Nothing like a coherent strategy emerged from 20 years of Nato’s war in Afghanistan; at best there were long lists of aspirations with no clear objectives or assessments of the resources needed to achieve them. But, two months after the Russian invasion, it looks very much as if the US and Nato are beginning to develop a coherent plan for Ukraine. Military strategy has been described as a synthesis of ends, ways and means. Last week, senior US and UK officials clarified the objectives – the ends.
For some time the US and Nato spoke of defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. On April 25, in a speech pledging to defend the “rules-based international order”, Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, announced that the US wanted Russia “weakened to the point that it can’t do things like invade Ukraine”. There should be no ambiguity about this. It is now US (and therefore Nato) policy to damage the Russian armed forces to a degree from which it will take a very long time to recover.
There are dangers in this strategic approach. For example, it is by no means clear that all Nato countries are entirely bought into Ukrainian (and US and UK) aims of completely restoring Ukrainian territorial integrity, let alone removing the Russian armed forces as a going concern. This provides the opportunity for Russia to open and widen rifts as the war drags on and a diplomatic settlement continues to appear remote. This was Serbia’s strategy during the far shorter and less intense Kosovo war. Then there is always the danger of Russian nuclear strikes in the event of “catastrophic” Ukrainian success – a small but increasing danger.
