Russia - General Discussion.

[Musashi_kenshin]

In Russia's perception there's a new cold war

I see it like this.

Russia took over the USSR's position at the chess table. Putin didn't like the way the game was going, so kicked the table over when he annexed the Crimea. He then blamed NATO for all the chess pieces being on the floor.

Much like China, any cold war is Russia's fault. Expecting everyone roll over on to their backs and make submissive noises isn't reasonable.

I don't believe this is accurate. The articles proposed by Russia included a point about no NATO expansion into the former USSR. Somewhere along the line this was interpreted by several media outlets as a request to evict the Baltic states from NATO. I don't think this is a correct interpretation, though of course it remains to be seen.

Russia's demands would heavily weaken the Baltics and Eastern Europe even if technically they could stay in NATO. For a start Russia wants a veto on NATO exercises in those areas. It also insists that NATO remove personnel and military equipment deployed to countries that entered NATO after 1997. That would leave the Baltics without any air cover or allied foreign ground forces. As a result Russia would be able to annex them without too much bother.

 

[swerve]

I don't believe this is accurate. The articles proposed by Russia included a point about no NATO expansion into the former USSR. Somewhere along the line this was interpreted by several media outlets as a request to evict the Baltic states from NATO. I don't think this is a correct interpretation, though of course it remains to be seen.

I didn't see any reports of Russian demands to evict the Baltic states from NATO. What I saw matches what Musashi-kenshin says, i.e. leaving them very vulnerable. Demands like that, after what Russia has done in Ukraine & Georgia, are seen by the Balts & Poles as preparing for land grabs.

The Estonian nightmare, for example, is Narva & environs being taken over by heavily armed Russians claiming to be Estonian citizens, lavishly supplied & supported from across the border by Russian artillery while Putin says it's a justified rebellion by oppressed Russians & an Estonian internal affair & NATO troops arriving would be seen as aimed at Russia & would be resisted by Russia. Given what's happened elsewhere & Russian support of ethnic Russian groups which make extraordinary demands (e.g. a big chunk of Tallinn & everything from there to the border), do you think they're unreasonable? They see NATO as their only protectioon from Russia. They remember what happened in 1939-41 as well as having seen what's happened in Georgia & Ukraine. To them, Putin's demands only make sense as moves to make them vulnerable to the same treatment.

 

[Feanor]

I didn't see any reports of Russian demands to evict the Baltic states from NATO. What I saw matches what Musashi-kenshin says, i.e. leaving them very vulnerable. Demands like that, after what Russia has done in Ukraine & Georgia, are seen by the Balts & Poles as preparing for land grabs.

The Estonian nightmare, for example, is Narva & environs being taken over by heavily armed Russians claiming to be Estonian citizens, lavishly supplied & supported from across the border by Russian artillery while Putin says it's a justified rebellion by oppressed Russians & an Estonian internal affair & NATO troops arriving would be seen as aimed at Russia & would be resisted by Russia. Given what's happened elsewhere & Russian support of ethnic Russian groups which make extraordinary demands (e.g. a big chunk of Tallinn & everything from there to the border), do you think they're unreasonable? They see NATO as their only protectioon from Russia. They remember what happened in 1939-41 as well as having seen what's happened in Georgia & Ukraine. To them, Putin's demands only make sense as moves to make them vulnerable to the same treatment.

This makes more sense. I've seen reactions from media that take the line that Russia is asking to kick the Baltics out of NATO and assumed that's what you guys were referring to.

 

[Vivendi]

Several analysts are ringing the alarm bells.

President Vladimir Putin is more likely than not to invade Ukraine again in the coming weeks. As someone who helped President Barack Obama manage the U.S. and international response to Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, and our effort to keep Moscow from occupying the whole country into 2015, I am distressingly convinced of it.

Dr. Evelyn N. Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia in the Obama administration, and as former senior advisor to the Supreme Allied Commander, NATO

The US Must Prepare for War Against Russia Over Ukraine - Defense One

Moscow and Beijing are prepared to shred international law and build on the wreckage a New World Order in their own image, where “might makes right.”

World war may be inevitable. However, the best hope to avoid catastrophe is negotiation with Russia to accommodate Moscow’s most fundamental security interests in order to avoid war[.]

