet Union, from thinking it could take part of Europe. NATO has expanded

after the end of the Cold War because a lot of countries in Eastern Europe were concerned about Russia invading them even after the Soviet Union because Russia has a long history of imperialism that predated Soviet times. Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. We welcome them into the ranks of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And it turns out Ukraine is now showing why those fears were quite valid. Regarding the future alliance, our aspirations and missions, you know them perfectly well. We have some desire in our country, and in addition to this, we have a war in the East. Yes, we would like to join NATO, and it will protect our integrity. Regardless, the entire situation is an extremely combustible one, and any kind of direct conflict between NATO and Russian troops is too dangerous to contemplate.

The one thing I really do want to say about this is the United States and its allies are doing an astonishing amount right now. The degree and the severity of economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia and the amount of military aid going to Ukraine is not a nothing, right? It's not a U.S. and a Western world staying out of the conflict. These sanctions are devastating Russia's economy. So more details on the economic moves taken over the weekend against Russia. The U.S., Canada, and European allies are cutting off key Russian banks from the SWIFT global banking system. The move is seen as the harshest financial sanction imposed so far on Russia. Some assets within Russia's

central bank are being frozen, a move made in coordination with allies. Lines coming fast and thick, really a quickly moving situation. But I do want to get your initial thought on this. Bank of Russia, again, their key rate is moving to 20%, had been a 9.5%. They're saying that this is necessary to make deposits attractive. With the ruble sinking against the dollar, foreign reserves frozen, and a ban on foreign dealings with Russian businesses, France's finance minister this morning saying the West intends to collapse Russia's economy. I don't have that much money. This woman tells me the ATM didn't work for her, but she was able to line up and get cash from the teller. It seems that their entire financial system is on the brink of collapse right now.

And it's not just the United States imposing these sanctions. A lot of people are getting on board, including, you know, notoriously neutral Switzerland. Right. Like, this is a united Europe in a way that we've never seen. For the first time ever, the European Union will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack. This is a watershed moment. Germany has backed down on an initial refusal to send weapons to support Ukraine as it battles the Russian invasion. Berlin has now agreed to a major armaments delivery, including anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. The policy shift brings Germany into line with other Western allies supplying weapons

to Ukraine. We will invest more than 2% of our GDP in defence every year from now on. Like, I want to be clear, this is Germany rearming, right? A tectonic shift in global politics that at any other time would have been completely unthinkable. And yet it's happening. It's happening under a left-wing German government. This war is a catastrophe for Ukraine, but it will also turn out to be a catastrophe for Russia. And one poll showed that 79% of Germans approve rebuilding the military,

and that is directly a result of Putin's actions. That being said, all of these sort of crippling sanctions and historic sanctions coupled with military aid to Ukraine isn't deterring Russia. They're not cowering. They're doubling down and trying to enter the capital. How does this escalate for all those countries coming to Ukraine's aid right now? So there are a few things that could be done in terms of escalation. There are generally more ways to step up sanctions. You can start targeting the Russian oil and gas sector,

though that's a mutually assured destruction scenario because then oil and gas get a lot more expensive in Europe and in the U.S. The International Energy Agency says all 31 member countries have agreed to release 60 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves. On the military front, you can have a scenario where not only is the West providing military

assistance to the Ukrainian military, but helping create the conditions under which after Russia successfully occupies Ukraine, if it in fact does that, that there's a Ukrainian insurgency that's well supplied. So if the West wants to essentially bankroll the creation of a Ukrainian insurgency, it could and very well might. There's an active debate about this in the Biden administration right now. That's in the event that Russia wins, right, which still seems very likely given how much they outgun the Ukrainians, but it's not inevitable. And if Ukraine continues its strong military performance so far, and the Russians collapse in a way that seemed unthinkable just

a few days ago, then Western intervention will have played a significant role in that, and future escalation won't be needed. Now, Russia could escalate in all sorts of ways, and that's the really scary scenario. It's not outside the realm of possibility. And that's the really scary scenario. It's not outside the realm of possibility. Russian use of what are called tactical nuclear weapons, which are a little bit smaller than the big city destroyers they're used to thinking of.

