Ukraine War - POL 130

Budapest Memorandum

signed agreement by Ukraine that they will give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for economic security & Russia promised to never fight UKR ( commitment problem)

Security Dilemma

when states try to increase their own security and their adversaries believe that they are building up their military to attack them so they do the same and it creates tension and conflict

UKR Ex:

• Expansion of NATO after the cold war:

- Putin unhappy about NATO expansion perceived it as “Anti-Russian Alliance”

- Russia increases its own military — attacked UKR before it can join NATO

Bargaining Model

says war happens when people misjudge power or cannot credibly commit. there is also a bargaining range which includes a set of deals that both sides prefer over going to war. bargaining failed so war began

Ex:

Putin Underestimated UKR

• believed that UKR military would collapse quickly

• the president would flee and they would have no leadership

• western support would be limited

• because of his optimism, he asked for a lot more than UKR can give which decreased the bargaining range

• UKR fought effectively

• nationalism and president was strong

• strong western support also

Power Shift:

• UKR’s power increased as the west provided them with weapons and training, intelligence

• Russia’s power decreased as there were sanctions placed and equipment losses

• this shifted the bargaining balance

Deterrence

use of credible threats to stop an adversary from taking an unwanted action

Ex:

Putin wasn’t deterred to not attack on UKR:

• US makes a “credible” threat saying that they won’t publically defend UKR but will defend NATO territory

• the west supplied UKR with weapons, military, and intelligence, and imposed sanctions on Russia

• he didn’t think the threats/signals from the west were costly enough to stop the attack — so he went on with the invasion

Brinkmanship

purposefully escalating conflict to the edge to pressure the other side to back down

EX:

Russia Nuclear Rhetoric

• never actually used nukes

• proposes threats made by presidents and other officials

• used to deter and intimidate NATO/west and UKR

Large Scale Military Exercises to

• Russia signals “we can move quickly if need to”

• raises anxiety and intimidation

• trying to get the other side to back down — escalating the war

War of Attrition

states try to win by tiring out the other state and using up their weapons and supplies and stuff. exhausting their political, military, and economy

EX:

Russia

• exhaust Ukrainian forced

• drain western support

• outlast Ukraine politically and economically

Ukraine: also fighting attritionaly

• inflicting steady losses

• getting western support to sanction Russia

Sunk Cost Fallacy

continuing the action only because youve invested so much time, money, and effort even though continuing it is bringing zero progress (delays convergence because they don’t want to compromise)

• spending hours on a math problem and making 0 progress, you still work on it bc you alr spent 3 hrs on it

Hand Tying

leaders making public commitments that they have to follow or it will be politically costly — if they don’t follow through it can sound like they got defeated ( not good for global reputation)

• this makes it hard to compromise, or stop fighting bc the leaders already declared that they will win over the territories so backing down makes them seem bad

Commitment Problems

occurs when states can’t made credible promises to abide by the agreement in the future, especially bc of power shift

• lack of enforcement - no international government

• fear of future cheating can stop agreements

EX:

Russia might fear that a ceasfire agreement will allow Ukraine to rearm with Western support

Ukraine might fear that Russia will regain lost territory, threaten long term sovereignty ( government, authority)

Domestic Politics

there are costs to failing domestic expectations:

Zelensky

• reduced popular support

• threat to re-election ( Ukraine has a democratic system)

• weakens negotiating leverage (the ability to influence others side to accept your terms)

Putin:

• risk of loosing the war — seen as personal failure

• “rally around the flag” will fade ( public support”

Gambling for Resurrection - domestic pressure = more riskier military or political actions

Escalate to Deescalate: leaders temporarily escalating conflict to create leverage for negotiation

• Russia Rhetoric - pressure the west

• Zelensky: uses diplomacy and international appeals to maintain western suppport

feasibility vs durability:

talks about settlement:

feasibility: Can both states agree to a settlement today?

Durability: will the settlement last in the future?

Possible Sources of Commitment problems

1) Military capabilities

2) Territorial Gains

3) Economic Recovery

4) Political Instability

Ways To Get Around Commitment Problems

1) International Gurantees

2) Demilitarized Zones/force buffers

3) Monitoring and Verification

Conflicting Expectations

conflict will arise if states miscalculate power shifts

Would Russia reconstitute its military?

yes, post-war Russia could rebuild forces — increases commitment problems. Ukraine would still need western support if not they will need to compromise with Russia

Third Parties: Can outside forces facilitate peace?

1) Security Gurantees

2)Political Concessions

3)Sanctions

4) Aid conditionality

Article 5 of NATO Treaty

an attack on one member is an attack on all

Global Implication of the Ukraine War

terms of settlement are visible to others: acts as a precedent

• territorial concessions

• political concessions

• costs of aggression