Russia's Military Expansion

[gazzzwp]

To my mind the issue over proposed oil pipelines in the middle east has not been discussed in either the ISIS thread or this one so far. I was unsure where it belonged but as it may well be one of the decisive factors in Russia's recent military assertiveness I thought it would be better here. I am sure you are all aware of this:

As Orenstein explained, “in 2009, Qatar proposed to build a pipeline to send its gas northwest via Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to Turkey… However, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad refused to sign the plan; Russia, which did not want to see its position in European gas markets undermined, put him under intense pressure not to”.

Russia’s Gazprom sells 80 per cent of its gas to Europe. So in 2010, Russia put its weight behind “an alternative Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline that would pump Iranian gas from the same field out via Syrian ports such as Latakia and under the Mediterranean.” The project would allow Moscow “to control gas imports to Europe from Iran, the Caspian Sea region, and Central Asia.”

The US-Russia gas pipeline war in Syria could destabilise Putin | Middle East Eye

This could explain a very great deal. Russia's Northern fleet is on it's way to Syria as we speak. Arguably an unnecessary show of force just to protect it's naval base and Assad?

If US friendly nations succeed with a pipeline to Europe at some later date, Iran would lose the Straits of Hormuz as it's key threat and Russia's economic future would in no small way be affected.

 

[John Fedup]

I guess oil/gas exports to Europe are a consideration. Frankly, Europe sourcing oil/gas from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to punish Russia isn't exactly taking the moral high ground considering the former two countries. Reliability of supply is hardly better considering the chaos of the ME.

The moral high ground would be tanking in LNG from Canada and Australia. Too bad the price of doing this is so much higher even with reliability factored in.

 

[gazzzwp]

I just read a very clear and detailed article that covers the issues that this thread addresses:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sia-and-the-west-reheated-a-historic-struggle

It goes into the mistakes the west has made in under-estimating Russia over the last couple of decades, and the hesitation over the chemical weapons issue in Syria, all playing effectively into Russia's hands.

It talks about more rigorous sanctions as the best option. The article mentions cutting Russia off from the banking system altogether. I tend to agree but the article misses the importance of symmetrical military responses in Eastern Europe. Russia now is going to want to capitalise on it's military and political successes this year and to my mind the west must be ready.

Another key point that I agree with is that Putin is offering his nation no economic vision, only military mobilisation.

I keep reading about a force of another 4000 NATO troops. How is this going to defend such a huge border? How come so many nations backed by the US can only muster a fraction of the forces that Russia can field? How is NATO going to respond to the nuclear forces in Kaliningrad?

Unless there are firm, immediate and robust responses made, Russia will maintain and even increase it's aggressive military posture and at the moment I see nothing but inadequate deterrence.

 

[Boatteacher]

I just read a very clear and detailed article that covers the issues that this thread addresses:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...sia-and-the-west-reheated-a-historic-struggle

It goes into the mistakes the west has made in under-estimating Russia over the last couple of decades, and the hesitation over the chemical weapons issue in Syria, all playing effectively into Russia's hands.

It talks about more rigorous sanctions as the best option. The article mentions cutting Russia off from the banking system altogether. I tend to agree but the article misses the importance of symmetrical military responses in Eastern Europe. Russia now is going to want to capitalise on it's military and political successes this year and to my mind the west must be ready.

Another key point that I agree with is that Putin is offering his nation no economic vision, only military mobilisation.

I keep reading about a force of another 4000 NATO troops. How is this going to defend such a huge border? How come so many nations backed by the US can only muster a fraction of the forces that Russia can field? How is NATO going to respond to the nuclear forces in Kaliningrad?

Unless there are firm, immediate and robust responses made, Russia will maintain and even increase it's aggressive military posture and at the moment I see nothing but inadequate deterrence.

It was much better and more nuanced journalism that I normally expect from the Guardian.

This week's Economist also has a special feature section on Russia which covers similar ground; albeit with a more economic and internally political focus.

