The State of Affairs in Russia

[The Minsky Moment]

Regardless of how "absurd" you personally believe the Russian demands are, they're not about Ukraine.

They're about the imperative need for all countries to follow the UN Charter.

Let's follow this logic out.  It's not clear to me how (e.g.) NATO enlargement violates the UN Charter but for the sake of argument I will accept the premise that Russia views significant NATO deployment on or near its borders as threatening and seeks meaningful assurances for its own security.  Of course those principles go both ways.  The implication of this concern is not a unilateral demand vs NATO but a proposal for a full-blown demilitarized zone on both sides of the border that both sides are bound to honor.

Similarly, reciprocity as to security assurances and respect for the principles of the UN Charter would require at a minimum:
1) Permanent withdrawal of all security forces, adjuncts, "little green men," and security resources from Ukraine and a cessation of support for armed separatist in the country.
2) Permanent withdrawal from Crimea and its restoration to Ukrainian sovereignty.
3) Dismantling of all cyberwarfare operations against NATO members.
4) Ceasing all exterior operations involving attacks and assaults on the lives of individuals on NATO sovereign territory.
5) With respect to Nord Stream, meaningful assurances that gas shipments will not be used coercively, e.g. by creating a substantial escrow fund from sale proceeds that could be defaulted.

If Russia is willing to consider these measures to provide reciprocal security for all pursuant to the principles of Charter, then their proposals should be considered seriously.  If they aren't, then they can't be surprised about getting the back of the hand.

If we are being honest, the motivation here has little to do with the principles of the UN Charter.  It has everything to do with Russia's consistent insistence on regarding the "prisonhouse" of the old Tsarist and Soviet empires as an irreducible minimum of geopolitical domination to which Russia has an eternal entitlement.

[Valmy]

Telling of what? I mean if nothing happens who the fuck cares? Everybody will move on to the next clickbait du jour and forget all about it in a few hours if it comes to nothing.

"Telling" of the mass media working on the same old agenda, while Russia has defined its demands much broader than that.

While scanning the English- and French-speaking mass media yesterday, I was surprised to see the Ukraine mantra repeated over and over again.

Their agenda is to make profits, as a group they have no sinister agenda.

I don't know. If Russia is good and noble then I find it heartening we have nothing to worry about. May they live in eternal peace and harmony with their good friends in Ukraine.

[Valmy]

The problem of course is that in some cases sabre-rattling done as bluffs can escalate into actual shooting and offensives. It is quite fascinating that you, who probably have considerably more ready access to non-Russian news than most people in Russia, still have the read of the Russian troop buildup as defense against some active NATO threat. Which from where I am sitting sounds silly.

To me it seems Western governments would be perfectly happy to leave Russia alone and make profit from laundering Russian oligarch money in peace. The general populace most certainly don't give a rat's ass about Russia apart from worrying they might force NATO treaty obligations none of them really want to be kept.

It's just a matter of perspective. Our valiant secret service agents are the other man's despicable spies We are all in "defensive alliances" against each other, and the troops presence in Europe and Russia is always "defensive."

At any rate, we don't know what's been agreed on yesterday in Geneva, and we can only wait and see what transpires next.

Hey man we wanted Russia in the alliance. NATO is an organization that is an artifact with no clear reason to exist anymore except that all the members are more comfortable with it still existing. It is not directed against anybody really.

As far as NATO having troops in Europe I mean most of our members are European countries. Where else would their fucking troops be? If they weren't in NATO I bet they would still have troops in their own country.

[Valmy]

The best part is really the claim that Putin is all about protecting the UN Charter. THAT is why he took over the Crimea and has been sending Russian troops and equipment into Ukraine!

Russia guaranteed the borders of Ukraine in exchange for them destroying nukes. If they are interested in no "lethal weapons" being deployed in neighboring territories their past actions seem to suggest that only a fool would not have lethal weapons to defend themselves if they border Russia. Correct me if I am wrong there.

If I am Ukraine I would now regard destroying my nukes as a grave strategic error. Is that really the kind of thinking you want your neighbors to have? Hey I don't want to tell Russia how to run their own country but that strikes me as common sense.

Anyway Russia continuing to waste its resources on all these conflicts outside its borders while it suffers internally seems great for Russia's enemies. I think they are fucking morons and they should be focused on building their own country. I mean look at all the problems the US has had with all its foreign adventures. Learn from our errors.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?

And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.

You do realise you're making pretty much the exact mirror argument to Russia, don't you?

[Jacob]

How can anyone find it unlikely that Russia is interested in extending influence over Ukraine, given it's literally annexed part of Ukraine?

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.

My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.

[Jacob]

Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.

My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.

Ah... yeah, if you're saying that Russia's concerns are broader and Ukraine is just one aspect - a flashpoint at this time - that makes sense. I think that's fairly clear.

I think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.

I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).

So for the West it really is about Ukraine, because that's the country that is getting abused by Russia the most egregiously.

And while the Eastern marches of the West obviously has serious negative experiences with Russia and takes any threats very seriously (and, in the case of places like Hungary - are happy to play along with Russia), overall the West does not see Russia as a peer competitor (not a peer, not really a competitor) which perhaps forms part of the problem from Russia's perspective.

IMO, of course.

[Berkut]

Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.

My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.

I thought your earlier point was that Russia really, really cares about the UN Charter above all else?

