Russia - General Discussion.

[STURM]

There's been a lot of talk about the so called Russian/Chinese strategic partnership.and about how both countries will supposedly cooperate on a number of issues. This article addresses the issue of joint cooperation and why China - despite the rhetoric - will not support Russia over the Ukraine.

Why China Will Not Support a Russian Invasion of Ukraine

The reputational cost – both on the international stage and with the Chinese people – would be great if Beijing threw its support behind Russian aggression.

thediplomat.com

''In addition, the Chinese ambassador to Kyiv published an article in the Ukrainian media, publicly emphasizing that China has always supported Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. This is a clear sign that China could not support Russia’s possible invasion to Ukraine – especially because China has never publicly stated a view that Crimea belongs to Russia.

If China is against a Russian invasion of Ukraine, why has Beijing not criticized Russia, like the West did? There are two main reasons. First, considering the Sino-Russian friendship, China’s public questioning of Russia will damage the friendship. At this time, Beijing should show solidarity, rather than emphasize differences – this is a question of both face and diplomatic skills. China will express its true attitude behind closed doors.

Second, Russia may have privately assured China that it will not mount a direct invasion against Ukraine. That would explain why China has been accusing the U.S. and the NATO of exaggerating the crisis, and why Beijing has remained indifferent as the West withdraws both diplomats and citizens from Ukraine.''

 

[STURM]

declare the entire Ukrain a hands-off buffer zone. No NATO or Western troops should be deployed there and Russia should maintain its troops to peacetime locations at all times. The Ukraine-Russia border should be secured by paramilitary forces that are not equipped to trigger any major military crisis or conflict. External observers, acceptable to all parties, should be stationed to observe the situation at the borders. No military aircraft fly zone should be created 30kms on both sides and 10kms of the vertical fly zone only after those 30kms.

I can't think of a better solution. This would perhaps be acceptable to.Russia and NATO but it would also have to be accepted by the Ukraine. The question of Ukraine's NATO member is an issue and perhaps all sides will have to agree that this is something which can be addressed at a much later date. The problem is Russia might insist that this issue be addressed now. Or perhaps the Ukraine might be persuaded to adopt a ''non aligned'' status in return for certain guarantees from Russia?

The problem for NATO is that it might be accused of appeasement. Putin also would need to avoid being seen as caving in to NATO pressure - both sides needs a politically acceptable face saving arrangement. There is also the question of whether a deal will involve only the Ukraine but also address NATO's concerns over Russian troops in Belarus? What if the Russians agree not to deploy troops beyond certain numbers along the border with the UKraine and in Belarus but in turns demand certain concessions or guarantees with regards to NATO troops in Poland and the Baltics?

 

[Arji]

China don't usually meddle with other people's affair (aside for SCS, but that's because they lay claim to it), unless it's for tit-for-tat comments like every time she's being criticized for Xinjiang by the West. It's kind of like Indonesia, that will never take the side of the separatist, e.g Indonesia sided with Serbia, instead of the muslim-majority separatists.

 

[Arji]

The problem for NATO is that it might be accused of appeasement. Putin also would need to avoid being seen as caving in to NATO pressure - both sides needs a politically acceptable face saving arrangement.

If Putin is as all-powerful within Russia as some people would believe, I feel like the political blow wouldn't be much of an issue for him.

 

[STURM]

It's not a question of him being 'powerful' but the need demonstrate to the Russian people that after weeks of tensions, that he has achieved something tangible which addresses Russia's security concerns. He would also want to avoid being seen as caving in to NATO threats of sanctions and other things.

 

[STURM]

China don't usually meddle with other people's affair

It supported various leftist nationalist groups in Africa during the Cold War, supported the Khmer Rouge, supported the PKI in a significant way [contributing to the events which led to Sukarno's ouster], for a long period dictated things in North Korea [before the North Korean leadership got too independent for China's liking] and in more recent times meddles in various countries using economic means as a tool/weapon.

 

[ngatimozart]

Putin has extended the time that Russian forces will be present in Belarus: Russia and Belarus extend military drills amid Ukraine tensions | Ukraine-Russia crisis News | Al Jazeera. According to the Al Jazeera story no time limit was specified, but according to the Guardian: Russian troops will remain indefinitely, says Belarus, as fears rise of Ukraine invasion | Ukraine | The Guardian the extension is for and indefinite period of time. So who's right and who's wrong? The New York Times simply state that Lukashenko is now Putin's lap dog: Lukashenko Once Kept Russia at a Distance. Now He Is a Docile Putin Satrap. - The New York Times (nytimes.com), and that the Lithuanians are saying that the Belarussian forces have now been so subsumed by the Russian military that they can no longer tell the difference. This is starting to look like something that @Feanor and myself briefly discussed a couple of weeks ago; Putin investing Belarus back into the bosom of Mother Russia. If this is indeed the case, this will be the cause of much consternation within the Baltic States: Baltic states fear encirclement as Russia security threat rises | Financial Times (ft.com) as this story states, they already fear encirclement. The wheel slowly turns.