If you had to sum up many pages of analysis in a few lines (dangerous at the best of times), it is probably that

• External aggression and generating a sense in international persecution is being used to cover up internal economic and structural weakness;

That has improved Putin's popularity internally, so might be seen as working;

• But there's a low tolerance for casualties or a hot war involvement

Containment might be better than direct confrontation.

 

[gazzzwp]

If you had to sum up many pages of analysis in a few lines (dangerous at the best of times), it is probably that

• External aggression and generating a sense in international persecution is being used to cover up internal economic and structural weakness;
  

• 
  
  That says it all for me. Yet I find it amazing that Putin is falling for this approach when economic co-operation is what his nation is crying out for. No one can blame the Baltic States and Eastern Europe for wanting to be part of a protective alliance given that a large number of people alive today in those nations remember only too well the iron yolk the USSR. No one alive would surely want to live through that again.
  
  It makes me think that what is going on in Russia is firstly some personal vendetta against the west (and Putin as we know laments the fall of the USSR) and secondly a fierce campaign to keep out western economic and democratic practices to protect the gratuitous situation that certain members of the elite enjoy.
  

Containment might be better than direct confrontation.

That is the only feasible military response. The question is will Europe adequately address the military weaknesses on it's Eastern flank before it is too late?

What can we expect from Putin as his economy deteriorates further? If the expected hike in oil prices in November does not materialise?

I see this as an extremely serious situation with the potential to be far more threatening than Cold War 1.

 

[Boatteacher]

That says it all for me. Yet I find it amazing that Putin is falling for this approach when economic co-operation is what his nation is crying out for. No one can blame the Baltic States and Eastern Europe for wanting to be part of a protective alliance given that a large number of people alive today in those nations remember only too well the iron yolk the USSR. No one alive would surely want to live through that again.

It makes me think that what is going on in Russia is firstly some personal vendetta against the west (and Putin as we know laments the fall of the USSR) and secondly a fierce campaign to keep out western economic and democratic practices to protect the gratuitous situation that certain members of the elite enjoy.

.

I hate to just parrot (and probably without doing justice to it) the Economist's approach, but in a way, that's the focus of the item.

Unlike previous leaders, Putin did not live through WW2 and only came of age at the end of the cold war. He's not scared by those experiences.

And the state is a Kleptocracy. They want to control and own the productive assets; leaving no room or incentive for those who could really develop the economic base of the state to do so.

And as the article, Feanor and probably Sturm have said or inferred, this is all about establishing Russia as great again; taking its proper place (in Russian views) in the world.

We might think they are going about it the wrong way but in the Russian mind, military might - justified they would say by their history - is the starting point of that respect.

Plus they are feeding the military industrial complex to keep their economy afloat; although we all know that doesn't end well.

 

[Toblerone]

So if Russia was making concessions in Ukraine and elsewhere, do you think that it would achieve economic cooperation and NATO would stop its plans for military facilities along the russian borders?

If the answer is yes, then I can say Putin is not as naive as you. He is not a drunkard fool like previous leaders, nor is he going anywhere.

Food for thought: without the nuclear deterrent, the powers that be would have ground Russia into fine paste by now.

 

[gazzzwp]

So if Russia was making concessions in Ukraine and elsewhere, do you think that it would achieve economic cooperation and NATO would stop its plans for military facilities along the russian borders?

Most definitely I do. The Ukraine changed everything. An economic alliance with the west never was going to pose an existential threat to Russia. For what the people of the Baltics and E Europe endured during Soviet times they deserve to be part of a defensive alliance and so Russia can never expect that to change for a very long time. Relations were manageable prior to the Ukrainian invasion and siezure of The Crimea.

If the answer is yes, then I can say Putin is not as naive as you. He is not a drunkard fool like previous leaders, nor is he going anywhere.

No one is saying that. People are saying that he is a warmonger and someone who is desperate to divert attention away from the stagnant domestic situation.

Food for thought: without the nuclear deterrent, the powers that be would have ground Russia into fine paste by now.

Iran was never attacked. The US had every cause to do so and some allies put relentless pressure on them to do this. Same with Cuba. Russia is missing a fantastic opportunity to make it's country thrive by deeper co-operation. What would happen if Germany decided to source it's gas from elsewhere? It could happen.

