The State of Affairs in Russia

[Jacob]

That is what they are threatening. I don't think the article is claiming that is what they will actually do...

In either case, it seems it's up to the Russians to take a step since the West doesn't seem to be altering course significantly.

[Solmyr]

The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?

Not for the people of Afghanistan.

[Solmyr]

Also, people keep saying "Putin is not an idiot", that he will act logically, etc. However, there are increasing signs that he is by now living in his own reality, where Russia is a 19th century style great power and he is an important figure on the world stage who must be respected or there will be consequences. Gang upbringing combined with delusions of grandeur. Many Russian commentators are writing about how Putin is uninterested in Russia's internal affairs, making at most token gestures to address those; being an internationally recognized mover and shaker whose name will live on in history is his only goal. Also many are comparing the current period to that of Brezhnev - except Brezhnev and Co. went through WW2 and absolutely did not want a repeat of that, whereas Putin and his cronies have no personal experience of a horrible war, so they don't care if they start one. It does not matter to them if lots of Russians will die - Putin already said in a public speech that any Russians who die in a nuclear war are guaranteed entrance to paradise.

[The Minsky Moment]

Russia *is* a great power - maybe a distant number 3 but still number 3.   Putin's been around for quite a while now and for the last 20+ years has been pretty successful matching his ambitions to his nation's capabilities.

[Jacob]

The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?

Not for the people of Afghanistan.

For sure, but the question was the degree to which the American withdrawal was a watershed moment for the US, indicating a moment of critical weakness. And I think the answer here is "not really"

[Tamas]

One general point about "acting logical" on the international stage is that what's usually missed by this point is that "logical" must be applied from the actor's own internal political point of view. I don't think we know enough to be certain about that in Putin's case. Well, I definitely don't.

[Razgovory]

The repercussions from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan are pretty muted, aren't they?

Not for the people of Afghanistan.

You have to fight
for your right
to party

[Sheilbh]

Pretty dramatic footage of protests coming out of Kazakhstan - including miners and other blue collar groups joining them which is normally a bad sign.

Moscow might soon be distracted by that, which they will, no doubt, interpret as Western-backed/provoked.

The idea is that his visit contributes to defusing and calming down the situation. Germany also participated in previous talks between Russia and Ukraine, the so-called Normandy format. It is obviously urgent as there are signs of impending escalation, so waiting a couple of months does not seem sensible.

How does that work in practice though?

I can see Scholz maybe being able to provide a useful message if Germany is very closely coordinating with allies - especially Poland and the Baltic States. But I'm not really sure how Scholz could expect/hope for a trip to help defuse things - as opposed to being interpreted by Russia as a sign that Germany still sees things as business as usual despite Russia's escalations. It also feels a bit weird when Borrell is doing a trip to the "line of contact" in Ukraine and then to Kyiv which has been briefed as part of the EU's strong support of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

[Admiral Yi]

You have to fight
for your right
to party

[Eddie Teach]

You have to fight
for your right
to party

Afghanistan rejected this message as Jewish-American propaganda.

[Zanza]

How does that work in practice though?

I can see Scholz maybe being able to provide a useful message if Germany is very closely coordinating with allies - especially Poland and the Baltic States. But I'm not really sure how Scholz could expect/hope for a trip to help defuse things - as opposed to being interpreted by Russia as a sign that Germany still sees things as business as usual despite Russia's escalations.

The same way as Biden or any other leader calling Putin? Threaten sanctions in case of escalation. Scholz is now the most powerful politician in the European Union and Germany alone is Russia's second biggest trade partner after China. The EU can inflict more economic pain on Russia than vice versa.

[Sheilbh]

The difference is that all of Putin's "demands" are largely aimed at the US and he cares about the prestige of being a great power next to the US and China with those old-school summits.

I agree with that though, I hope that's the message Scholz delivers clearly.

But I'm not sure Scholz going with a clear message of sanctions and serious consequences for Russia (at your first meeting with Putin on his soil) is de-escalatory or defusing the situation, even if I think that message is key to that.

[Jacob]

The difference is that all of Putin's "demands" are largely aimed at the US and he cares about the prestige of being a great power next to the US and China with those old-school summits.