How does that square with your admittance that Russia wants destroy the sovereignty of Ukraine, which of course is in fact a violation of that Charter?

[garbon]

Of course Russia is interested in extending a level of influence over that unfortunate country.

My earlier point was that it's a relatively minor matter at this stage, in the scale of things.

I thought your earlier point was that Russia really, really cares about the UN Charter above all else?

How does that square with your admittance that Russia wants destroy the sovereignty of Ukraine, which of course is in fact a violation of that Charter?

Just minor destruction though.

[Sheilbh]

I think, conversely, however the Western perspective does not really consider things in the same cold war continuum. It's not about having a strategy to contain or hamper Russia. It's about sovereign countries - and their populations - maintaining their rights. If Ukraine or Belorussia or Kazakhstan or whoever wants to get into bed with Russia, great! Get into bed with Russia. If they don't - and that includes the people rather than individual dictators - then Russia really ought not to use military force.

I appreciate that this can still be seen as an overarching anti-Russian strategy (because Putin is pretty committed to subverting any popular opinions that don't align with his own, and is happy to prop up governments that lack a popular mandate of any kind).

I think part of it for Russia though is distinctly post-cold war. From my understanding there were no legal guarantees or treaties on this (which is why they're being asked for now) but it's pretty clear from Western and Russian records that there were non-binding, verbal, leader-to-leader assurances to Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards. It was paprt of the deal to allow German unification: Russia wouldn't kick up a fuss and in exchanges NATO wouldn't move east.

It's fair to say that over the course of the 90s and 00s the West broke those promises pretty comprehesnively and I think that's part of the context for Russian paranoia around Ukraine, Georgia or whoever else joining NATO.

And I think Putin's perspective on Belarus or Kazakhstan or Ukraine isn't necessarily Soviet or Tsarist or anything like that - I think it's just the latest in a very long line of Russian leaders feeling vulnerable because of the size of their border, so the way to solve that vulnerability is to move the border forward in some way so it is further from Russia proper (or in Putin's case, through states that are tied to Moscow). Given that I wonder if it is that minor - but I think the consistent thing is Russia choosing a "hard" approach that alienates people in these countries leading to situations like Ukraine when a perhaps a "softer" approach would have led to more Russia-aligned governments and peoples?

Having said that my view is still that Ukraine had a revolution with Euromaidan protests trying to associate with the EU (not NATO). They, of all countries involved at the minute, show no sign of wanting to talk or compromise with Russia and it is their right to defend themselves - and it's our right to supply them if we want to. Which is what I support doing because I think we should help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and its territory.

[DGuller]

Sure, but I find it far less probable that the West have designs on extending military influence and control over Ukraine aggressively than Russia. Making sure Ukraine remains in chaos and it remains a buffer that keeps sinking Russian resources? Sure. But working on the goal of stationing NATO troops/missiles on Ukrainian soil? Come on. Why? What is there to be gained?

And it is just very transparent BS that the above would have reached such an imminent stage that stationing Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is necessary.

You do realise you're making pretty much the exact mirror argument to Russia, don't you?

That doesn't mean anything in general, since just because both sides make the mirror arguments doesn't mean that the two arguments are equally valid.  It particularly doesn't mean anything when it comes to Russia, since projecting their intentions onto others is their go-to gaslighting tactic.

[Jacob]

Yeah that's a reasonable analysis Sheilbh.

My local Danish news is arguing that Putin has won the first round simply by getting the meeting and the conversation on his chosen topic. I don't know if I agree, but sure.

Another point that I hadn't realized so far - apparently Finland has been pretty clear that they're likely to apply for NATO membership if Russia invades Ukraine. Sweden is might consider NATO in that case as well, according to the article I'm reading (though this is more speculative, I think). That's something Putin would probably like to avoid.

[Sheilbh]

Another point that I hadn't realized so far - apparently Finland has been pretty clear that they're likely to apply for NATO membership if Russia invades Ukraine. Sweden is making similar indications according to the article I'm reading. That's something Putin would probably like to avoid.

Yeah - there is a European angle on this too because of the mutual defence obligation in Article 42 of the Lisbon treaty. Finland have been trying to clarify what it means for as long as the treaty's been around with little success - I think France has responded. From a French analyst on this point:

François Heisbourg
@FHeisbourg
Indeed. The Finnish president @niinisto has been raising the issue for years, most recently in his New Years message, including pointed language about the EU's limited role. One can't say that Brussels has responded in a satisfactory manner.

Ben Judah
@b_judah
I agree. @EmmanuelMacron and @OlafScholz should travel with @vonderleyen, @CharlesMichel and @JosepBorrellF to Helsinki to allay any fears and state that an attack on one EU member state is an attack on all, as ironclad  if not more thanks to Article 42.7 as the NATO Article 5.

As I say I think there's a real opportunity here for Scholz and Europe in general to reassure the Baltic states - and now Finland and Sweden in relation to European/non-NATO obligations

I think part of the issue is the mutual defence obligations is drafted very vaguely (in part because it was one of the changes following Ireland's no vote because Irish neutrality is in the constitution) so has so far been interpreted as mainly relating to hybrid attacks rather than actual territorial defence - that's the point Finland's been trying to clarify.

[grumbler]

Their agenda is to make profits, as a group they have no sinister agenda.

Are you talking about Putin and the rest of the Russian Mafia, or western mass media?