 

[SABRE]

I can't think of a better solution. This would perhaps be acceptable to.Russia and NATO but it would also have to be accepted by the Ukraine. The question of Ukraine's NATO member is an issue and perhaps all sides will have to agree that this is something which can be addressed at a much later date. The problem is Russia might insist that this issue be addressed now. Or perhaps the Ukraine might be persuaded to adopt a ''non aligned'' status in return for certain guarantees from Russia?

The problem for NATO is that it might be accused of appeasement. Putin also would need to avoid being seen as caving in to NATO pressure - both sides needs a politically acceptable face saving arrangement. There is also the question of whether a deal will involve only the Ukraine but also address NATO's concerns over Russian troops in Belarus? What if the Russians agree not to deploy troops beyond certain numbers along the border with the UKraine and in Belarus but in turns demand certain concessions or guarantees with regards to NATO troops in Poland and the Baltics?

Ukraine's potential membership in NATO and the very existence of NATO are the root problem here. Unless this is not addressed the situation will not resolve. The US should consult its political scientists instead of political analysts. The former has been questioning the rationale for NATO's existence and argue that it could become a cause for a war with Russia and perhaps even with China.

 

[swerve]

NATO is a defensive alliance applicable only to a limited geographic area. As long as Russia doesn't attack any NATO member, it does not affect Russia.

It can only apply to China if it attacks NATO members in Europe, North America, the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic. Remember the Falklands: it did not apply. The Falklands are outside the NATO area.

Remember that in 1994 Russia promised to respect the sovereignty & integrity (including borders) of Ukraine. The tension on Russia's borders is due mainly to Russia's breach of that promise, not to NATO actions. Russia's latest demands include further breaches of that promise.

 

[Vivendi]

Ukraine's potential membership in NATO and the very existence of NATO are the root problem here. Unless this is not addressed the situation will not resolve. The US should consult its political scientists instead of political analysts. The former has been questioning the rationale for NATO's existence and argue that it could become a cause for a war with Russia and perhaps even with China.

Russia and China would definitely be extremely happy to see NATO dissolved. Most, if not all European NATO countries would probably be in a state of panic if the US would withdraw from NATO (and if that happens Canada would perhaps follow suit quite quickly). EU is currently not capable of ensuring it's own security, and it would take quite some time to get there. In such a scenario Russia could easily gain control of the Baltics, and probably also several other Eastern European countries.

In my opinion dissolution of NATO in the current climate would not reduce the risk of war in Europe, it would significantly increase the risk. It would keep the US out of those wars, but the question the US should ask themselves, would it be worth it? Russia could potentially rebuild significant parts of the USSR, and this could pose a huge problem for the US further down the line.

I also think that as long as US is in NATO, the risk of war between NATO and Russia is very low. I would be interested in reading analysis arguing otherwise.

Another aspect is that if the US is leaving NATO, Europe would become even less interested in supporting the US and other democracies against China. Most resources in Europe would have to be focused on managing Russia in such a scenario.

Trump did weaken NATO, and if Trump or one of his cronies becomes the next US president then perhaps the "unthinkable" can happen and US could leave NATO. I hope not since it will be lose-lose for both the US and Europe. However Europe should in any case take more responsibility for her own security, by increasing defense spending to at least 2% of GDP (many European countries are there, but not all) and also very importantly become more integrated and efficient in spending the defense money. Today so much is just wasted, we need to get "more bang for the bucks".

 

[Vivendi]

I can't think of a better solution. This would perhaps be acceptable to.Russia and NATO but it would also have to be accepted by the Ukraine. The question of Ukraine's NATO member is an issue and perhaps all sides will have to agree that this is something which can be addressed at a much later date. The problem is Russia might insist that this issue be addressed now. Or perhaps the Ukraine might be persuaded to adopt a ''non aligned'' status in return for certain guarantees from Russia?

I have also suggested something similar, I think the main issue is to find a compromise that both Ukraine and Russia can accept. I think this will be very difficult since their interests are so different. Russia is not only interested in having a buffer to NATO, but they also demand to be able to influence/control Ukrainian internal politics. This is something Ukraine should not have to accept, and EU and NATO should in my opinion support Ukraine in their quest to keep their integrity and independence.

Thus Finlandization is not the answer. If Ukraine is going to accept a "non-aligmnent" solution then Russia must guarantee the integrity and independence of Ukraine, and accept that Ukraine move further towards democracy and ultimately EU membership, if that's what Ukraine wants to do in the future. I don't see Russia under Putin being willing to accept a free and democratic Ukraine.

