In Geopolitics Today - Tuesday, March 8th

US and UK Ban Imports of Russian Energy, China’s Balancing Act Over the Russia-Ukraine War, Early Russian Failures in the War in Ukraine

US and UK Ban Imports of Russian Energy

The United States and the United Kingdom have decided to ban all energy imports from Russia. The UK announced a gradual phase out of imports of Russian oil and gas products by the end of this year, while the US Presidency has issued an executive order banning oil, coal and liquefied natural gas products from Russia. The move is significant as both the UK and the US attempt to cut off the main financial artery of Russia’s economy.

The United States imports roughly 500,000 barrels of Russian crude oil and associated products per day, and, much like the UK, can afford to ban imports from Russia without suffering severe consequences on its own industry and economy. However, the situation surrounding Russian energy supplies is very different in Europe, where the US and the UK have sought to convince allies to join in a coordinated set of energy sanctions. European countries are far more dependent on Russian oil, gas and coal to attempt to isolate Russia's energy-heavy economy unless they wish to threaten their own economic activity. Germany is one concrete example where a loss of Russian energy has been recognized as a credible threat to civil order and stability, preventing German policymakers from joining in Washington’s harsh sanctions regime as German officials have already dismissed the idea of sanctioning Russia’s oil and gas industries.

Read more about this story here.

China’s Balancing Act Over the Russia-Ukraine War

China has refrained from openly supporting either side in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. While Beijing has offered to play a “constructive role” in mediation efforts, officials overtly refuse to condemn Russia in a delicate balancing act. Since the outbreak of direct armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Beijing has changed the focus of its statements several times, suggesting a difficulty in navigating narratives which contradict China’s policies elsewhere.

On the one had, China is a loud proponent of a policy line emphasizing principles of non-interference and territorial integrity, while on the other, Beijing has sought to avoid using language condemning Russia as a show of support for its ally. China maintains that all states’ sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected and protected, but makes it clear that NATO’s expansion raises legitimate security demands in Russia. China also supports the exercise of restraint by all parties to the conflict, emphasizing a diplomatic resolution and peaceful settlement to end fighting. These statements signify that China is walking a tightrope between supporting Russia’s security concerns while at the same time reaffirming its own commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Read more about this story here.

Early Russian Failures in the War in Ukraine

Rather than a rapid and decisive capitulation of the government in Kiev and a defeat of Ukraine’s armed forces, Russia is now finding itself engaged in a slow, grinding war. Russia has so far failed to achieve a change in government in Kiev, has failed to break the will and ability of Ukraine’s military forces to conduct operations against Russian forces, and has failed to acquire any semblance of information dominance. While this does not mean that Russia will not achieve its objectives, the manner in which Moscow has conducted this war has left the reputations of Russia’s political, economic and military institutions badly bruised.

The purpose of war is to break the enemy’s military capability or will to fight. The loss of surprise has been perhaps the most obvious failing of Russia’s offensive manoeuvres, in part spoiled by a consistent flow of US intelligence detailing Russian troop movements to all NATO allies (as well as Ukraine) months before the invasion took place. This flow of intelligence also allowed the Ukrainian military to mitigate Russia’s military advantages, which — with the help of military advisors from NATO member states — strategically positioned their armed forces at a distance from Russia’s many armoured battle groups. This has allowed for the preservation of the majority of Ukraine’s military capabilities from the kind of rapid armoured advances Russian military doctrine leans on, and shifted the bulk of kinetic engagements between the two sides closer to urban centres where a large population has been long-prepared for a fierce resistance campaign. Similarly, Russia has failed to disable Ukrainian communications, and this has enabled Kiev to wage an effective campaign of psychological warfare against Russian aims and objectives.

Read more about this story here.