We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Putin improves his hand in Ukraine
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, fresh back from Tokyo, not too jet-lagged. And I have your Quick Take to get a start for the week.
And yes, more on Ukraine and the Russian war. You've probably seen the latest news that Luhansk has fallen. The Donbas, which is now the focus of the Russian war, not the entire focus, but certainly the lion's share of. It is comprised of two different administrative regions, one Donetsk, the other Luhansk. The Ukrainians had been giving a pretty solid fight, but they've been losing territory pretty consistently if slowly, over the last month and a half. And this means that Luhansk is now fully under Russian control. It has been largely destroyed. The towns that exist there and the villages are in disastrous shape, many of them with over 80% of homes damaged beyond repair. And so life there is going to be absolutely horrific, but the Russians do have the territory.
They will see that as a win at home in the propaganda machine. And Moscow is certainly moving to crank that out. Donetsk is next. More troops will be focused on that. They have a little bit more than 50% of that territory under control. And the Ukrainians are trying, as hard as they can, to get more equipment, more advanced equipment, particularly artillery, and the ammunition for it from the West. And the Ukrainian argument is that it's just not coming fast enough. Certainly, they are starting to see some of those pieces being delivered to the front lines, but it's hard. The Russians have complicated some of the infrastructure by bombing some rail lines and bridges and the rest, so it's more difficult to get that equipment into place, in the front lines. Secondly, you need to train Ukrainians on this equipment. That actually takes a fair amount of time, at least a month and most cases.
And it's not like the Americans have a whole bunch of spare equipment just sitting around. My understanding in terms of high capacity artillery is that the Americans have provided what was readily available, and now they're trying to get more in place and also create more, build more from the military industrial complex, the defense companies. The US is providing overwhelmingly the majority of the defense support and the money that the Ukrainians have gotten so far. Other allies are providing a lot, and some are doing even more in terms of percentage of GDP, but so far the US is doing most of it. So, that's kind of where you are. And I do believe the Ukrainians will be able to counteract. They might be able to take some land back, but the reality is you're looking at a situation over the next several months.
In other words, as we get closer to winter again, and I don't want to think really about winter, because it's July right now, but a lot of other people are having to because that's of course when the energy crunch becomes particularly problematic for industry and for consumers. And you would bet on the Ukrainians having lost most of the Donbas, at least half of it, probably more at that point. Maybe the Ukrainians can retake the city of Kherson, which is above Crimea, and that's the area where the water had been cut off by the Ukrainians when the Russians took Crimea. The problem the Ukrainians will have there is, unlike the Russians who do smash and grab in their attacks, the Ukrainians don't want to destroy and intact city. So when they're attacking Kherson, they're going after military targets, they're going after sort of outside of the city primarily. It's like fighting with one hand tied behind your back.
It is of course their territory and it's their people, so you completely understand why they're doing it, but it makes it harder for them to attack effectively, especially if they don't really have pinpoint artillery, drones, and the rest. So, what that means is over the next few months, it still looks like, from Russia's narrow perspective, not their initial war effort and not their initial war goals, which they failed at completely, but their new much more narrow war goals, they are increasingly in a position to say that they've been able to accomplish that, with all sorts of casualties, which will indeed upset a lot of Russian families over the coming years, and with massive damage to the Russian economy. But still, Putin is clearly feeling better about where he sits vis-a-vis Ukraine today than he did a month ago, two months ago, three months ago. That's the reality.
There's big efforts to continue to further negotiations. That's right now. The United Nations and the Turks are at the lead between Russia and Ukraine to try to be able to get food out, to unblock the major port of Odesa. Those negotiations have slowed. I wouldn't say they've stalled, but the principles involved are much more pessimistic now than they were even a few weeks ago. President Biden himself was surprisingly upbeat at the G7 specifically on this, personally upbeat, in his private conversations with some of the other G7 leaders, but the White House advisors don't share that optimism, and frankly, neither do I, because I don't know what you give the Russians, either in terms of Belarus sanction reduction or Russian sanction reduction that would be remotely plausible that would make the Russians willing to allow these shipments out, which means we're probably going to hear more about NATO being willing to provide mind sweepers, and also escorting ships with humanitarian purpose to get food out.
