The pitfalls of multilateral coalitions
By Daniel W. Drezner, Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University
Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates is a curmudgeon when it comes to his assessments of American foreign policy. He is an even bigger curmudgeon when it comes to his assessment of European contributions to transatlantic security. It therefore seems noteworthy that, while still being curmudgeonly, Gates offered some recent praise for the degree of transatlantic unity:
This comes on the heels of last week’s decision by Germany, Poland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and other countries to send upwards of 300 tanks to Ukraine — after weeks of news cycles about whether this would actually happen or not. Furthermore, the United States is planning to boost its production of artillery shells fivefold over the next two years to assist that country in defending itself from Russia’s invasion.
Russia is less than pleased about these moves, but Moscow’s efforts to deter Western help have not worked out all that well. Indeed, Newsweek’s David Brennan reports that the White House was unimpressed with Russia’s response:
Russian officials met the Western announcements with anger. Russia’s Ambassador to Germany Sergei Nechayev said in a statement Wednesday that the “extremely dangerous decision takes the conflict to a new level of confrontation,” framing the step as a “permanent escalation.”
Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov said the step was “another blatant provocation against the Russian Federation,” while Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Abrams and other Western tanks “would burn up just like all the others.”
On Thursday, Pentagon deputy spokesperson Sabrina Singh said the Russian vitriol was nothing new.
“I feel like I’ve heard that talking point before from them, whether it was the Javelins that we were giving or the HIMARS and then the Patriot,” she told reporters. “Everything seems, I guess, to be an ‘escalation.’ I don’t view it as that.”
“This is a war that Russia started, invading a sovereign state,” she added. “What is escalatory is them continuing this war each and every day.”
To the Spectator’s Jacob Heilbrunn this is further evidence of Biden’s leadership skills:
The latest sign of Western resolve will help strengthen Ukraine’s ability not simply to repel Moscow, but put it on the defensive. For a regime that subsists on propaganda, the conspicuous lack of victories in Ukraine threatens its very existence.
Perhaps the most ominous sign, from Moscow’s perspective, is that Germany is performing something of a U-turn in foreign affairs. Far from going wobbly, Germany, prodded by Poland, is adopting a more assertive stance toward Putin….
Now that Scholz has approved the transfer of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, there’s no going back. The handcuffs that the West imposed on itself over the past year in arming Ukraine have been discarded. There are no real red lines any longer. Indeed, it’s only a matter of time before Ukraine receives fighter jets from the West to counter Russian forays into its air space.
Sure enough, Politico reports that some Pentagon officials are advocating to send F-16s fighter jets to Ukraine.
It is worth stepping back to consider the degree to which Russia has miscalculated Western intentions with respect to Ukraine. At every step of this conflict Russia and Putin have expected the West to fracture and fold its support for Ukraine; Russia and Putin have been wrong every time.
Why does Russia keep making this mistake? One could posit that Putin is basing his expectations on past U.S. weakness, but I don’t think that’s it. Because Putin is hardly the only observer to wonder about the sustainability of the coalition supporting Ukraine. In the eleven months since the start of the war it has been a recurring theme of, say, Politico’s coverage of the conflict: how long can Biden maintain the domestic and international coalition supporting Ukraine?
It is not a crazy question, either. Putin knows that ad hoc coalitions can be unstable and ephemeral; Russia is facing one of those coalitions right now. Given the recurring nature of transatlantic disputes, it is sensible to wonder whether the United States can maintain it.
It is a credit to the Biden administration that they have been able to fashion a sustainable coalition despite trade tensions. It is precisely the “pleasant surprise” of it that might be causing Russia to repeatedly miscalculate, however. This is the pitfall of cobbling together a multilateral coalition. When it functions, the effect can be powerful; because it might fall apart, however, targeted actors will often need convincing about its sustainability. Which means that Biden will need to continue to demonstrate the robustness of his diplomacy.
It is a credit to Biden and his foreign policy team that they keep ringing up diplomatic wins with key allies — not just in confronting Russia, but also China and Iran. That takes arduous diplomatic work — so arduous, in fact, that adversaries will test the durability of the coalition repeatedly.
The result will often be frustrating, in that Russia will double down on hopes that the pro-Ukraine alliance will buckle. But as populists continue to fare poorly in recent elections, it is likely that Russia will experience even more frustration when their hopes are dashed.
This piece is republished from Drezner’s World.