I agree with that though, I hope that's the message Scholz delivers clearly.

But I'm not sure Scholz going with a clear message of sanctions and serious consequences for Russia (at your first meeting with Putin on his soil) is de-escalatory or defusing the situation, even if I think that message is key to that.

IMO, Scholz' visit could move the needle in any direction depending on what his message is and how he delivers it.

Also IMO, Scholz has every right to - and indeed an obligation - to establish his relationship with Putin on behalf of Germany and on behalf of the EU. Suggesting that he should not meet, to me, is a suggeting that Scholz should not do his job.

[Sheilbh]

IMO, Scholz' visit could move the needle in any direction depending on what his message is and how he delivers it.

Also IMO, Scholz has every right to - and indeed an obligation - to establish his relationship with Putin on behalf of Germany and on behalf of the EU. Suggesting that he should not meet, to me, is a suggeting that Scholz should not do his job.

Agree it depends on the message - if it is there are serious consequences going down this path and Germany and EU are willing to impose significant sanctions then I think that could be helpful ( though I think it would be interpreted as inflammatory to travel to Moscow on your first trip there to deliver that message). If the message that comes across is along the lines of what Draghi has said which is basically saying Russia's not preparing for action and they just want talks.

He's within his rights - but I just don't get why the urgency to do it this month. Just wait a month or two. And I'd note that German commentators have criticised this and it's seems a bit of a shame given that there were hopes the Greens, especially, would help push Germany to taking a more European approach with Russia. The always fun Green MEP Reinhard Butikofer, for example called exactly that out, that it seems to him that Scholz "is not only opposing the Greens and the EU, but also against the necessary foreign policy reliability. Didn't the coalition agreement promise a European policy towards Russia?"

Or this from someone at the ECFR:

Gustav C. Gressel
@GresselGustav
1/6 If true (still hop it's not) this would again wreck Germany's reputation for a domestic publicity stunt.
1 Russia doesn't want to talk to Flag of Germany, their demands are addressed to the United States.
2 to change this the EU would have to be structurally capable to act in the fields ...
2/6 ... Russia is interested in dealing with like military support to Ukraine, strategic armaments, force posture in Europe. In all of this the #SPD is actually blocking Germany from becoming an actor...
3 #Putin is not interested in Resets. He demands results, the ones Germany can't deliver.
3/6 4 Unilateral outreach only undermines cohesion in the EU, especially if - as in this case - the exact objective of discussion is kept secret. See for corresponding attempts in the past. None of which produced results other than alienating allies in Brussels.
4/6 5 This would further undermine trust in Germany which already is very low because of #NS2. It would end any benevolence towards the new government and deepen trenches.
6 If this is all Germany has to offer on substance, it becomes abundant and useless to talk about #ESDP, #PESCO,
5/6 ... #strategicautonomy whatsoever for half of the EU. A Germany being a risk instead of an asset to the security of its neighbours would need to be contained. Probably more countries would join in that effort (for economic reasons as well) than just the Eastern flank.
6/6 So I sincerely hope @OlafScholz makes a quick end to all Germany #Reset plans wherever or by whomever they are cooked up. There is nothing good to be done here, only harm.

They could be wrong and Scholz might go with a clear message that's been coordinated with Germany's allies (especially countries in the EU that see Russia as a security risk).

And the domestic political stunt pointt is not just true of Germany, I think it goes for almost every Western European leader when they're first elected. I know Macron went big for a while on meetings with Putin because he thought he could solve the relationship. I don't think it's ever delivered anything, but there's nothing wrong with it - it just seems a little riskier than usual given the current context.

Not at all related to this - or Germany - but more part of how I think Russia does just keep pushing in Europe without meeting much resistance, I saw that a couple of weeks ago Francois Fillon, former French PM and the Presidential candidate of the right in 2017 accepted a position on the board of directors of a Russian gas company.

[Berkut]

Chamberlain had every "right" to go sell Czechoslovakia to Germany.

I don't understand the idea of "rights" when it comes to this kind of stuff. The question isn't whether they have the moral "right" to do so, it is whether or not it is actually beneficial to their countries for them to do so.