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, was Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, and served on the staffs of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA.

Make peace, not war, with Russia - Center for Security Policy

Odds are that Putin will limit his goals to those he is confident he can achieve, ideally using the threat of war to intimidate the West into an agreement that effectively cedes Ukraine to a Russian sphere of influence without having to fight, or failing that, launching military action to occupy more of eastern Ukraine and perhaps establish a land bridge along the Azov coast to the Crimea.

Mindful of the lessons of 1941 and 2001 however, we should remain vigilant and not fail to imagine the possibility that Putin has much grander ambitions, such as reabsorbing the entirety of Ukraine and breaking NATO in the process, and correspondingly a far more aggressive strategy for realizing them, perhaps including unexpected actions that would immediately and dramatically affect the lives and livelihoods of Americans here at home.

Gregory Sims served in the CIA’s Clandestine Service for over thirty years, including multiple field tours as Chief and Deputy Chief of CIA stations.

How Putin's Plans for Ukraine Could Pay Off (thecipherbrief.com)

In other news, two different undersea cables have recently been destroyed in Norway, it's not clear who is behind, or if the two events are linked. Russia is one of the suspects. Undersea Cable Connecting Norway With Arctic Satellite Station Has Been Mysteriously Severed (thedrive.com)

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I liked Dr Pry's delusional suggestion that Russia could be convinced to put aside its differences with NATO.

Putin isn't hostile to NATO because he actually thinks it's going to invade, he does it to justify his dictatorial control over Russia. He daren't give up power because he might be arrested due to all the crimes he's committed, not least blackmailing people to give him $billions. Having a permanent boogeyman on the front door helps deflect questions as to what he's actually doing for Russia. Making friends with NATO would remove that card to play.

It is true that a compromise might be possible, particularly on a reciprocal agreement on stationing missiles of a certain range in border areas, as it wouldn't stop anyone from having them in their arsenals. But no one should kid themselves into thinking giving Russia what it wants will result in some sort of grand pact. It will only defuse this crisis.

 

[Feanor]

I liked Dr Pry's delusional suggestion that Russia could be convinced to put aside its differences with NATO.

Putin isn't hostile to NATO because he actually thinks it's going to invade, he does it to justify his dictatorial control over Russia. He daren't give up power because he might be arrested due to all the crimes he's committed, not least blackmailing people to give him $billions. Having a permanent boogeyman on the front door helps deflect questions as to what he's actually doing for Russia. Making friends with NATO would remove that card to play.

It is true that a compromise might be possible, particularly on a reciprocal agreement on stationing missiles of a certain range in border areas, as it wouldn't stop anyone from having them in their arsenals. But no one should kid themselves into thinking giving Russia what it wants will result in some sort of grand pact. It will only defuse this crisis.

Just giving people what they want isn't a good way to conduct diplomacy anyway. It's about what you want to accomplish vs what you're willing to pay for it (be it in costs incurred, or incentives offered). I think one of the issues the US is having with Russia is that the US isn't willing to offer much, if anything. And is then shocked and surprised when, in exchange for offers that Russia sees as contemptible, they get nothing in return. The US needs a good grasp of what it wants, and what it's willing to pay for it again either in the costs of direct action or in incentives offered to Russia. Without that, the Ukraine situation will likely continue to fester until some crisis in Ukraine (or possibly Russia, though that could get ugly) itself forces the situation to a resolution.

 

[SolarWind]

I think it may be a political suicide to give Russia what they want, and so there is no such solution where Russia gets anything they asked for just handed to them, and I am sure they know it. Russia is playing a more sophisticated game, not sure what it is though.

 

[Vivendi]

Just giving people what they want isn't a good way to conduct diplomacy anyway. It's about what you want to accomplish vs what you're willing to pay for it (be it in costs incurred, or incentives offered). I think one of the issues the US is having with Russia is that the US isn't willing to offer much, if anything. And is then shocked and surprised when, in exchange for offers that Russia sees as contemptible, they get nothing in return. The US needs a good grasp of what it wants, and what it's willing to pay for it again either in the costs of direct action or in incentives offered to Russia. Without that, the Ukraine situation will likely continue to fester until some crisis in Ukraine (or possibly Russia, though that could get ugly) itself forces the situation to a resolution.

