The State of Affairs in Russia

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Russia wants to be left alone.

I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.

Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.

I wonder why

It is a good question because I think you have had more border skirmishes with China than with NATO, so far.

I guess it comes back to "Russia" meaning a very different geographical area for Russians than to the rest of the world.

We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.

And anyway, Ukraine wasn't a "buffer state" before the 2014 coup. It was our ally and partner.

[Solmyr]

We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.

Why would China threaten its vassal state?

[Threviel]

Just listened to a short brief on Russia by a defense researcher specialized on Russia. A week or so ago there was a large annual defense conference with participants from all relevant parts of Swedish society and she held the short brief there, in Swedish.

Apparently, and this has been obvious for me at least for 15 years or so and probably most of you, Russia is trying to re-establish the Tsarist and Soviet spheres of influence and that Putin wants to have a Vienna 1815 or Yalta style conference where great power spheres can be decided and defined. Russia is after the old Soviet border and also complete control on the Baltic region, meaning Sweden and Finland finlandised.

All that is very obvious and have been obvious for at least the last decade or two. The problem, according to the researcher, is that they haven't been taken seriously by western politicians. No-one has listened and no-one has believed them.

All of this makes me furious over the idiotic way Sweden has been run since 2006-8 or so. By then it was obvious where Russia was going and that we would end up with a revanchist Russia trying to dominate its neighbours. So what the conservative government did was to decrease defense spending and go to fully professional defense. Sweden had by then gone from an army of 850.000 men and an air force with hundreds of planes to almost nothing in slightly more than a decade. Completely eroding any chance of standing up to Russia militarily, we became a joke. 

As time went on and more and more warning bells about Russia went off they opened the floodgates and took in about 100.000 immigrants each years, costing about 100 billion SEK annually where the defense budget continued to decrease to about 40 billion SEK. Those numbers should at a minimum have been reversed. The leftists reversed the trend after '14 and increased defense budgets, but far far far too little far too late.

Nowadays the defense budget has doubled since 2014, about 80 billion sek and military service re-established, Sweden is arming up. Slowly. The last time Sweden started to arm up after deep defense cuts was in 1936 or so which meant that we were ready for WWII in 1948 or thereabouts. It is complete and utter incompetence of historic proportions. It's two generations of politicians that have behaved as if the world is full of care bears and a friendly letter and a hug can dissuade bullies. And this despite the obvious and clear parallels to the interbellum years. Or the fact that Russia has been Sweden's main enemy for 400 years or so, and whilst their power has waned sometimes they always come back.

And from what I can gather most of Europe (except Finland of course, neighbouring the bear and perhaps UK/France) has done even worse, Germany in particular has had its head up its arse since Kohl. More focus on schools and health care and no focus at all on how we secure our wealthy and free societies. And the people have cheered on and voted for those idiots.

Nowadays Europe can do nothing to stop a belligerent Russia and it is by choice. Sanctions have little effect if a great power chooses to don't care about them.

Just my Sunday morning incoherent rant.

[Sheilbh]

I think as well as the defence side, which I agree with, there is also the economic side.

The challenge for the US is that they don't really trade with Russia. Adam Tooze spoke about this that in terms of an export market for the US, Russia is about the same level as Ecuador. It's not a massive import partner either. So the direct leverage that US sanctions would have is pretty weak.

On the other hand about 40% of Europe's gas comes from Russia so it is key and I think it has larger other trade to. So for any sanctions to be meaningful it depends on the US being able to cajole the Europeans - but they need the gas, especially at a time of very high prices and a spike in global demand. You could look at things like trying to freeze Russia out of the US payments system, or sanction companies who allow the re-export of US goods or parts or IP to Russia - but again the cost will basically be borne by US allies, so they need buy in from them.

But on defence - there was a really striking interview by the head of the French air force recently (and obviously he would say this to get budget increases) but he pointed out how contested space and airspace around Europe is. He had a startling stat about the number of confrontations between European fighters and others around the edges of Europe's airspace in the last few years. I think we have behaved as if we're America - bordered by Canada and Mexico (which I think means America doesn't always get the fear/paranoia of borders and can be a bit over-confident). Even aside from Russia I think there's a strong argument that Europe's neighbourhood - from Algeria and Libya through the Middle East and Caucasus up to Russia is one of the most unstable broad regions in the world where there's numerous potential flashpoints and conflicts which would have a direct impact on Europe, if only in terms of migration (Libya as an open route, Syria etc). But I don't think that's reflected in European policy.