And look, this clearly would be the most hostile act that NATO would have taken directly against Russia since the war has begun, but it's not nearly as hostile as a no-fly zone where you have aircrafts that would have to shoot down Russian jets, or sending troops directly on the ground in Ukraine to defend territory. This is about escorting ships, not intending the fire and a court on that would allow for humanitarian efforts to get food to people that most need it. And I think the US wouldn't want to do that by itself, but I've already heard from a number of members of Senate in the House who are pushing for that pretty strongly, Democrats and Republicans, by the way. And I know there are some NATO members that would be interested in joining if the Americans said they want to see it happen.
So, when this diplomatic effort probably fails, I think that's the thing we're going to see next. We'll see where that goes. I mean, the Russians, we've already seen that Sweden and Finland joining NATO, being given the official invitation. And the Russians said that there would be military consequences. There have been no such consequences, because their bluff has been called. And while there are horrible consequences every day for the Ukrainians that will continue for generations, that's very different from the Russians opening a larger two front war against NATO, more broadly. And so on this, frankly, I'd be inclined to say, go for it, work to get those mines swept, and work to get the food out, and help the Ukrainians too. And that money can then, of course, all go to Ukraine.
So, that's kind of what's most interesting right now. I understand completely why the Ukrainian government is concerned, that if they don't get the war better situated from their perspective by winter, life gets a lot harder for them, because the level of pressure from the German population, the Italian population and others to provide less support for Ukraine going forward, when it's starting to really hit them in the pocketbook, is going to grow. I don't think there's significant danger of the NATO alliance actually fragmenting over this.
Remember, Ukraine is being invited to join the European Union, their candidate member. That really makes this a European war, and there will be long standing humanitarian and military support for the Ukrainians going forward. But at the same level as we've seen over the past four months? I doubt that. And more importantly, Zelensky doubts that too. And that, of course, is going to have an impact on morale. It's going to have an impact on their ability to continue to fight. And of course, then there's a question of where the Americans will be after midterm elections, and that right now is absolutely the greatest uncertainty in terms of NATO, much more than the Europeans for whom is their direct fight on the ground. That is not true for the United States.
So anyway, those are a few thoughts for right now. Unfortunately, this is going to continue for the foreseeable future, but I will be here to continue to help us all navigate it and talk about other things too. Be good.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com- Ukraine's long road to EU membership - GZERO Media ›
- War, reforms & bureaucracy will decide Ukraine's EU bid - GZERO ... ›
- What We're Watching: Russia captures Donbas province, Sri Lanka ... ›
- Russia's weapon: blocking Ukraine grain exports - GZERO Media ›
- Why the battle over Ukraine's Snake Island matters for the world ... ›
- A short history of the G7 - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Piling sanctions on Russia - GZERO Media ›
- NATO debates Russia and Trump - GZERO Media ›
- What We're Watching: The future of abortion in America, Madrid ... ›
- Putin would rather die than admit defeat in Ukraine, says former Croatian president - GZERO Media ›
Putin keeps his war cards close
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey, everybody, Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take to start off your week. It is, of course, May 9th, and that means Victory Day. It's when the Soviets were celebrating their defeat of the Nazis in World War II. The Russians of course, continued that after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed.
And today even more important in the context of Russia's invasion into Ukraine, not in any way victorious and Putin, wasn't trying to claim it was, rather, it was all about justifying what he referred to as a preemptive rebuff to NATO aggression. He talked about the Ukrainians as a Nazi regime, that they were trying to get nuclear weapons, that NATO and Ukraine were going to take Crimea back from Russia. All of which was made up from a whole cloth, but nonetheless was the basis of Putin's speech.
Some things he didn't say. First on the negative side, he didn't say that Russia has won, that they've emerged victorious, that the second military operation has been as successful as the first phase of the military operation. And that Ukraine has now been denazified, and the Russians in Donbas who had acts of genocide committed against them have been protected. Again, all would've been fake news, but Putin has control of all state media in the country. And there isn't any other kind at this point. That could have been the basis for a frozen conflict, even negotiations on a ceasefire. That's not where we are at all. That's the negative side.