I don't agree, I think the US and NATO/EU offer quite a good deal to Russia. However Russia is not satisfied and wants more. Russian paranoia and perhaps lack of understanding of the situation of the Eastern European countries is puzzling, and also very concerning.

Russia complaints about NATO expansions eastward but fail to mention (or don't understand) that eastward expansion would never have happened if the newly democratic countries in Eastern Europe had not been begging, pleading, imploring, urging NATO to let them join. They were never forced to join. The one and only reason Eastern European countries were desperate to join NATO, was the very bad experience they had being part of the last Russian empire (USSR).

The "peace dividend" led most European countries to reduce defense spending significantly during the 90s and 00s.

Then, after 2014, we saw a gradual but still very modest build-up of military capacities in Eastern European NATO countries. As we all know, the trigger for this was Russian aggression, and Russian buildup of military capacities, in combination with weak NATO capacities. The aggressor in Europe is Russia not NATO. NATO is not a threat to Russia, Russia is threatening the weaker NATO countries, launches cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns in NATO countries, in addition Russia also do the same to non-NATO countries (e.g., Finland, Sweden), and in some cases also invade (Ukraine, Georgia).

One of the concerns raised by Moscow is that NATO missiles can be launched from Ukraine in the future, with only 5 minute warning time before they hit Moscow. This could indeed be very concerning to Moscow, if this hypothetical situation ever were to arise. What then about Russian nuclear missiles targeting Warsaw from Kaliningrad? Or Russian nuclear missiles targeting cities in the Baltics, These are scenarios that NATO need to be very concerned about.

Anyway, let's support Russia rebuilding their empire, let's support Finland getting back the regions that were taken from them, let's support Sweden rebuilding their empire, let's support Turkey rebuilding their Ottoman empire, the UK rebuilding their empire, etc.

Or not.

 

[Vivendi]

Update on today's talks:

Nato discussions with Russia have concluded with no sign of progress towards narrowing substantial differences or defusing the crisis over Ukraine, and with the alliance’s secretary general warning “there is a real risk for a new armed conflict in Europe”.

After four hours of talks, the US delegation leader, the deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman, said she had heard nothing in Brussels that differed from the Kremlin position laid out at bilateral talks in Geneva, demanding a guaranteed end to Nato expansion and a withdrawal of alliance troops in formerly Soviet bloc countries that joined the alliance after 1997.



Those proposals remained unacceptable to the US and all Nato allies, Sherman said.

Nato’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, called the day’s meeting a “defining moment for European security”, but said “significant differences” remained.

“We had a very serious and direct exchange on the situation in and around Ukraine and the implications for European security,” Stoltenberg said. “Our differences will not be easy to bridge but it is a positive sign that all Nato allies and Russia sat down around the same table and engaged on substantive topics.”

But he conceded: “There is a real risk for a new armed conflict in Europe,” and warned that Russia would face “severe consequences” if it used military force.

Nato chief warns of ‘real risk of conflict’ as talks with Russia over Ukraine end | Ukraine | The Guardian


Instead of de-escalating (as NATO has asked Russia), Russia decided this is a good time to launch live fire exercises close to the Ukrainian border:

Wednesday's meeting comes as the two sides are stuck in deadlock, with fears mounting that Russia could launch an invasion into Ukraine.

Moscow has dismissed such claims. However, Russia has been amassing as many as 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian frontier, and on the eve of the talks, the military began live-fire drills in regions close to the border.

Russia and NATO meet for make-or-break talks on Ukraine crisis - CNN

It does not look like Russia is serious about finding a diplomatic solution. Or are they just trying to intimidate further before they start diplomacy? Unfortunately I think it's the former, although I still hope for the latter.

 

[SolarWind]

It does not look like Russia is serious about finding a diplomatic solution. Or are they just trying to intimidate further before they start diplomacy? Unfortunately I think it's the former, although I still hope for the latter.