They're designed for battlefield use to annihilate large numbers of enemy troops in one fell swoop. Would Putin really use them? He practiced a week ago, overseeing exercises of Russia's strategic deterrence forces. Typically unsubtle hints to America and NATO not to stand in his way over Ukraine. That could happen in Ukraine if they feel like they're losing in conventional terms. Is that why Volodymyr Zelensky is asking that the US and NATO declare parts of Ukraine a no-fly zone? As far as a no-fly zone is concerned, it would help a lot. This is not about dragging NATO countries into war. The truth is everyone has long since been dragged into a war,

and definitely not by Ukraine, but by Russia. No. So that's to tip the balance of the conventional war. You know that Office episode where Michael Scott stands in the middle of the office and he declares, I declare bankruptcy! Right, like, people think a no-fly zone is like that.

You declare no-fly zone, and it does not work that way. What it is, is that you put your own aircraft in that area and you say, you cannot fly here and if you do fly in here, we will shoot you down.

You police the fly zone. Correct. If the West were to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine, it could very decisively tip the balance in Ukraine's favor. And that would be the point of the intervention, to defeat the Russian invasion. It could, hypothetically. I'm not saying it would.

But a Russian loss of the skies and an inability to establish air superiority over the long run would be very, very dangerous for the Russians. But that's why they wouldn't just accede to it, which means it would involve shooting down Russian planes. And that means World War III. It means full-on conflict between the NATO alliance and Russia. And that the risks of that escalating to nuclear conflict, they're not 100%, but they're way, way, way, way, way higher than zero. More with Zach when we're back.

Support for Today Explained comes from Ramp. Thank you. You can go to ramp.com slash explained, ramp.com slash explained, r-a-m-p.com slash explained. Cards issued by Sutton Bank, member FDIC, terms and conditions apply. BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, There's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk.

An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager Ontario only Please play responsibly If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you please contact Connex Ontario

at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario ZAK, it seems pretty clear that Volodymyr Zelensky could die in this conflict with Russia. He seems pretty clear that that's a potential outcome here. Actually, maybe even a likely one, which is depressing to think about, but it very well could be. Is there any chance that Vladimir Putin dies in this conflict?

Yeah, there is, but probably not in the ways that you're thinking of, right? It's not like any external power is going to assassinate him. It's not like Ukraine's going to, like, poison him? Yeah, they don't have the capacities to do that. They don't have the international reach to do that. And it's not necessarily clear that would be a good idea on their part. One possibility is that Putin is in ill health. We don't actually know very much about his health status.

It's been interesting that he's, in photographs that we've seen of him, he's been so far away from other Russian leaders that appears to be a fear of COVID? Like he has an almost paranoid fear of COVID. Does that speak to the fact that he has some kind of, you know, complicating health concern that maybe would make a COVID infection more dangerous for a man who's 69 years old?

I don't know. Like I genuinely don't know. This is pure speculation, and nobody knows, outside of Putin himself probably, what the actual reality is. The things we can talk about more concretely in terms of what happens when a dictator's war goes badly, if the Ukraine war continues to go badly, and again, that's a big if. One of two things happens. There's a popular revolt or there's some kind of elite revolt and a military coup. I would look to two things. First, the anti-war protests in Russia. They're notable for a country that has been hiding the existence of the war and all of its propaganda channels,

calling it a special military operation and trying to downplay the significance of the conflict. And second, for a government that's like super repressive, really intensely good at suppressing dissent and marginalizing opposition leaders. That there's such a level of popular discontent suggests that if this war remains bogged down, if Russia can't make swift progress, you can imagine a real grassroots challenge to the Putin regime growing. The second scenario, I think, has to do with political and military leaders in the Kremlin.