The positive side, the UK and their general intelligence had come out a week ago and said that there was a plan for an announcement of a general mobilization of Russian troops. Putin did not do that, nor did he announce an escalation of broad war footing against NATO. The propaganda value against NATO continues to be high. The sense that this is a fight that is absolutely necessary for the Russians and that they have to emerge victorious, that is the case. But it's still the actual war goals for the Russians continue to be vague, giving Putin significant flexibility in how he reacts to what happens on the ground, both in Ukraine and more broadly over the course of the coming weeks and months.
So what would I say? I think that it makes me not more positive in any way about the Russia-Ukraine fight, but rather it does give us at least for the next few weeks, a little more clarity on what the parameters of the conflict are likely to be. Right now, Russia's taking about one to two kilometers of land on the ground in Luhansk and Donetsk, around the Donbas. Every day they're losing some territory around Kharkiv, which is just outside, to the northwest of the Donbas.
To the Ukrainians the fact that there is no general mobilization means that Ukraine with better arms and much higher morale, should be able to start counter attacking in the Donbas probably at some point in June. So maybe the Russians can take all of it, but then the Ukrainians are going to bring the fight to them, as they already have surrounding Kyiv and in Kharkiv.
What that means to me, at a minimum, we're talking about fighting primarily in the Donbas over the course of the coming weeks and months with not a lot of understanding of what's going to happen between Russia and NATO as Finland and Sweden join, and as we continue to see escalation in sanctions against the Russians from the G7, from the Europeans, from the United States, and as we see escalation in the military support that's being provided from NATO and aligned countries into Ukraine.
I think one important point that was raised was that Putin described in the Donbas, the Russians as fighting for their own territory. And that makes clear from Putin something that I've certainly been presuming over the course of the past two, three months, which is that the intention is to either fully recognize the expanded Donbas as independent, or to formally annex. All of which baseline are unacceptable for the Ukrainians. So making very clear that a very significant piece of Ukrainian territory is going to be permanently occupied from the perspective of the Russians. That is what Putin's goal continues to be, irrespective of how badly his troops are fighting on the ground.
Then over the course of the last few days, the fact that you've had intensified bombings and artillery and missiles against Odesa, as well as other cities across Ukraine, that is punishment of the Ukrainians for having the temerity to continue to fight against Russia, and potentially it shows that there are broader territorial goals that the Russians will have in the medium to long term. Odesa someplace I'm particularly focused on. Transnistria, which is this Moldovan breakaway province, mostly populated by ethnic Russians, which itself has declared independence from Moldova. If they were to formally break away with Russian troops and support, you would then have an encirclement of Odesa, which is Ukraine's largest port. And I absolutely think that is a significant strategic aim for Putin at this phase in the conflict, as he's thinking longer term. But again, what's so interesting about this speech is he continues to not show any cards that he doesn't feel are necessary. He wants to give himself maximum flexibility to act in an environment where things have not gone the way he has planned so far.
Beyond that, I would say that another very important point is that we continue to see all sorts of civilians getting killed. Over this weekend, a school in the Donbas that was bombed and with a lot of civilians that were using it as a place of refuge, looks like some 60 civilians have been killed as a consequence of that bombing. Obviously, not a target of any strategic value, military value to the Russians. And again, all of that is going to lead to more calls of war crimes, and a hardening of positions on the part of not just the Ukrainians, but NATO allies. The more information that comes across like this with extraordinary saturation coverage from the West, the more you're going to continue to see these countries leaning into their fight against Russia.
Final thing I would mention is that Russia is of course, fighting Ukraine and NATO here, but it's not that they're fighting NATO in a coordinated fashion. Increasingly, you have a whole bunch of NATO countries that have different goals in terms of what they're trying to accomplish in the war. All the NATO countries agree that what Russia has done in Ukraine is beyond the pale, and they should be punished, and that Ukraine should be supported. Those are table stakes. But beyond that, are you trying to destroy Russian military capability? Do you want to remove Russian troops from all of Ukraine? Does that include Crimea? Do you want undermine Putin personally? Do you want to take out Russia's generals? It really depends on who you listen to. And frankly, there are a number of governments that are coming across in some ways as more intransigent and hardliner, even what you're now hearing from the Ukrainian government itself. And that is precisely because the domestic politics in many of these countries is moving towards piling on against Russia.