After decades of Soviet oppression, the vast majority of people in east-central Europe yearned for NATO's protection. As such, it was only right to fulfill their wish. Their right to national sovereignty and to choose alliances freely — as guaranteed by the Soviet Union and then Russia in the 1975 Helsinki Accords and Paris Charta — cannot be thrown overboard just because of a former superpower's Weltschmerz.

Russia's current aggressive militaristic stance toward Ukraine is not just about a fanciful military threat or fulfilling post-hegemonic Russian dreams of power. The goal for Putin — for him personally rather than for the general Russian population — is the failure of Ukraine's democratic system, as flawed as it is. A stable democracy in neighboring Ukraine, which shares so much history and culture with Russia, would threaten support for Putin's kleptocratic dictatorship. That is something he cannot accept.

Guest opinion: What′s behind Putin′s saber-rattling | Opinion | DW | 19.02.2022

 

[John Fedup]

Russia and China would definitely be extremely happy to see NATO dissolved. Most, if not all European NATO countries would probably be in a state of panic if the US would withdraw from NATO (and if that happens Canada would perhaps follow suit quite quickly). EU is currently not capable of ensuring it's own security, and it would take quite some time to get there. In such a scenario Russia could easily gain control of the Baltics, and probably also several other Eastern European countries.

In my opinion dissolution of NATO in the current climate would not reduce the risk of war in Europe, it would significantly increase the risk. It would keep the US out of those wars, but the question the US should ask themselves, would it be worth it? Russia could potentially rebuild significant parts of the USSR, and this could pose a huge problem for the US further down the line.

I also think that as long as US is in NATO, the risk of war between NATO and Russia is very low. I would be interested in reading analysis arguing otherwise.

Another aspect is that if the US is leaving NATO, Europe would become even less interested in supporting the US and other democracies against China. Most resources in Europe would have to be focused on managing Russia in such a scenario.

Trump did weaken NATO, and if Trump or one of his cronies becomes the next US president then perhaps the "unthinkable" can happen and US could leave NATO. I hope not since it will be lose-lose for both the US and Europe. However Europe should in any case take more responsibility for her own security, by increasing defense spending to at least 2% of GDP (many European countries are there, but not all) and also very importantly become more integrated and efficient in spending the defense money. Today so much is just wasted, we need to get "more bang for the bucks".

If Europe had been making defence investments during the last two decades more or less on par with Russia and Germany hadn’t shut down its nuclear plants, perhaps the EU would have taken a harder stance against Putin.

 

[ngatimozart]

A DW interview with historian Anne Applebaum at the Munich Conference over the weekend. She's apparently somewhat of an expert on Putin. She said that Putin's claims aren't about NATO at all but are because he has a deep seated fear and abhorrence of democracy because it is anathema to his kleptocracy. He doesn't harken back to the days of Tsarist Russia or the old Soviet Union for patriotic or sentimental reasons according to her. He wants those countries and territories back for pure theft and greed.

Here is an article from The Atlantic expounding on those views.

The Reason Putin Would Risk War - The Atlantic

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Except for the part where Crimea rejoined Russia voluntarily. And Abkhazia and S. Ossetia fought bloody wars and preferred to side with Russia then be part of a Georgia, west-leaning or otherwise. These patterns play out on long historic scales and have to do with what a given side has to offer and with what's happening in a particular locale. The Chechens were filling to fight and die to break away, but the Dags were willing to fight and die to stay. If region by region referendums were conducted at the fall of the Soviet Union, the maps would look very different today. To be clear, you're not wrong, just not completely right either. It's more complex then that.

I won't comment on your above mentioned regions, but Crimea will suffice as an example. Crimea is dominantly ethnically Russian. So are Donetsk and Luhansk.
It's important because those groups that did want to separate and now seek western protection, are not ethnically Russian, hence they wanted independence and freedom, hence they felt oppressed as national groups under Soviet rule, hence the perceived need for western protection.

A Russian (ethnic) would naturally have little sympathy, further diminished by state-owned media, because he is not the one getting hurt in the process.
Eastern Europe still needs to be divided on ethnic lines, and that's true for most of the world, if not all of it, to avoid conflicts (reliably).

 

[John Fedup]

A DW interview with historian Anne Applebaum at the Munich Conference over the weekend. She's apparently somewhat of an expert on Putin. She said that Putin's claims aren't about NATO at all but are because he has a deep seated fear and abhorrence of democracy because it is anathema to his kleptocracy. He doesn't harken back to the days of Tsarist Russia or the old Soviet Union for patriotic or sentimental reasons according to her. He wants those countries and territories back for pure theft and greed.

Here is an article from The Atlantic expounding on those views.

The Reason Putin Would Risk War - The Atlantic

Good read.

