Connect with us

Russia

The Russians Love Their Children Too

Published

on

Recently, there have been all the more articles with headlines screaming “What does Vladimir Putin really think about Donbass?” or “When will the war between Russia and Ukraine break out?” To be honest, I really envy the authors of such publications. All these contributors must have supernatural telepathic channels of communication with the Russian leadership, which allows them to unmistakably predict the Kremlin’s behavior at any time, explaining to the laymen the convincing motivation behind these actions.

Unfortunately, I do not possess such astonishing, magical and somewhat frightening skills—therefore, I can only rely on logic, common sense and event analysis of what have already happened in my often-inaccurate assumptions and sometimes misperceptions. All this together makes me think that a large-scale military fallout with Ukraine is completely irrelevant to Moscow’s plans. The possible political gains from such a war, which are highly dubious, and the inevitable costs, excessive and prohibitive, if not epic, have repeatedly been described in every detail.

Naturally, no one can convincingly prove that Vladimir Putin, somewhere deep down, cherishes no dream of seizing Kiev or of establishing Russian control over the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Likewise, it cannot be proved that Joe Biden or Kamala Harris have no night fantasies about annexing Canada or about establishing a hereditary monarchy in the United States. However, our dreams are one thing, and practical plans are something completely different.

If Vladimir Putin were really preparing for a large-scale military invasion of Ukraine, it is then most likely that no one would know anything about its preparation until the very last moment. The current level of mobility of Russia’s armed forces and their operational readiness require only a few weeks, rather than several months, for the necessary mobilization. Just think of the so-called “polite people” known in the West as “little green men” in Crimea in February–March 2014. When the activity of the Russian military was noticed on the peninsula, the operation was essentially over. It is logical to assume that any subsequent operation would follow a similar scenario—when numerous philistines would begin to talk about Russian aggression only when the brave Russian special forces were already taking pictures on Teatralnaya Square in Mariupol and entertaining the kids on Sumskaya Street in the center of Kharkiv.

However, the situation of today is entirely different. We see open—I would even say—demonstrative movements of Russian troops along the border with Ukraine, and they have been going on for several weeks. At the same time, loud and threatening declarations are heard from Moscow, including from those influential agencies that tend to make no public statements at all. It may be concluded that the purpose of these Russian actions is sending a political signal backed up by the demonstration of Moscow’s impressive military strength rather than enabling a direct preparation of the military operation, something often ascribed to Vladimir Putin. So, who is the Russian leader sending the signal to and what is its nature?

First of all, this is a signal to Kiev, warning the Ukrainian leadership against a possible resumption of a military solution to the Donbass problem. Moscow appears to be concerned that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, who is losing popularity amid the upcoming elections, may be tempted to take the risk of a “short victorious war” on his eastern border, with all the attendant costs to the population and the leadership of the unrecognized DPR / LPR. Moreover, Volodymyr Zelensky may well learn from the experience of his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev, who took such a risk in Nagorno-Karabakh last fall to become a winner and a national hero. Apparently, the signal from Moscow is as follows: if Volodymyr Zelensky succumbs starting an offensive towards Donbass, he will not turn out not to be the Ukrainian Ilham Aliyev of 2020 but the Ukrainian Mikheil Saakashvili of 2008, when he tried to seize South Ossetia through a military blitzkrieg.

Of course, the authorities in Kiev will declare that there have been no plans, nor preparations, for a military solution to the Donbass problem. However, Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman, said Ukraine has already pulled to Donbass some 125 thousand troops, which is half of the entire personnel of Ukraine’s Armed Forces. Confirming or denying such information is as difficult as reiterating or refuting assessments of the scale of Russian mobilization proliferating in the West and in Kiev.

Certainly, Russian actions should also be regarded as a signal to the West. For a long time, Moscow has expressed disappointment with the insufficient, as the Kremlin believes, efforts on the part of Paris and Berlin to compel Kiev to fulfill its broad obligations under the 2015 Minsk Agreements and the specific decisions of the Paris Summit in the Normandy format held in December 2019. Things went so far as the Russian Foreign Ministry decided to make public the confidential correspondence on this topic between its chief, Sergei Lavrov, and his German and French counterparts. This was a downright non-standard and, clearly, uneasy decision for the Russian diplomacy.