When that happens, you have a lot of individual political leaders that are acting in a political entrepreneurial way, and they're paying attention to their domestic politics. They aren't necessarily coordinated in every policy. That's a problem. It makes accidents easier, and it also makes it harder to have an effective strategic policy as one NATO. I don't think it makes it easier for Russia to divide and conquer because there is so much anger and animosity from NATO, and because the Russians have already been cut off so much diplomatically, culturally, economically, and that's not going to change from NATO. But I do think that it means that the conflict is harder to resolve, and it means the potential for escalation, unintended escalation continues to grow.
So a meaningful speech by Putin. It doesn't radically change the way we think about the conflict, but does certainly create a little more specificity in latest understanding of where Putin is and unfortunately, latest understanding of where this war is going.
That's it for me. Hope everyone's doing well and I'll talk to you all real soon.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.comPro-Russian activists react to Russian recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic.
Ukraine crisis: Was that an invasion?
In the space of just two hours on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin dramatically escalated the course of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. He unilaterally recognized the independence of the separatist regions of Eastern Ukraine, vowing to send Russian “peacekeepers” into the area, and delivered a ferocious 40-minute speech that, among other things, rejected the idea of Ukraine as an independent country altogether.
What does it mean, and what comes next?
The moves effectively buried any prospects for the so-called Minsk accords (a 2015 peace framework that called for significant Donbas autonomy and power within Ukraine in exchange for Russia giving control of the eastern border back to Kyiv). Any remaining hope of a diplomatic solution to the crisis will now have to be based on an entirely new set of agreements that do not yet exist.
How will the West respond? After weeks of careful US-led diplomacy, European capitals and Washington had agreed that any “invasion” of Ukraine would result in “swift and severe” sanctions on the Russian economy. But does the move into the Donbas — already in effect a Russian puppet state since 2014 — meet that threshold?
The most significant move so far has come from Germany, which on Tuesday officially suspended approval for the Nord Stream 2 Russia-Germany gas pipeline.
More action is expected later in the day. The US is set to supplement an initial round of sanctions against the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics with something more substantive today, while British PM Boris Johnson -- who leads a country famously friendly to wealthy Russians -- has promised a "barrage" of sanctions. The EU has pledged "unity" in its own sanctions response.
Western capitals have to walk a fine line, responding in a way that is forceful enough to be taken seriously by the Kremlin, while also keeping some powder dry in case Putin goes further.
Speaking of which, how far will Putin go? Formally lopping off a chunk of Ukraine -- drastic as it is -- doesn't address Putin's stated concerns about NATO expansion or Ukraine's sovereignty. That means it's unclear if he made the move simply to increase his leverage ahead of a fresh round of diplomacy, or as a prelude to a wider invasion of Ukraine.
One important detail is that Moscow is being deliberately ambiguous about whether it has recognized the independence only of the areas held by the separatists, or whether it's laying claim to broader swathes of eastern Ukraine that are still under Kyiv's control. Russia's foreign ministry says it's the limited recognition, but Putin's spokesman was vaguer.
Meanwhile, on the ground, the Russian military buildup continues. Some 30,000 Russian troops who recently went to Belarus for military drills are now set to stay there, and the US estimates that Russia has almost doubled its troop presence in the region in less than a month, with some 190,000 troops deployed around Ukraine.
What about that US-Russia summit? It seems like just yesterday that France had brokered a new US-Russia summit “in principle.” Wait, that was yesterday. But Washington had one condition: that Russia not invade Ukraine. Moscow's foreign ministry says it's still ready to meet with the US to plan a fresh Biden-Putin meeting, but there's no indication yet from the White House on whether they're still game. Expect more on this later Tuesday.