The west is stuck in rationalization mode and, like I wrote earlier, Russia is playing some sophisticated game. They seem to be at the very least attempting to tarnish the credibility of Western Countries' diplomacy, and, if so, this would not be an isolated incident. I am not sure what else they could be up to.

 

[Feanor]

I don't agree, I think the US and NATO/EU offer quite a good deal to Russia. However Russia is not satisfied and wants more.

What deal do you think Russia was offered?

Instead of de-escalating (as NATO has asked Russia), Russia decided this is a good time to launch live fire exercises close to the Ukrainian border:


Russia and NATO meet for make-or-break talks on Ukraine crisis - CNN

It does not look like Russia is serious about finding a diplomatic solution. Or are they just trying to intimidate further before they start diplomacy? Unfortunately I think it's the former, although I still hope for the latter.

I'm not sold that this is a message. Military units conduct live fire exercises with regularity, and Russia has military units stationed near Ukraine, including inside Crimea. I suspect that the headline "Russia launches live fire exercises close to the Ukrainian border" would technically be true at almost any time of the year.

 

[Feanor]

I've moved the posts to the relevant thread.

 

[STURM]

Russia decided this is a good time to launch live fire exercises close to the Ukrainian border:

Fine but what about when the West conducted exercises in the Baltic Sates which it says is to deter aggression but which the Russians see as provocative?

It does not look like Russia is serious about finding a diplomatic solution. Or are they just trying to intimidate further before they start diplomacy? Unfortunately I think it's the former, although I still hope for the latter.

Why would Russia not be serious about a diplomatic solution? The Russians are under no illusions that all its demands will be met and the West is also keenly aware that it to has to make certain compromises it order to reach a common agreement.

 

[Vivendi]

Fine but what about when the West conducted exercises in the Baltic Sates which it says is to deter aggression but which the Russians see as provocative?

To my knowledge NATO never gathered 100,000 soldiers in the Baltics, close to the Russian border. NATO has been very careful not to put too many troops in the Baltics, to not make Russia nervous. Only when Russia started acting more and more aggressive, and after the Baltic nations became more and more worried about the increased Russian aggresion and military presence near their borders and begged NATO to do something, did NATO increase their presence in the Baltics.

Regarding the current Russian build-up: starting live fire exercised during the day of negotiations seems a bit odd to me. Why not the week before or the week after?

Why would Russia not be serious about a diplomatic solution? The Russians are under no illusions that all its demands will be met and the West is also keenly aware that it to has to make certain compromises it order to reach a common agreement.

I don't know, but in the meetings so far Russia has not indicated willingness to compromise on anything. Instead they have made demands that Russia knows NATO cannot accept.

Russia wants to deny Ukraine and other countries to decide how to handle their foreign policy, meaning that Russia will not accept Ukraine as an independent country. NATO, an organization based on the self-determination of democratic countries, cannot accept this on principle.

In addition Russia makes demands on lowering NATO forces in Eastern European countries, without being willing to reduce their own forces bordering those same countries. Russia assemble 100,000 soldiers close to Ukraine and says this is not threatening (however at the same time they say that they will use military means if diplomacy fails). To make this even more ridiculous they claim a few thousand soldiers in Eastern European NATO countries constitute a significant threat to Russia. NATO has not been a threat to Russia since the end of the cold war. Russia claiming otherwise does not change this fact.

Russia refuse to pull back the soldiers close to Ukraine, as NATO has asked for.

This is not a way to conduct serious diplomacy from Russia's side.

I agree with this Norwegian analyst: If Ukraine asks for it, NATO should put troops in Ukraine.

NATO should to a far greater extent signal that they will not accept that Russia is moving closer now, according to Norway's former defense attaché to Ukraine, recently retired commander Hans Petter Midttun. - If we recognize that Ukraine is an independent nation and that these are the principles that are at stake, then we should deploy NATO forces if Ukraine wants it, he says to VG.

google translated from: Tidligere forsvarsattaché: Nato bør utplassere styrker i Ukraina – VG

 

[swerve]

To my knowledge NATO never gathered 100,000 soldiers in the Baltics, close to the Russian border. NATO has been very careful not to put too many troops in the Baltics, to not make Russia nervous. Only when Russia started acting more and more aggressive, and after the Baltic nations became more and more worried about the increased Russian aggresion and military presence near their borders and begged NATO to do something, did NATO increase their presence in the Baltics....