[Threviel]

Yes, economics is important and another measure of how far up in la-la land our politicians have been. Schröder and Merkel, one by agreeing to gas deals and the other by decommissioning nuclear have made Germany totally dependant on Russia. It's naivety of gigantic proportions.

There were early examples of gas conflicts between the Ukraine and Russia where Russia clearly showed that they will use gas politically. And still Germany made itself reliant on Russia, it's borderline treasonous (perhaps not borderline in Schröders case) and at least utter incompetence. And for 20 years. It should have at least been reversed when Russia turned belligerent in 2006 or so. Nord stream should never have been built and it was bloody obvious for everyone at the time, the warnings were everywhere. This is not a case of hindsight, it was obvious at the time.

Amusing Swedish example on that. There's a small port on Gotland called Slite that is civilian but have been used by the Swedish navy since forever. When Nord stream started to build it was no longer used by the military and they had sold all of their property there. The Russians wanted to lease the land and build it up as a support dock for gas pipe construction and the commune of Gotland said "Yes please, money in is good and since everyone is a care bear why not the Russians?"

The military said no, it is a bad idea. The Russians can use it as a staging point for invasion in a strategic and sensitive location, do not lease out to them.

So the commune appealed and it ended up with the government and since nothing illegal was going on they couldn't stop the lease and it went ahead.

I think it was stopped at a later stage and today that probably wouldn't happen (the government would probably stop it, make new laws if necessary, the local politicians are probably still retards), but still, a small example of politicians behaving stupid. It is as if they are incapable of understanding that there are organisations that don't play by our rules.

[Threviel]

Reminds me about a book I read on the German invasion of Norway. In the end the author discussed the cause of the war and why it went so badly for the Norwegians.

His conclusion was that Norway had decreased defense spending since the great war and the low readiness of the Norwegian defense resulted in the loss to the Germans. The invasion was probably not strong enough to overcome a prepared and ready and strong Norwegian defense supported by the allies.

The low defense spending was a result of pacifist policies from the politicians and that that was something that the voters rewarded and that thus, in the end, it was the people itself that was responsible. They could have chosen different politics. Kind of like Greece in the decades preceding the economic crisis, they could, and should have voted differently, but didn't. What was coming was obvious to everyone (well, perhaps more obvious in Greece than Norway) and everyone chose to ignore it.

That's kind of how it has been since '89. Hawkish politics have been totally ignored in most of western Europe and politicians have been rewarded at the polls for spending on welfare rather than weapons.

[celedhring]

And from what I can gather most of Europe (except Finland of course, neighbouring the bear and perhaps UK/France) has done even worse, Germany in particular has had its head up its arse since Kohl. More focus on schools and health care and no focus at all on how we secure our wealthy and free societies. And the people have cheered on and voted for those idiots.

Tbf, if Russian voters had done the same - or were allowed to do the same - this thread wouldn't exist and we'd all be better off - Russians included. I'm not hitting back at you, just generally lamenting on the absurdity of the situation.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.

Why would China threaten its vassal state?

Thank you for the laugh.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

Meanwhile, the Russian peacekeepers are withdrawing from Kazakhstan.

Another colour revolution prevented.

[DGuller]

On mirroring.

The Russian minister of defense has warned about the possible provocation as early as December 20, 2021:

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647

"It's been established with full certainty that over 120 employees of US private military companies are present in Avdeevka and Priasovsk of Donetsk Region. They're setting up firing positions inside residential housing and in socially import objects, training Ukrainian special forces and radical groups for military action... To perform a provocation, reservoirs with unidentified chemical components have been delivered to Avdeevka and Krasny Liman."

As you can see, his information is specific and stated briefly and clearly.

The US has claimed the Russians are preparing a false flag attack mid-Jan, a few days ago:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

The US info is vague, with no specifics on the numbers, locations, type of action, and so on.

So... who is mirroring whom?