Observing with growing irritation Kiev’s sabotage of the Minsk Agreements and the clear connivance of these actions by Berlin and Paris, Moscow cannot fail to notice what Vladimir Putin described as “the beginning of military reclamation of the Ukrainian territory” by NATO countries. That is, while Ukraine is not de jure in NATO and is unlikely to become a de facto full-fledged NATO member in the foreseeable future, the deployment of the alliance’s military infrastructure in Ukraine has already begun, which possibly poses serious challenges to Russia’s national security.

These are the origins of the Kremlin’s latest insistence on the West providing Russia with legally-binding guarantees to end any further NATO’s expansion eastward, launching negotiations on a new and inclusive security system in Europe. Of course, this does not remove the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements by the Ukrainian side from the Russian agenda.

It can be assumed that these requirements of Moscow to the West and Ukraine are not so much of “red lines” as requests for further interaction. It is obvious that providing Russia with legally-binding guarantees that NATO will not expand is impossible without a fundamental revision of the Washington Treaty of 1949, something no one will agree to in the foreseeable future. It is also clear that the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements will require significant changes to the Constitution of Ukraine, something absolutely unacceptable for most in the current political establishment of the country and, therefore, infeasible.

Professionals working in the field of foreign policy in the Russian government cannot ignore these obvious political realities. There can be any requests from the Russian side, but it is necessary to look for compromises within the limits of the possible. In practical terms, for Moscow, this means consistent work to reduce incentives that motivate Ukraine to seek NATO membership and incentives that motivate the alliance to expand its presence on Russia’s western borders.

There is no other way to achieve these goals, except through measured, albeit quite modest, de-escalation measures, including progress on the demarcation line in Donbass and along the Russian-Ukrainian border. These measures need not be fixed in some treaty—instead, they could be carried out by the parties as unilateral actions taken in parallel. Partly, such measures are already contained in the first paragraphs of the Minsk Agreements; partly, they need to be re-negotiated. This is a long and difficult path for all the parties concerned, but only after embarking on this path can one reach larger and more ambitious tasks regarding the future of European security. This will also make it possible to finally exclude even a hypothetical prospect of a major armed conflict in the center of Europe, as hardly anyone will emerge its absolute winner.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

Putin’s post-Soviet world remains a work in progress, but Africa already looms

Published

on

Russian civilisationalism is proving handy as President Vladimir Putin seeks to expand the imaginary boundaries of his Russian World, whose frontiers are defined by Russian speakers and adherents to Russian culture rather than international law and/or ethnicity.

Mr. Putin’s disruptive and expansive nationalist ideology has underpinned his aggressive

 approach to Ukraine since 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and the stoking of insurgencies in the east of the country. It also underwrites this month’s brief intervention in Kazakhstan, even if it was in contrast to Ukraine at the invitation of the Kazakh government.

Mr. Putin’s nationalist push in territories that were once part of the Soviet Union may be par for the course even if it threatens to rupture relations between Russia and the West and potentially spark a war. It helps Russia compensate for the strategic depth it lost with the demise of communism in Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

However, equally alarmingly, Mr. Putin appears to be putting building blocks in place that would justify expanding his Russian World in one form or another beyond the boundaries of the erstwhile Soviet Union.

In doing so, he demonstrates the utility of employing plausibly deniable mercenaries not only for military and geopolitical but also ideological purposes.

Standing first in line is the Central African Republic. A resource-rich but failed state that has seen its share of genocidal violence and is situated far from even the most expansive historical borders of the Russian empire, the republic could eventually qualify to be part of the Russian world, according to Mr. Putin’s linguistic and cultural criteria.

Small units of the Wagner Group, a private military company owned by one of Mr. Putin’s close associates, entered the Centra African Republic once departing French troops handed over to a United Nations peacekeeping force in 2016. Five years later, Wagner has rights to mine the country’s gold and diamond deposits.

Perhaps surprisingly, the Russian mercenary presence persuaded President Faustin-Archange Touadera that the African republic should embrace Russian culture.