NATO forces in the Baltic states:

From 4 to 14 (usually in single figures) fighters for air policing.

About 1000-1500 (it varies) ground troops

Yes, a massive threat to Russia.

The fighters are there to stop the Russian air force from overflying the Baltic states & they & the ground troops are a tripwire. They're obviously not credible as either a threat to Russia or even a defensive force. For Russia to complain about them & demand their withdrawal is seen by the Balts & others as proof that Russia is neither speaking nor acting in good faith.

 

[Vivendi]

Throughout this week's talks, the US has repeatedly argued that diplomacy can't happen unless Russia de-escalates, which Sherman on Monday said the US defined as Russia returning its troops to barracks or telling the US "that exercises are ongoing and what their purpose is."

After Wednesday's meeting at NATO, Sherman said Russia had not committed to any de-escalation.

Russia's response:

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded Thursday that the US demands were "unacceptable."
"I do not think we need to explain how absolutely unacceptable such demands are, and, of course, we will not even discuss them," Lavrov said.

Ukraine crisis: US warns 'drumbeats of war' are sounding as talks with Russia end with no breakthrough - CNNPolitics

It seems pretty clear that Russia is not interested in diplomacy.

In other news:

"We believe there are strong elements of tightness in Europe's gas markets due to Russia's behavior," Birol told reporters, noting "today's low Russian gas flows to Europe coincide with heightened geopolitical tensions over Ukraine."

Russian gas company Gazprom reduced exports to Europe by 25% year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2021 despite high market prices and reduced spot sales while other exporters boosted them, Birol said.

"The current storage deficit in the European Union is largely due to Gazprom," he added.

In contrast to its dealings with the European Union, Russia is delivering natural gas exceeding its contractual commitments to China, Birol added.

IEA says Russia is undermining Europe's gas supply amid Ukraine standoff - CNN

 

[Vivendi]

Starting today, Sweden has increased military presence on the Swedish island of Gotland, with military personnel patrolling the streets:

Ökad militär aktivitet på Gotland: "Patruller ute på gator" - P4 Gotland | Sveriges Radio

Sweden is clearly concerned about recent developments.

Strategically important Gotland was almost completely demilitarized after the cold war, but Sweden has rebuilt the defenses of the island gradually, after 2014-15 or so.

Edit: Swedish media also report that 3 Russian landing crafts belonging to the North Fleet entered the Baltic Sea yesterday.

Ryska landstigningsfartyg i Östersjön | SVT Nyheter

 

[STURM]

It seems pretty clear that Russia is not interested in diplomacy.

To you maybe; to me Russia is very interested in diplomacy and wants to avoid war; irrespective of the demands it has made and anything else it's doing.

Unless of course all this is just a ruse by Russia to later say that it tried its best but but diplomacy failed because NATO was not interested in compromising or in serious diplomacy.

If Ukraine asks for it, NATO should put troops in Ukraine..

It sets a dangerous precedent; Ukraine is not a NATO member. Also NATO troops in the Ukraine will not necessarily deter Russia and would lead to a Russian response. Ultimately there is no appetite on NATO's part for a conflict with Russia.

Russia refuse to pull back the soldiers close to Ukraine, as NATO has asked for.

From a Russian perspective; why should it? The Troops are on Russian soil and the Russians have not denied the fact that if diplomacy fails; certain measures might be taken. Also what does Russia get in return from NATO if indeed Russian troops are pulled back from the border area?

INATO has been very careful not to put too many troops in the Baltics, to not make Russia nervous.

The numbers are not what's significant; what's significant - for the Russians - is that NATO troops are in the Baltics; a stone's throw away from Russia itself and their presence is directed at Russia.

meaning that Russia will not accept Ukraine as an independent country. NATO, an organization based on the self-determination of democratic countries, cannot accept this on principle.

Russia has no issues with the Ukraine being an independent country what is has issue with is the Ukraine - literally next to to Russia - being part of NATO or having NATO troops on its soil. If Belarus [a sovereign country] in the future decided that it wanted a Russian military presence on its territory; would Poland or other NATO countries object?

