If you would like to financially back this daily journalism, you can become a paying subscriber here:
Again, this is voluntary. Either way you can read WWoN 7 days a week.
However, please join many of your fellow readers in kicking in.
Other ways to show your support include leaving a tip via:
* PayPal. markhalperinnyc@gmail.com
* Venmo. Mark-Halperin-4 (telephone number ends in x3226)
* Zelle. markhalperinnyc@gmail.com
* Buy me a cocktail (at Gotham City prices….), tax and server tip included, by clicking here.
* Buy me a cup of coffee (or a week’s worth) by clicking here.
You can also send an email to markhalperintalk@gmail.com and ask how you can send a WWoN gratuity by check.
Thank you for your support.
****
Here are the 7 storylines to watch as the war grinds on.
1. PUTIN’S NEXT MOVE
No one knows what the killer who controls Russia wants or what he plans to do.
No one.
Here is the Associated Press’ latest attempt to lay it out.
Doesn’t help.
There is ONE essential read today that towers above all others: The New York Times has a well-reported look at possible endgames, which, of course, takes into account what Putin might go for:
In private, officials express concern that Mr. Putin might seek to take Moldova, another former Soviet republic that has never joined NATO and is considered particularly vulnerable. There is renewed apprehension about Georgia, which fought a war with Russia in 2008 that today seems like a test run for the far larger conflict playing out.
And there is the possibility that Mr. Putin, angered by the slowness of his offensive in Ukraine, may reach for other weapons: chemical, biological, nuclear and cyber.
And this:
Early last week there was a glimmer of hope that a real negotiation would begin that could establish humanitarian corridors for Ukrainians to escape the horror of intense shelling and missile attacks, and perhaps lead to peace talks. Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman and a confidant of Mr. Putin, said that if Ukraine changed its constitution to accept some form of “neutrality” rather than an aspiration to join NATO; recognized that the separatist areas of Donetsk and Lugansk were independent states, and that Crimea was part of Russia; the military strikes would stop “in a moment.”
In an interview with ABC News the next day, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine seemed surprisingly open to the idea. He said he had “cooled down” on joining NATO, saying it was clear the Western alliance “is not prepared to accept Ukraine.” And while he did not say he could accept a carve-out of part of the country, he said that “we can discuss and find a compromise on how these territories will live on.”
But it is unclear whether Mr. Putin himself would take that deal. Separate conversations between the Russian leader and President Emmanuel Macron of France, Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey all circled the same issues, but left his interlocutors wondering if they were being played for time as the war ground on.
A French government account of a call to Mr. Putin on Saturday by Mr. Macron and Mr. Scholz termed it “disappointing with Putin’s insincerity: He is determined to continue the war.” Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, said there was no evidence from the conversations so far that Mr. Putin has changed course; he remains “intent on destroying Ukraine.”
And this:
Another senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence assessments, said it could take up to two weeks for Russian forces to encircle Kyiv and then at least another month to seize it. That would require a combination of relentless bombardment and what could be weeks or months of door-to-door street fighting.
“It will come at a very high price in Russian blood,” said retired Adm. James G. Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander for Europe. That high cost, he added, could cause Mr. Putin to destroy the city with an onslaught of missiles, artillery and bombs — “continuing a swath of war crimes unlike any we have seen in the 21st century.”
****
2. NATO BEING DRAWN IN
If the civilian casualties become too much; if Putin uses WMD; if there is a massive cyberattack on the West; or, most directly, if Putin hits (purposefully or not) a NATO target – all of these could in theory bring the U.S. and its allies directly into the war.
More from that seminal New York Times piece:
[Biden National Security Adviser Jake] Sullivan said that Russia would suffer “severe consequences” if it used chemical weapons, without specifying what those would be. He sidestepped the question of how Mr. Biden would react. So far he has said the only thing that would bring the United States and its allies directly into the war would be an attack on NATO nations. Quietly, the White House and the senior American military leadership have been modeling how they would respond to a series of escalations, including major cyberattacks on American financial institutions and the use of a tactical or “battlefield” nuclear weapon by Mr. Putin to signal to the rest of the world that he would brook no interference as he moves to crush Ukraine…
The more the fighting moves west, the more likely it is that an errant missile lands in NATO territory, or the Russians take down a NATO aircraft.
Mr. Putin has used chemical weapons before against political opponents and defectors, and he might be inclined to do so again. Using battlefield nuclear weapons would cross a threshold, which most American officials believe even Mr. Putin would not do unless he believed he was facing the need to withdraw his troops. But the possibility of a nuclear detonation has been discussed more in the past two weeks than in years, officials say.
And finally, there are cyberattacks, which have been strangely missing from the conflict so far. They may be Mr. Putin’s most effective way of retaliating against the United States for grievous harm to the Russian economy.
So far there are none of the procedures in place that American and Russian pilots use over Syria, for example, to prevent accidental conflict. And Mr. Putin has twice issued thinly veiled reminders of his nuclear capabilities, reminding the world that if the conflict does not go his way he has far larger, and far more fearsome, weapons to call into play.
The challenge and puzzle here is what does it mean for the U.S. and NATO to be in the war?
If Putin hits one NATO asset or human, what is the response? All-out war? Something proportionate?
If an attack on one is an attack on all, how do “all” reply?
This isn’t some faraway hypothetical. Literally by the time you read this, Putin could have hit something NATO.
****
3. ENDGAME WITHOUT NATO ENTERING
Matt Bai with some hard truths:
[T]he universe of outcomes in Ukraine is limited now. The most likely scenario involves Putin unleashing savagery on the country to possess it, and it ends with Ukraine leveled, Zelensky dead and Russian troops on the Polish border. You’d have to think a negotiated alternative that leaves Ukraine partly intact, if that window opens, would be preferable….
But Biden must know that he needs to prepare the country for a more agonizing endgame. His job, in the best case, will be to make a negotiated outcome palatable abroad and at home.
If he does, count on this: Our much-needed sense of unity will be shattered overnight. Republicans will scream that Biden is the new Neville Chamberlain, while internationalists in the president’s party will complain that he walked away from human rights.
In that event, though, Biden will have checked Russian aggression without letting NATO get drawn into another world war. History tells us that in a showdown between nuclear powers, that’s what leadership is.
If it isn’t clear that Zelensky or Putin would accept those long-standing outlines of a deal, Bai is saying the U.S. can and must.
This one is a mystery as well.
****
4. CHINA’S ROLE
Just as inscrutable as Putin’s motives, no one really knows where the Chinese are at here and now, and where they are going.
Here is one strong attempt to figure it out, and here is a free link to the Washington Post story about how Putin allegedly sought weapons help from Xi.
I supposed China could play a role in ending the war, but I would not bet a lot on that.
Let’s see what comes out of Rome today.
****
5. BIDEN-ZELENSKY RELATIONSHIP
The Washington Post has exclusive details on the recent call between the two leaders. Biden administration officials would be forgiven for thinking of Zelensky as a hero, but an at-times-insufficiently-grateful hero. The media has largely downplayed the tensions between this pair, even when the friction has become public. More of the weapons Zelensky has asked for are flowing his way, as are more of the sanctions, but it is not impossible there is a serious rupture between these two, even if it is not in either of their interests to let that happen.
****
6. REFUGEE CRISIS AND HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
So far, this storyline has flared only sporadically, in part because the Poles and other Europeans have been so aggressive and generous, and in part because the fog of war has limited what we know is happening within Ukraine.
But one or both of these realities could shoot up in a way that would reduce the West’s tolerance for a long war.
****
7. THE ROLE OF CONGRESS
Rarely, if ever, has the legislative branch forced the executive branch into so many real-time wartime actions. In just a few weeks, we have seen the Biden administration cave in several instances to the bipartisan demands from Capitol Hill on military aid, sanctions, and messaging.
This dynamic does not seem like it will slow down anytime soon, per the Washington Post:
A growing number of U.S. lawmakers ratcheted up pressure on President Biden on Sunday to increase military aid to Ukraine, including sending fighter jets and air defense systems that the administration rejected last week.
The public calls from both Republicans and Democrats to answer Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s urgent pleas for air assistance come as the Biden administration declined an offer from Poland to deliver MiG-29 airplanes to Ukraine for fear such a move could be interpreted by the Russians as an escalation of the United States’ role in the war.
The bipartisan push underscores the growing hawkishness among many leaders on Capitol Hill, who have been urging Biden to do more to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian attacks as the war rages into its third week.
While some of the cave-ins by Team Biden surely have come after consideration of the substance, a big part of this dynamic is based on political pressure, even when the White House disagrees on the merits.
Will congressional Democrats keep partnering with their Republican counterparts to force the administration’s hand? For the foreseeable future, yes.
Which is not necessarily any way to run a global alliance or war.
****
IN OTHER WIDE WORLD NEWS
1. Amazing that Barack Obama can announce he has COVID and the reaction is relatively muted.
Imagine if he had been infected not too long ago.
2. Amazing that Tom Brady can announce he is unretiring and the reaction is as massively as it is.
I say: of course LFG.