 

[Toblerone]

Haha, you think there could ever be an economic alliance between Russia and EU? Germany getting its gas from Russia?

Sounds naive to me. Sounds like a great way for a russian leader to get strung along for some years by the USA and its lackeys, making concession after concession with nothing to show for it. Then he will lose public support, making way for someone even more desperate to continue the cycle.

No, I think fighting for russian minorities (regardless of the fact they were created by atrocious soviet-era demographic meddling), destroying any chance of this "new" Ukraine to be a part of EU and keeping their ally in Syria in power were the right choices. Chechnya was Kadyrov'ed, Georgia got put in its place, Europe is being taken over by eurosceptics amiable to Putin, Assad is winning in Syria, Turkey is moving away from the USA and so is Iraq.

You see, I prefer to assess the reality as it is. Arguments like "But Russia would be so rich if it would just play ball with the West, so many trade deals, we would buy their oil and make them trade partners, now they are poor" are naive.

"Ukraine changed everything" :rolling

 

[swerve]

Assad isn't an ally. He's a dependant. He's a cost. The only thing Russia gets from him is a very expensive naval base which it's never needed.

"Fighting for Russian minorities" has also cost a lot, & it's impoverished the minorities who were supposed to benefit, as well as costing them many avoidable deaths.

Brilliant strategy. Where are the positives? Where's the gain? It's all spoiling actions as far as I see, aimed at damaging those Putin sees as opponents regardless of the cost to Russia.

Look up the parable of the north wind & the sun.

 

[Toblerone]

Brilliant strategy. Where are the positives? Where's the gain? It's all spoiling actions as far as I see

Yeah, just bringing the crimean peninsula and its 2.3 mil residents into the fold. No big deal.


"But ... but the sanctions!" :unknown

 

[John Fedup]

Look up the parable of the north wind & the sun.

"They cannot win who start with threats" is one interpretation but is the West really ready to to due a major war all over again? I think Putin has examined the materialistic me-me, selfie, and soft nature of the West and has decided he can get away with his $hit. Militarily he seriously underestimates the West's capability but I fear he has the political reality figured out.

 

[gazzzwp]

Assad isn't an ally. He's a dependant. He's a cost. The only thing Russia gets from him is a very expensive naval base which it's never needed.

"Fighting for Russian minorities" has also cost a lot, & it's impoverished the minorities who were supposed to benefit, as well as costing them many avoidable deaths.

Brilliant strategy. Where are the positives? Where's the gain? It's all spoiling actions as far as I see, aimed at damaging those Putin sees as opponents regardless of the cost to Russia.

Look up the parable of the north wind & the sun.

I have to agree. Laying waste to as many bordering nations as possible makes no military or economic sense. Russia needs allies not wastelands filled with people who will take up arms.

 

[gazzzwp]

Haha, you think there could ever be an economic alliance between Russia and EU? Germany getting its gas from Russia?

Sounds naive to me. Sounds like a great way for a russian leader to get strung along for some years by the USA and its lackeys, making concession after concession with nothing to show for it. Then he will lose public support, making way for someone even more desperate to continue the cycle.

No, I think fighting for russian minorities (regardless of the fact they were created by atrocious soviet-era demographic meddling), destroying any chance of this "new" Ukraine to be a part of EU and keeping their ally in Syria in power were the right choices. Chechnya was Kadyrov'ed, Georgia got put in its place, Europe is being taken over by eurosceptics amiable to Putin, Assad is winning in Syria, Turkey is moving away from the USA and so is Iraq.

You see, I prefer to assess the reality as it is. Arguments like "But Russia would be so rich if it would just play ball with the West, so many trade deals, we would buy their oil and make them trade partners, now they are poor" are naive.

"Ukraine changed everything" :rolling

With respect this just sounds like 'Russian fan club talk'. Co-operation in the economic sense benefits everyone not just Russia. No one is expecting Russia to comply or behave as the good child. There has to be a better way for Russia to move forward rather than just repeating it's past mistakes building up a military that is way over the top and more than will ever be needed. All that does is force the west into equivalent response; and it has the financial means to do so.