I don't know, but in the meetings so far Russia has not indicated willingness to compromise on anything. Instead they have made demands that Russia knows NATO cannot accept.

We have no idea at this stage as to what compromises Russia is willing to make but it's safe to assume that the Russians are under no illusions that all their demands will be met and that they are willing to drop some demands; depending on what NATO offers in turn.

NATO, an organization based on the self-determination of democratic countries, cannot accept this on principle.

Fine but then what are the Russian supposed to accept? Are they suppose to keep quiet whilst NATO keeps getting closer and closer to its borders?
It is only NATO which should be concerns about its security and strategic interests?

I don't have the answers but from where I'm standing; the common narrative held by many is that it's only NATO or the West which has legitimate security concerns.

 

[koxinga]

I tend to think the end game for the Russians is to extract as much concessions as possible, instead of war. None of what they raised, like keeping NATO out of Ukraine is new and their unwillingness to compromise is a standard negotiating tactic.

Crimea has cost Russia a pretty penny and I can't see them actually wanting more.

 

[Vivendi]

To you maybe; to me Russia is very interested in diplomacy and wants to avoid war; irrespective of the demands it has made and anything else it's doing.

What makes you say Russia is interested in diplomacy? They came with demands they knew could not be met, and when those were not met, they refused to discuss other issues where it would be easier to find an agreeement.

Unless of course all this is just a ruse by Russia to later say that it tried its best but but diplomacy failed because NATO was not interested in compromising or in serious diplomacy.

At the moment that's what it looks like to me.

It sets a dangerous precedent; Ukraine is not a NATO member. Also NATO troops in the Ukraine will not necessarily deter Russia and would lead to a Russian response. Ultimately there is no appetite on NATO's part for a conflict with Russia.

No it does not set a dangerous precedent. A country that has been invaded, and that is threatened by a major military power like Russia, is free to ask for assistance. Syrian dictator invited Russia to assist, why cannot Ukraine invite NATO?

From a Russian perspective; why should it? The Troops are on Russian soil and the Russians have not denied the fact that if diplomacy fails; certain measures might be taken. Also what does Russia get in return from NATO if indeed Russian troops are pulled back from the border area?

NATO did not require Russia to pull back troops, read the text above again. The other option was to explain what the troops were doing there. What they would get in return would be a better climate for diplomacy and negotiations.

The numbers are not what's significant; what's significant - for the Russians - is that NATO troops are in the Baltics; a stone's throw away from Russia itself and their presence is directed at Russia.

No their presence is not "directed" at Russia. And numbers do matter. Such a small number of soldiers cannot be "directed" or be a "threat" to Russia. It's physically impossible. And they are there because of proven Russian aggression, in particular in 2008 and 2014 but also several other incidents.

Russia has no issues with the Ukraine being an independent country what is has issue with is the Ukraine - literally next to to Russia - being part of NATO or having NATO troops on its soil. If Belarus [a sovereign country] in the future decided that it wanted a Russian military presence on its territory; would Poland or other NATO countries object?

Unfortunately you are wrong -- Russia does have issues with Ukraine being an independent country. Read what Putin and other Russian leaders have written about Ukraine recently.

Fine but then what are the Russian supposed to accept? Are they suppose to keep quiet whilst NATO keeps getting closer and closer to its borders?
It is only NATO which should be concerns about its security and strategic interests?

I don't have the answers but from where I'm standing; the common narrative held by many is that it's only NATO or the West which has legitimate security concerns.

You keep ignoring that after the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Russia empire, NATO reduced it's military capacities, very significantly. This happened because Russia was not seen as a threat at the time. There were not NATO troops in the Baltics. However Russia then did two things: they gradually rebuilt their military, and they started a very aggressive expansionist politics. It was the combination of these two things that gradually led to rebuilding of NATO capacities, and also NATO putting some small troops in the Baltics. If Russia can take steps that convince the Baltic countries, Poland, and other Eastern European contries that Russia will not be able to launch a surprise attack, then NATO can and will remove the few troops that are in those countries. However Russia is not interested in this, since the aim is to rebuild the Russian empire.[/QUOTE]