As a result, university students have been obliged to follow Russian-language classes starting as undergraduates in their first year until their second year of post-graduate studies. The mandate followed the introduction of Russian in the republic’s secondary school curriculum in 2019.

Mr. Touadera is expected to ask Mr. Putin for Russian-language instructors during a forthcoming visit to Moscow to assist in the rollout.

Neighbouring Mali could be next in line to follow in Mr. Touadera’s footsteps.

Last month, units of the Wagner Group moved into the Sahel nation at the request of a government led by army generals who have engineered two coups in nine months. The generals face African and Western sanctions that could make incorporating what bits of the country they control into the Russian world an attractive proposition.

While it is unlikely that Mr. Putin would want to formally welcome sub-Saharan and Sahel states into his Russian world, it illustrates the pitfalls of a redefinition of internationally recognised borders as civilisational and fluid rather than national, fixed, and legally enshrined.

For now, African states do not fit Mr. Putin’s bill of one nation as applied to Ukraine or Belarus. However, using linguistics as a monkey wrench, he could, overtime or whenever convenient, claim them as part of the Russian world based on an acquired language and cultural affinity.

Mr. Putin’s definition of a Russian world further opens the door to a world in which the principle of might is right runs even more rampant with the removal of whatever flimsy guard rails existed.

To accommodate the notion of a Russian world, Russian leaders, going back more than a decade, have redefined Russian civilisation as multi-ethnic rather than ethically Russia.

The Central African Republic’s stress on Russian-language education constitutes the first indication in more than a decade that Mr. Putin and some of his foreign allies may expand the Russian world’s civilisational aspects beyond the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Some critics of Mr. Putin’s concept of a Russian world note that Western wars allegedly waged out of self-defense and concern for human rights were also about power and geopolitical advantage.

For example, pundit Peter Beinart notes that NATO-led wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Libya “also extended American power and smashed Russian allies at the point of a gun.”

The criticism doesn’t weaken the legitimacy of the US and Western rejection of Russian civilisationalism. However, it does undermine the United States’ ability to claim the moral high ground.

It further constrains Western efforts to prevent the emergence of a world in which violation rather than the inviolability of national borders become the accepted norm.

If Russian interventionism aims to change borders, US interventionism often sought to change regimes. That is one driver of vastly different perceptions of the US role in the world, including Russian distrust of the post-Soviet NATO drive into Eastern Europe and independent former Soviet states such as Ukraine.

“People with more experience of the dark side of American power—people whose families hail from Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Haiti, or Mexico, where US guns have sabotaged democracy rather than defended it—might find it easier to understand Russian suspicions. But those Americans tend not to shape US policy towards places like Ukraine,” Mr. Beinart said.

Continue Reading

Russia

Neighbours and Crises: New Challenges for Russia

Published

on

Through all the discussions that accompanied the preparation of the Valdai Club report “Space Without Borders: Russia and Its Neighbours”, the most clear question was whether Russia should or should not avoid repeating the historical experience of relations with its near abroad. This experience, in the most general terms, is that after Russia pacifies its western border with its foreign policy, the Russian state inevitably must turn to issues related to the existence of its immediate neighbourhood. With a high degree of probability, it will be forced to turn to its centuries-old method for solving problems that arise there: expansion for the sake of ensuring security.

Now Russia’s near abroad consists of a community of independent states that cannot ensure their own security and survival by relying only on their own forces; we cannot be completely sure of their stability. From Estonia in the west to Kyrgyzstan in the east, the existence of these countries in a competitive international environment is ensured by their link with one of the nuclear superpowers. Moreover, such connections can only complement each other with great difficulty. As the recent developments in Kazakhstan have demonstrated, they are not limited to the threat of an external invasion; even internal circumstances can become deadly.

The dramatic events in that country were intensified by external interference from the geostrategic opponents of Russia, as well as international terrorists, but it would be disingenuous to argue that their most important causes are not exclusively internal and man-made. We cannot and should not judge whether the internal arrangements of our neighbours are good or bad, since we ourselves do not have ideal recipes or examples. However, when dealing with the consequences, it is rational to fear that their statehood will either be unable to survive, or that their existence will take place in forms that create dangers which Russia cannot ignore.