 

[STURM]

The Ukrainians are understandably worried about being sidelined, about other countries reaching an agreement without the Ukraine being consulted or having a say.

''Ukraine’s top security official has said his country welcomes the possibility of a summit between Biden and Putin but also warned that nothing can be solved without Kyiv’s involvement.''

“No one can resolve our issue without us,” Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told a news briefing. “Everything should happen with our participation.''

Something is definitely wrong when a country caught in a major crisis sees fit to publicly issue such a statement about countries which are supporting it.

Meanwhile Russia's claim that 5 Ukranian serviceman were killed on Russian soil is an extremely worrying development. Is it a false flag operation which many would assume or did Ukrainian servicemen indeed stray onto Russian.soil? Seems inconceivable but stranger things have occurred.

 

[STURM]

Interesting discussion on the Minsk agreements. Featuring a Russian, Ukrainian and American speaker.

 

[Capt. Ironpants]

The Ukrainians are understandably worried about being sidelined, about other countries reaching an agreement without the Ukraine being consulted or having a say.

''Ukraine’s top security official has said his country welcomes the possibility of a summit between Biden and Putin but also warned that nothing can be solved without Kyiv’s involvement.''

“No one can resolve our issue without us,” Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, told a news briefing. “Everything should happen with our participation.''

Something is definitely wrong when a country caught in a major crisis sees fit to publicly issue such a statement about countries which are supporting it.

Meanwhile Russia's claim that 5 Ukranian serviceman were killed on Russian soil is an extremely worrying development. Is it a false flag operation which many would assume or did Ukrainian servicemen indeed stray onto Russian.soil? Seems inconceivable but stranger things have occurred.

Five Ukrainian servicemen caught on Russian soil would be quite the lame excuse for an invasion, and therefore a lame false flag if that's what it is. Wars are strange. They really are. People can act so strangely in time of war, and war is in the air. It's crazy, but possible, this really happened (I saw stranger things during the wars in former Yugoslavia*). It's also quite possible it's false and just another bit of grist for the propaganda mills.

Yes, it is sad that Danilov had to issue such a statement. It only goes to highlight this is not really about the peace and security of Ukraine. Elephants are fighting and the grass is suffering.

*Like boys in their mid-teens who dressed up in their elder brothers' uniforms, snagged their kit, and went stomping about in the ZOS, only to be caught by real soldiers from the other side, who technically weren't supposed to be there either. The UN would have to spring these kids from their enemies' pokey and return them to their families on the other side. Even weirder things happened there.

(Again, I apologize for my goofy screen name. Longtime reader here who thought she would never actually post. It's from a very old Homer Pyle episode. My little brother used to call me that when we were tasked with household chores as children and I was tasked with supervising him.)

 

[Rob c]

A DW interview with historian Anne Applebaum at the Munich Conference over the weekend. She's apparently somewhat of an expert on Putin. She said that Putin's claims aren't about NATO at all but are because he has a deep seated fear and abhorrence of democracy because it is anathema to his kleptocracy. He doesn't harken back to the days of Tsarist Russia or the old Soviet Union for patriotic or sentimental reasons according to her. He wants those countries and territories back for pure theft and greed.

Here is an article from The Atlantic expounding on those views.

The Reason Putin Would Risk War - The Atlantic

I have had the feeling for some time, that as portrayed in this article and others that the claims by Putin may be nothing more than building an excuse to invade Ukraine. By making the demands unacceptable to Ukraine and NATO that he will have his excuse to invade. I have not excepted the security excuse for some time as I pointed out in previous posts that the RF military capability was significantly superior to anything on their boarders from other European country that boarders the RF. When Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons after the break up of the USSR there were certain countries that guaranteed the security of the Ukraine's sovereignty and I think that these countries need to step up now to reenforce that guarantee they gave. I cannot remember all the countries involved so if someone with a better memory than me can enlighten us with the list it would be appreciated.
IMHO there is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on here and the true nature of the beast may never be fully exposed to the light of day

 

[Feanor]

I have had the feeling for some time, that as portrayed in this article and others that the claims by Putin may be nothing more than building an excuse to invade Ukraine. By making the demands unacceptable to Ukraine and NATO that he will have his excuse to invade. I have not excepted the security excuse for some time as I pointed out in previous posts that the RF military capability was significantly superior to anything on their boarders from other European country that boarders the RF. When Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons after the break up of the USSR there were certain countries that guaranteed the security of the Ukraine's sovereignty and I think that these countries need to step up now to reenforce that guarantee they gave. I cannot remember all the countries involved so if someone with a better memory than me can enlighten us with the list it would be appreciated.
IMHO there is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on here and the true nature of the beast may never be fully exposed to the light of day

You're talking about the Budapest Memorandum. One of the countries in question is Russia.

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org