Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Due to the current situation in the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, most observers assume that there is currently no end to the war in sight. Why is that? Predictions are always difficult, especially in complex and volatile strategic situations. But the Russian invasion of Ukraine generates special strategic trilemmas for all key actors and forces them to balance political trade-offs.

A trilemma arises when actors pursue three political goals, but due to their situation they can only achieve two of them. In the case of the war in Ukraine, the complexity is further increased by the diverging expectations regarding the outcome of the war, the “shadow of the future”. Those involved and observers must constantly adapt their risk assessment. At the same time, this determines their actions in the present.

Russia, for example, is an adversary that learns and adapts to new tactical challenges. It is capable of generating mass industrially and in terms of its “human capital”. On the other hand, his leadership is also prone to catastrophic strategic errors. Against this background, Putin could certainly open a second front in the Baltics, even though his field army is largely tied up in Ukraine. NATO will have to include this possibility in its strategic considerations.

blank
During the Republican primaries, Trump declared that he would violate Article 5 of the NATO treaty if a country that invests less than two percent of its gross domestic product in its defense is attacked by Russia (Photo: Truth Sozial)

Strategic trilemma

During the Republican primaries in the US, Trump announced that he would give President Zelensky a 24-hour ultimatum to negotiate peace with Putin. And he also promised that he would critically examine the goals and purpose of NATO. He will disregard Article 5 if a country that invests less than two percent of its gross domestic product in its defense is attacked by Russia. On the contrary, he will even encourage Russia to deal with the country in question as Russia wishes. A possible re-election of Trump not only influences actions in Ukraine, but also the security precautions of the other NATO members. President Zelensky's visit to the Scandinavian countries and the Baltics as well as the British Prime Minister's visit to Kiev already indicate the nucleus of a newly emerging European coalition (possibly with Canada) to support Ukraine in the event of a US-induced NATO failure. Such hedging strategies
gies are an expression of forward-looking thinking. They show how assumptions about the future influence decisions in the present.

Zurück zu den gegenwärtigen Trilemmata: Russland und die Ukraine wollen beide den Krieg gewinnen. Für Russland bedeutet ein Sieg eine „Wiedervereinigung“, die auch Auswirkungen auf das internationale System hat. Ein russischer Sieg beendete die westliche Hegemonie und führte zum Entstehen einer „gerechten“ multipolaren Weltordnung mit Russland als Pol mit einer regionalen Einflusszone. Das Streben nach der Erreichung der ersten beiden Ziele sollte jedoch keinen Regimewechsel oder gar einen Zusammenbruch in Russland auslösen.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related topics

blankNATO – Stoltenberg extends term of office blankWar in Europe blankWar in Ukraine – BMVg triggers national alarm measures blankInterjection from Berlin – 6,000 nuclear weapons – How to deal with fake news about the Ukraine war? blankRheinmetall with unbridled growth blankTHE BARTELS COLUMN – Pearl Harbor, Cuba, Afghanistan: History becomes relevant again blankLambrecht wants to anchor the defense budget and arms exports in the national security strategy blankGSP – Peace diplomacy is the core competence of the OSCE blankDefense budget under pressure