A Once and Future Nuclear Power: This Week in Ukraine
This week: the Zelensky Victory Plan, NATO or nukes, North Koreans enter the fray, Ukrainian corruption, and more!
1. The Zelensky Victory Plan
This week, on the heels of a lackluster Western response, Zelensky unveiled his five-point Victory Plan to the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament). Here are the talking points of the plan taken from the Meduza website, with my comments following each point:
1. An immediate invitation to join NATO. My take: It's probably not going to happen in my lifetime. No one in the US (present Administration or Trump) has any desire to make this happen. It didn’t happen in 1991, 1994, 2008, or 2014, and it won’t happen now. It’s a non-starter, and Ukraine will have to be satisfied with NATO country soldiers stationed inside of Ukraine when this war is over as the primary “treaty” deterrent.
2. Defending Ukraine’s battlefield positions and “bringing the war to Russian territory” through expanded military operations and greater aid from allies — including permission to fire Western-supplied weapons deeper inside Russia. (This point includes a secret annex with more specifics.) My take: More is always better, but support to Ukraine is a zero-sum game. Congress has authorized $61 billion of aid to Ukraine. Once that’s gone, it’s gone for a while, if not forever (if we even send the total amount to Ukraine). As I argued a few weeks ago in “Rules of the Game,” Ukraine doesn’t need any new Western capabilities. It can defeat Russia with everything the West has already given them. It just needs more of the same. Besides, Ukraine is currently doing well with its indigenous deep-strike capabilities and is further developing others (like short-range ballistic missiles and better deep-strike drones).
3. A “comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package” from allies. (This point includes another secret annex already shared with the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.) My take: I’m having a hard time with this one, but I’m sure the classified annex explains it better. What other strategic deterrence could there be? Cyber? I doubt the West will share any offensive cyber technology with Ukraine. Biological warfare? No. Economic sanctions that actually work? Ha! Sure.
4. Expanded mining of Ukraine’s natural resources to tap the country’s “strategic economic potential” and compete against Russian production on behalf of the “democratic world.” (A secret annex to this point was shared “only with certain partners.”) My take: I have complete confidence that when this war is over, Ukraine can be the next South Korea regarding economic recovery and global technological and mineral contribution. I think post-war investment in Ukraine is less risky than it seems and would be mutually beneficial for Ukraine and its Western investors. Time to get in on the ground floor! (The other floors have been destroyed by artillery fire).
5. Using Ukraine’s battlefield experience and military contingent to enrich NATO defenses and European security. My take: This seems like an attempt by Zelensky to offer some type of return on investment for future assistance. I’m not sure what kind of assistance Ukraine can offer. Western countries (at least the US) don’t seem interested in learning the lessons from this war, so the enrichment of the Western military seems quaint. Regarding enriching NATO defenses, Ukraine is going to have enough to worry about in maintaining a feasible conventional deterrent to Russian aggression after this war ends, as the politicians begin the inevitable attack on military spending under the guise of a “peace dividend.” Besides, actual war experience or not, I would take the US military in Poland or Germany over Ukrainians any day (and yes, I am biased).
Overall, the Zelensky Victory Plan boils down to continued Western support. My classified annex to the Victory Plan would be simple: Western countries send as many Infantry Fighting Vehicles, artillery pieces, artillery shells, bullets, and cash as possible to Ukraine. Also, set up a giant infantry training center in Poland. And dig in for the long haul. This is a war of attrition; the West needs to start acting like it.
2. NATO or Nukes
This week, Zelensky implied that if Ukraine won’t be allowed to enter NATO, it will have to develop its own nuclear weapons program. According to the Kyiv Independent, in September, Zelensky told Trump, "Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons, which will serve as protection, or it must be part of some kind of alliance. Apart from NATO, we do not know of such an effective alliance." By Thursday, Zelensky had backtracked on his Dmitry Medvedev-like rhetoric, saying awkwardly, “NATO countries are not at war. People are all alive in NATO countries. And thank God. That is why we choose NATO. Not nuclear weapons.” It reminded me of Han Solo in the control room:
Zelensky: Uh, everything's under control. Situation normal.