In turn, the events experienced now in relations between Russia and the West, if we resort to historical analogies, look like a redux of the Northern War. The Great Northern War arose at the beginning of the 18th century as the result of the restoration of Russia’s power capabilities; the West had made great progress in approaching the heart of its territory. Within the framework of this logic, victory, even tactical victory, in the most important (Western) direction will inevitably force Russia to turn to its borders. Moreover, the reasons for paying more attention to them are obvious. This will present Russia with the need to decide on how much it is willing to participate in the development of its neighbours.

The developments in Kazakhstan in early January 2022 showed the objective limits of the possibilities of building a European-style sovereign state amid new, historical, and completely different geopolitical circumstances. More or less all the countries of the space that surrounds Russia, from the Baltic to the Pamir, are unique experiments that arose amid the truly phenomenal orderliness of conditions after the end of the Cold War. In that historical era, the world really developed under conditions where a general confidence prevailed that the absolute dominance of one power and a group of its allies creates conditions for the survival of small and medium-sized states, even in the absence of objective reasons for this.

The idea of the “end of history” was so convincing that we could accept it as a structural factor, so powerful that it would allow us to overcome even the most severe objective circumstances.

The Cold War era created the experience of the emergence and development of new countries, which until quite recently had been European colonies. Despite the fact that there are a few “success stories” among the countries that emerged after 1945, few have been able to get out of the catch-up development paradigm. However, it was precisely 30 years ago that there really was a possibility that a unipolar world would be so stable that it would allow the experiment to come to fruition. The visible recipes of the new states being built were ideal from an abstract point of view, just as Victor Frankenstein was guided by a desire for the ideal.

Let us recall that the main idea of our report was that Russia needs to preserve the independence of the states surrounding it and direct all its efforts to ensure that they become effective powers, eager to survive. This desire for survival is seen as the main condition for rational behaviour, i.e. creating a foreign policy, which takes into account the geopolitical conditions and the power composition of Eurasia. In other words, we believe that Russia is interested in the experiment that emerged within the framework of the Liberal World Order taking place under new conditions, since its own development goals dictate that it avoid repeating its past experience of full control over its neighbours, with which it shares a single geopolitical space.

This idea, let’s not hide it, prompted quite convincing criticism, based on the belief that the modern world does not create conditions for the emergence of states where such an experience is absent in more or less convincing forms. For Russia, the challenge is that even if it is technically capable of ensuring the immediate security of its national territory, the spread of the “grey zone” around its borders will inevitably bring problems that the neighbours themselves are not able to solve.

The striking analogy proposed by one colleague was the “hallway of hell” that Russia may soon face on its southern borders, making us raise the question that the absence of topographic boundaries within this space makes it necessary to create artificial political or even civilisational lines, the protection of which in any case will be entrusted to the Russian soldier. This January we had the opportunity to look into this “hallway of hell”. There is no certainty that the instant collapse of a state close to Russia in the darkest periods of its political history should be viewed as a failure in development, rather than a systemic breakdown of the entire trajectory, inevitable because it took shape amid completely different conditions.

Therefore, now Russia should not try to understand what its further strategy might be; in any case, particular behaviour will be determined by circumstances. Our task is to explore the surrounding space in order to understand where Russia can stop if it does not want to resort to the historical paradigm of its behaviour. The developments in Kazakhstan, in their modern form, do not create any grounds for optimism or hopes for a return to an inertial path of development. Other states may follow Ukraine and Kazakhstan even if they now look quite confident. There are no guarantees — and it would be too great a luxury for Russia to accept such a fate.