It is not inconceivable that a lot of people high up in the Russian government didn't actually believe that Putin was going to invade. I thought that to go into Ukraine is not in Russia's interest, keeping in mind the collateral damage which is likely to happen after such an operation. But apparently, you know, my cost-benefit analysis did not coincide with that in the Kremlin. So I had to wake up to a new reality. We know that some of the troops on the ground thought they were just doing exercises and that they're dragged into this war without a compelling strategic rationale

that has crushed the Russian economy and is leading to lots of Russian soldiers dying and the wasting of massive amounts of material for only limited strategic gain that you can get a few of them together to say, OK, Putin's lost it. This is a disaster for Russia. It's time for him to go.

What we're seeing is a situation that bears the hallmarks of one in which revolutions and coups happen. In a scenario where Vladimir Putin is chased out of office by his own people or deposed by his own military, what comes next? That's a gigantic question mark. Really, nobody knows, right? We're dealing with things that would have seemed impossible just a few months ago, right? The notion that we can even be speaking about an anti-Putin uprising or coup, which is still, to be clear, like a remote possibility. Yeah. Like, that just seemed unthinkable to me.

So I can't tell you who would come next because if there's a military coup, the generals in charge are the ones who would be appointing themselves leaders. We can't know that in advance. Likewise, if there's a popular revolution, it depends a lot on the cast of characters who are in charge of those revolutions. And that kind of revolution could bring in, I mean, who knows, maybe Alexei Navalny, who's currently in prison, who is something of a nationalist, but also more pro-Western than Putin, could join the government? It's such a remote scenario that it's difficult to forecast with any degree of reliability.

It's worth noting here that Vladimir Putin did step down once, or at least pretended to step away from power to respect term limits in his country. And Medvedev took over, but Putin was clearly the puppet master. Do you think that as long as Vladimir Putin is alive and in Russia, he will exercise control over its government? Yes, I believe that's likely. I think the most likely outcome of this conflict, I want to underscore this because we've been talking about sort of remote possibilities a lot, nuclear war, a coup, revolution. The most likely outcome is that

Vladimir Putin stays in office and topples the Ukrainian government successfully. Now, how a Russian occupation of Ukraine goes, if they can successfully stand up a puppet government there, which appears to be their goal, remains to be seen. But the most likely scenario is that Putin continues his very tight grasp on power and Russia's military overwhelms Ukraine's. And while there may be anti-war sentiment, it doesn't transform the trajectory of the conflict or change the Russian government. But, you know, there is an outside possibility that this leads to something more radical.

And frankly, most people wouldn't have predicted a full-on war in Ukraine a year ago. So we need to allow for the possibilities of things that seem impossible, even while recognizing they're probably unlikely. I appreciate you going through these scenarios with us. But as you just said, the likeliest outcome here is despite historic sanctions and historic involvement from countries like Sweden and Switzerland and historic ramping up of military spending in countries like Germany to aid Ukraine, the likeliest outcome here is Russia installing a puppet government in Ukraine and winning,

essentially. Well, not necessarily winning, right? Because then we get into another possibility, which is a Ukrainian insurgency. But a Ukrainian insurgency, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be devastating to the Russians. It could trap them in there for years, trying to ensure that their puppet regime

has a hold on power. We're talking about a quagmire here, like a Russian quagmire. Yeah. I mean, like, I don't think it is the only possible outcome by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't believe that Russia will win in the sense of getting an outcome that it wants. I believe that it will likely vanquish Ukraine on the field of battle in a conventional struggle. I think it'll be ugly.

It'll be brutal. It'll take a lot longer than the Russians wanted it to. And tens of thousands of people will die. But the Russians will likely be able to take control over Ukraine's territory. Whether they can hold it

is a separate question. Thank you. Edited by me and Matthew Collette. Engineered by Efim Shapiro. And fact-checked by Laura Bullard. I'm Sean Ramos for M. This is Today Explained. you