NATO: What happened?
Zelensky: Uh, we had a slight weapons hallucination, but uh... everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now, thank you. How are you?
NATO: We're sending Mark Rutte.
Zelensky: Uh, uh... negative, negative. We had a verbal leak here now. Give us a few minutes to lock it down. Large leak, very dangerous.
On the surface, Ukraine developing nuclear weapons might seem like a rational course of action. The world has seen what happens to countries without nuclear weapons programs (e.g., Iraq and Libya) and the deference paid to those with (e.g., Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran). There is little doubt that nuclear weapons help preserve the sanctity of independent nation-states. The problem is actually getting nuclear weapons.
Building a nuclear arsenal is easier said than done. Yes, it is 1940s technology, but it takes a degree of surreptition (surreptitiousness? surreptidity? surreptitude? sneakiness.) to pull off. The Pakistanis did it quietly. The North Koreans did it underground. The Iranians are having a hard time hiding it in the desert. I do not believe Russia would ever knowingly allow Ukraine to get the bomb again (technically, in 1993, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world before relinquishing it under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994). Honestly, I don’t think the West would ever allow it, either.
3. The North Koreans Have Entered the Chat
This week, the South Korean government stated that as many as 12,000 North Koreans were sent to fight in the war against Ukraine. Although the Kremlin will probably restrict their movements to the Kursk region, this clearly escalates the war. But, hey, it’s ok when Putin does it, right? When they’re not busy defecting to Ukraine, I’m sure there will be a lot of North Koreans eating some HIMARS missiles soon, especially if they train outside and in range.
Regardless of how many North Koreans are killed and wounded on the battlefield, the addition of these troops will alleviate pressure on the Kremlin to provide more men into the meat grinder. In a way, it is a continuation of the Dead Russian Fallacy. It doesn’t matter how many norcs (North Korean orcs) Ukraine kills. With a population of 24 million, Kim Jong Un will make more.
4. Ukrainian Corruption
This week, I interviewed Donald Bowser on the podcast. The thing I like about Don is not only does he have decades of experience in Russia, Ukraine, and corruption, but he’s also not a Ukraine fanboy. He’s a straight shooter with upper management written all over him. Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Me: You've heard this narrative that Ukraine is corrupt, and we shouldn't be supporting some mafia, tracksuit-wearing Eastern European former-Soviet country. How corrupt is Ukraine?
Don: Okay, so I've been working on this issue since the mid-90s. This is the worst that I've ever seen it in Ukraine. So I started in 1997 with the anti-corruption work in Ukraine, Operation Clean Hands by the former Minister of Justice Holovaty. So, it's the most corrupt that I've seen. We have a mass level of looting of the country. There's no other way to describe it...
If you want to hear more of our conversation, the Spotify link to the episode is here.
5. [Video] Send in the Clowns
September was the first month in which Russia attacked Ukraine with Shaheds every day. There were reportedly 1,339 Shahed drone attacks for the month. On October 16th, Russia launched 136 Shahed at Ukraine. Russia’s domestic production of Shaheds has obviously hit its stride. Nothing brings this fact home more than watching a bevy of Shaheds flying overhead (video here).
The analog we should be looking to isn't Pakistan or DPRK... it's Israel.
It's widely held that while the US and allies were publicly condemning Israeli pursuit of a nuclear weapons program, they were secret helping or at the very least cheering it on.
In short, Ukraine almost certainly has a program. At what stage? Who knows.
Also, regarding corruption. Yes. Ukraine is corrupt. Very. But the problem isn't that Ukraine is more corrupt than the west, it's that it is differently corrupt.
In the west we use loopholes and quid pro quo. In Ukraine they use bribery and intimidation. In the west you pay a family member to sit on a board. In Ukraine you just pay a bribe.