Spare a thought for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Responding militarily to the separatist republics’ “independence” could push Putin — who seems eager to be provoked – into a wider invasion. But Zelensky also can’t stand by idly as Russia gobbles up another chunk of his country unopposed. In a wee-hours address on Tuesday, he told his people he would “cede nothing” but called for a fresh round of diplomacy, including a multilateral meeting with Russia.
“It is very important now,” he said, “to see who is our true friend and partner.”
A militant of the self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic patrols the damaged building of a local school in the Luhansk region, Ukraine.
Setting Ukraine's rebels free?
The pace of Russia-Ukraine news is accelerating. Russian President Vladimir Putin says his troops are pulling back from the border, while Washington, NATO, and Kyiv say they’re not. Russia has expelled the deputy American ambassador from Moscow.
The week’s most ominous developments, however, center on the Donbas, the breakaway region of eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed rebels and Ukrainian soldiers have been exchanging fire throughout the eight-year conflict. On Thursday, reports emerged that two schools, including a kindergarten, had been hit by shelling. Ukraine and Russia traded accusations over which side fired first, raising concerns that finger-pointing could lead to an escalation. Russia is “actively trying to provoke the Ukrainians into steps that would justify a Russian military intervention,” GZERO Media President Ian Bremmer said on Thursday in Germany ahead of the Munich Security Conference.
But there’s another Donbas development that reminds us of what Putin really wants – and signals what he might do next.
This week, Russia’s parliament voted to ask Putin to consider formal recognition of the independence of the two Donbas provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukrainian separatists there declared their independence in 2014, but no country, including Russia, has formally recognized them.
So far, Putin has resisted. He continues to insist that Ukraine honor the so-called Minsk Agreement, a peace plan that would leave the breakaway Donbas provinces as part of Ukraine – on condition they’re given “special status” and a degree of policy autonomy.
Compliance with the Minsk deal would force Ukraine’s government to rewrite its constitution. The new version would give governors of Donetsk and Luhansk – and, therefore, their sponsors in Moscow – the right to veto national security and trade policies approved by Ukraine’s national government.
In short, by keeping the Donbas provinces inside Ukraine, Putin could effectively block any Ukrainian entry into NATO or trade deals with the EU that ease Ukraine’s dependence on Russia. And it could achieve this without starting a war, suffering casualties, spending billions, or facing sanctions.
So, if Putin thinks the Donbas is useful for Russia as part of Ukraine, why did he allow Russia’s parliament to suggest formal recognition for Donbas independence? As Bremmer noted from Munich, “Suddenly, this week, it goes to the Kremlin for approval for that recognition. That’s a very significant move.”
Formal Russian recognition of the region’s independence would mark a major turning point in Putin’s Ukraine strategy, but it’s possible that Putin has decided he needs a face-saving way to avoid a costly war. He’d be declaring the Minsk deal dead, a sign of grudging acceptance that he can’t force Ukraine to embed Russian power into Ukraine’s constitution.
And maybe Putin has found another way to declare victory. The Russian government filed a report at the United Nations on Thursday alleging that Ukraine is guilty of “genocide of the Russian-speaking population” in the Donbas. Putin himself has made that charge repeatedly.
Accepting Donbas independence and offering public support for its leaders would score Putin points at home as the man who stopped a “genocide” and defended Russians abroad — and he could do that without going to war.
Putin could also be looking for an excuse to move many more Russian troops into the Donbas to intensify the military threat to Kyiv in hopes of winning the promise he wants that Ukraine will never join NATO.
The view from Kyiv
Some analysts argue that Ukraine should let the Donbas go. If those provinces were independent, there would be far fewer ethnic Russians left in the rest of Ukraine, and it would be much harder for Russia to manipulate Ukraine’s domestic politics.
But Zelensky has plenty of rivals at home who will call any concession to Moscow an act of cowardice and treason. Ukrainian troops still control about two-thirds of Donbas territory, though less than half its population. To withdraw them, ceding land that even Russia says is still part of Ukraine, remains politically impossible.
Putin appears to be weighing his options. But the possible Russian recognition of Donbas independence just became a story to watch closely.