This is primarily because the Russian state will inevitably face a choice between being ready for several decades of interaction with a huge “grey zone” along the perimeter of its borders and more energetic efforts to prevent its emergence. It is unlikely that Moscow would simply observe the processes taking place on its immediate periphery. This is not a hypothetical invasion of third forces — that does not pose any significant threat to Russia. The real challenge may be that in a few decades, or sooner, Moscow will have to take on an even greater responsibility, which Russia got rid of in 1991. Even now, there seems to be a reason to believe that thirty years of independence have made it possible to create elements of statehood that can be preserved and developed with the help of Russia.

from our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Russia

Do as You’re Told, Russia Tells the Neighborhood

Published

on

The Kremlin has always argued that it has special interests and ties to what once constituted the Soviet space. Yet it struggled to produce a smooth mechanism for dealing with the neighborhood, where revolutionary movements toppled Soviet and post-Soviet era political elites. Popular movements in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and most recently Kazakhstan have flowered and sometimes triumphed despite the Kremlin’s rage.

Russia’s responses have differed in each case, although it has tended to foster separatism in neighboring states to preclude their westward aspirations. As a policy, this was extreme and rarely generated support for its actions, even from allies and partners. The resultant tensions underlined the lack of legitimacy and generated acute fear even in friendlier states that Russia one day could turn against them.

But with the activation of the hitherto largely moribund six-nation Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in Kazakhstan seems to be an entirely different matter. Here, for the first time since its Warsaw Pact invasions, Russia employed an element of multilateralism. This was designed to show that the intervention was an allied effort, though it was Russia that pulled the strings and contributed most of the military force.

CSTO activation is also about something else. It blurred the boundaries between Russia’s security and the security of neighboring states. President Vladimir Putin recently stated the situation in Kazakhstan concerned “us all,” thereby ditching the much-cherished “Westphalian principles” of non-intervention in the internal affairs of neighboring states. The decision was also warmly welcomed by China, another Westphalia enthusiast.

In many ways, Russia always wanted to imitate the US, which in its unipolar moment used military power to topple regimes (in Afghanistan and Iraq) and to restore sovereignty (in Kuwait.) Liberal internationalism with an emphasis on human rights allowed America and its allies to operate with a certain level of legitimacy and to assert (a not always accepted) moral imperative. Russia had no broader ideas to cite. Until now. Upholding security and supporting conservative regimes has now become an official foreign policy tool. Protests in Belarus and Kazakhstan helped the Kremlin streamline this vision.

Since Russia considers its neighbors unstable (something it often helps to bring about), the need for intervention when security is threatened will now serve as a new dogma, though this does not necessarily mean that CSTO will now exclusively serve as the spearhead of Russian interventionist policy in crises along its borders. On the contrary, Russia will try to retain maneuverability and versatility. The CSTO option will be one weapon in the Kremlin’s neighborhood pacification armory.

Another critical element is the notion of “limited sovereignty,” whereby Russia allows its neighbors to exercise only limited freedom in foreign policy. This is a logical corollary, since maneuverability in their relations with other countries might lead to what the Kremlin considers incorrect choices, like joining Western military or economic groupings.

More importantly, the events in Kazakhstan also showed that Russia is now officially intent on upholding the conservative-authoritarian regimes. This fits into a broader phenomenon of authoritarians helping other authoritarians. Russia is essentially exporting its own model abroad. The export includes essential military and economic help to shore up faltering regimes.

The result is a virtuous circle, in the Kremlin’s eyes. Not only can it crush less than friendly governments in its borderlands but it also wins extensive influence, including strategic and economic benefits. Take for instance Belarus, where with Russian help, the dictator Aliaksandr Lukashenka managed to maintain his position after 2020’s elections through brutality and vote-rigging. The end result is that the regime is ever-more beholden to Russia, abandoning remnants of its multi-vector foreign policy and being forced to make financial and economic concessions of defense and economics to its new master. Russia is pressing hard for a major new airbase.

A similar scenario is now opening up in Kazakhstan. The country which famously managed to strike a balance between Russia and China and even work with the US, while luring multiple foreign investors, will now have to accept a new relationship with Russia. It will be similar to Belarus, short of integration talks.

Russia fears crises, but it has also learned to exploit them. Its new approach is a very striking evolution from the manner in which it handled Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2014, through the Belarus and Armenia-Azerbaijan crises in 2020 to the Kazakh uprising of 2022.

Russia has a new vision for its neighborhood. It is in essence a concept of hierarchical order with Russia at the top of the pyramid. The neighbors have to abide by the rules. Failure to do so would produce a concerted military response.

Author’s note: first published in cepa

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending