The Memo: Biden faced with growing gulf between warring Russia, Ukraine

The Biden administration is confronting an odd paradox in Ukraine — Kyiv’s unexpected successes could be making peace less likely anytime soon.

Ukrainian forces have taken back around 2,000 square miles of territory in recent weeks that had been previously seized by Russia, stunning the Kremlin. The Ukrainians went on to score a substantive and symbolic win with an explosion that partially destroyed the Kerch Strait Bridge on Saturday.

But those developments have infuriated Russian President Vladimir Putin and may have contributed to pressure from Russian hard-liners to intensify the raw aggression of the war effort. 

Russia hit at least 11 Ukrainian cities with missile strikes on Monday. Putin cast the shelling as retribution for the “terrorist” attack on the bridge, which he had personally opened in 2018.

Meanwhile, speculation that an increasingly embattled Putin might resort to some form of nuclear weapon continues to swirl. 

Last week, President Biden suggested the world was closer to a nuclear “Armageddon” than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 — though White House aides later clarified that U.S. intelligence assessments of the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons had not changed.

The upshot of it all is a broadening gulf between the warring nations on anything resembling a peace deal. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will surely be reluctant to offer painful concessions, in the form of a surrender of territory, when the tide of the war seems to be moving in his nation’s direction. 

Zelensky, along with the international community at large, poured scorn on the quasi-referendums that were conducted under Russian armed occupation in four eastern regions of Ukraine late last month.

Putin, for his part, cannot countenance accepting a loss in the invasion that he launched in the face of international condemnation in February. To do so would not only stain his reputation internally; it could put his survival as president at risk.

So, for the moment, there is no obvious end in sight.

“If Russia pulls its troops out, the war is over — so, conceptually, it’s not like this is so complicated,” said Yoshiko Herrera, a professor of political science and a Russia expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “But, practically speaking in terms of what is likely to happen, Ukraine seems quite dedicated to preserving their sovereignty and nation, because it looks like they’re winning. And Russia seems committed to continuing the fight.”

The signs are, for now, pointing toward greater escalation if anything.

Late last month, the Russian president said that comments appearing to allude to the possibility of a nuclear strike were “not a bluff.” He also argued that the American atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War offered a “precedent” for such a move.

Monday’s strikes by Russia brought fresh condemnation from Biden, renewed unity on the part of most of the international community, and calls from Zelensky for more help.

In a statement, Biden said the U.S. “strongly condemns” the missile strikes. The president added that the attacks “demonstrate the utter brutality of Mr. Putin’s illegal war on the Ukrainian people.”

Biden called on Putin to remove his troops from Ukraine — which clearly is not going to happen anytime soon — and said that the most recent developments only strengthened Washington’s resolve to “stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

Biden and Zelensky also spoke by phone Monday, with the White House’s account of the call saying that Biden had “pledged to continue providing Ukraine with the support needed to defend itself, including advanced air defense systems.”

Tuesday will see an emergency, virtual meeting of the Group of Seven of leading industrialized nations. Zelensky will address the gathering.

In one example of dynamics shifting in a way that might ultimately encourage peace, two of the biggest powers sympathetic to Russia, India and China, called for de-escalation in the wake of Monday’s missile attacks.

India’s external affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, speaking during a visit to Australia, said that the war “does not serve the interests of anybody,” according to The Associated Press. China’s foreign affairs ministry noted that “all countries deserve respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Herrera said those statements were significant, and part of a broader picture that would be discouraging to Putin.

“I think the support from India and China in general has not been as strong as he would have wanted. And now, if you are India or China, why would you tie yourself to a loser? Why not wait and see how things are going to play out?”

She also emphasized that Russia is much more dependent upon China than vice versa.

“At the start, I feel a lot of people were worried about China’s support for Russia. But I would characterize China’s support as lukewarm at best — and unlikely to continue, the worse things get for Russia. I don’t see why China would risk much for Russia.”

In the same speech last week in which Biden expressed concern about “Armageddon,” he also mused on what Putin’s “off ramp” might be.

There was never an obvious answer to that question — barring outright defeat for Moscow — and the intervening days have made it even harder to discern.

In a Monday speech, Putin pledged with macabre understatement that future Russian reaction to what he characterized as “terrorist attacks on our territory” would be “tough.”

“No one should have any doubt about it,” he added.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.