We had all better hope that this does not flare into something more.

 

[swerve]

Yeah, just bringing the crimean peninsula and its 2.3 mil residents into the fold. No big deal.

"But ... but the sanctions!" :unknown

Sanctions? No, they're not much more than a token gesture. But the wars are contributing to the dire state of the Russian economy. They've damaged both consumer & investor confidence, as well as costing money. Crimea is a money pit, like the troublesome territories in the Caucasus. Whatever trust there was in Russia's word has been lost since it broke the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament treaty, & Russia's poorer & weaker than it was.

 

[Feanor]

Sanctions? No, they're not much more than a token gesture. But the wars are contributing to the dire state of the Russian economy. They've damaged both consumer & investor confidence, as well as costing money. Crimea is a money pit, like the troublesome territories in the Caucasus. Whatever trust there was in Russia's word has been lost since it broke the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament treaty, & Russia's poorer & weaker than it was.

In the long run Crimea will be an asset. But for the time being you're spot on. And of course the entire involvement in Eastern Ukraine was a major mistake.

 

[Feanor]

Assad isn't an ally. He's a dependant. He's a cost. The only thing Russia gets from him is a very expensive naval base which it's never needed.

Well it's debatable. It's a base the USSR definitely needed, since the USSR had a real Mediterranean squadron. Whether Russia needs it today or not I guess is a question of priorities. All of that having been said, you're taking the short term view. If Assad stays in power for another 20 years, there will be other benefits to make up for this.

"Fighting for Russian minorities" has also cost a lot, & it's impoverished the minorities who were supposed to benefit, as well as costing them many avoidable deaths.

Brilliant strategy. Where are the positives? Where's the gain? It's all spoiling actions as far as I see, aimed at damaging those Putin sees as opponents regardless of the cost to Russia.

Look up the parable of the north wind & the sun.

It was about refusing to hand Ukraine over to the EU. Not about "protecting" anyone.

 

[swerve]

It was about refusing to hand Ukraine over to the EU. Not about "protecting" anyone.

Indeed - but I was replying to someone who saw it differently.

One thing which would be funny if thousands hadn't died & many more been impoverished is that the EU wasn't going to do anything more than give Ukraine aid & try (not necessarily with much success) to get it to improve its governance. It was completely unacceptable as an EU member, & would have been for many more years. It didn't even qualify as a formal candidate for membership. The most it could have done was sign an association agreement, & it's done that anyway, so Russian intervention hasn't exactly achieved much in that area.

To me, it looks as if apart from annexing Crimea (which as you say, may be a long-term gain despite being a short-term loss), Russia's only gain is that it's stopped Ukraine from trying to play off Russia & the EU against each other to get concessions from both.

 

[Feanor]

Indeed - but I was replying to someone who saw it differently.

One thing which would be funny if thousands hadn't died & many more been impoverished is that the EU wasn't going to do anything more than give Ukraine aid & try (not necessarily with much success) to get it to improve its governance. It was completely unacceptable as an EU member, & would have been for many more years. It didn't even qualify as a formal candidate for membership. The most it could have done was sign an association agreement, & it's done that anyway, so Russian intervention hasn't exactly achieved much in that area.

It was going to do more then that. Read the trade conditions of the EU association agreement.

And read what Ukrainian businessmen have to say on the subject, now that it's been implemented. All of this is why the Yanukovich government turned down a 20 billion bribe, in favor of a smaller sum from Russia.

To me, it looks as if apart from annexing Crimea (which as you say, may be a long-term gain despite being a short-term loss), Russia's only gain is that it's stopped Ukraine from trying to play off Russia & the EU against each other to get concessions from both.

Yep. I'm not even so sure that the second point was improved upon with the current state of affairs.

 

[Spacearrow99]

Russia has gained the Crimean EEZ. The zone probably has trillions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas deposits. Dmitri Trenin has started saying Russoa become a great power again. He use to follow the Western elite line that Russia is declining power. The Asian part of Russian has massive freshwater resources. Russia is one biggest grain exporters in the world, and has resources for massive future growth in its arigcultural industry.