It's easy to know the details of the operations that you're making up yourself, that's true, and you don't even have to worry about burning real sources (because none exist).  Mirroring doesn't have to be reactive, you could be preemptively accusing others of planning to do something that you're planning to do yourself.  Mirroring and projecting go together.

[Berkut]

I think the only way you can look at the expansion of NATO as "threatening" to Russia is if you insist on looking at Russian security from the eyes of the mid 20th century.

And while it is reasonable to look and note that historically, Russia was invaded twice from the West (well...once really, but from Russians perspective...) in the space of two generations....well, does anyone actually buy that as a credible threat, NOW?

People raised during the Cold War are currently running Russia. So yes, they totally do think like that.

I don't believe it. Hell, I don't actually think even Soviet Cold Warriors thought there was ever a credible threat of NATO sending tanks into the USSR.

It was about their ability to send tank into the West, not "defense" against attack. That was just the excuse. And you can tell from the force makeup that that was the case.

What I mean is that these people's entire world view is based on confrontation between Russia and the West. So expecting them to not view NATO as the Enemy is wishful thinking.

That is not at all my point.

My point is that I don't believe they see any credible threat that the West is going to actually attack Russia. Their "security" is not actually at risk at all, and they know that, and have known that for a very, very long time.

They pretend like they have some kind of worry about about NATO attacking Russia ala June 6th, 1941. They have no such concern.

We are their enemy because we don't want to let them bully and attack their neighbours, not because they actually have any fear that Russia will be attacked.

[viper37]

"Funny" is a figure of speech. I find nothing funny about the current situation.

On mirroring accusations... it goes both ways. You choose to see one side of it, I choose the other. We can talk for many pages funding credible examples illustrating both points of view.

Indeed, the entire purpose of the Russian mirroring tactic is to allow you to comfortably see the Russian side of things.  One would figure that someone as experienced and traveled as you would understand what NATO actually is,  but it seems one would figure wrong.

It would be less embarrassing if you just blamed the CIA, like everyone did in the old days.  It has more street cred as a boogieman than NATO does.

On mirroring.

The Russian minister of defense has warned about the possible provocation as early as December 20, 2021:

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/811647

"It's been established with full certainty that over 120 employees of US private military companies are present in Avdeevka and Priasovsk of Donetsk Region. They're setting up firing positions inside residential housing and in socially import objects, training Ukrainian special forces and radical groups for military action... To perform a provocation, reservoirs with unidentified chemical components have been delivered to Avdeevka and Krasny Liman."

As you can see, his information is specific and stated briefly and clearly.

The US has claimed the Russians are preparing a false flag attack mid-Jan, a few days ago:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html?utm_content=2022-01-14T14%3A58%3A30&utm_source=twcnnbrk&utm_term=link&utm_medium=social

The US info is vague, with no specifics on the numbers, locations, type of action, and so on.

So... who is mirroring whom?

that there are special forces of US, Canada, and other NATO countries in Ukraine is no secret.  Your country has invaded a significant chunk of Ukraine, you know?  And you will tell us that Russia has nothing to do with the pro-russian seperatist faction of eastern Ukraine?  It does not give them weapon, intelligence, or any kind of training?

This is not provocation?

You say you want Russia to be left alone, but what you really want is to have a sphere of influence over neighbouring countries and all over the world where there are puppet governments.  Intervening in Syria to slaughter civilian protesters was not isolationism.

You want to rebuild you own empire but you don't want any interference from others.  It doesn't exactly work that way, you know?

Russia push its neighbours into western arms because it tries to destabilize them repeatedly and subvert local democracy to its own interest.  Then it complains these countries want to join NATO and NATO accepts them.

Oh, and about that specific mirroring issue you mention...  How is it the Russian ministry of defence can establish a very clear line like that, knowing what will do what and when?

Ask yourself some question before repeating Putin's propaganda.

Russia is building itself an excuse to invade Ukraine and trying its best to make it sure it goes unchallenge.  For now, Russia can't compete with NATO.  In a decade, things might be different.  Russia knows it.  I'm not sure all of NATO is aware.

Tell you want. Stop supporting dictators all around the word, stop interfering in neighbouring countries, than NATO and the US will leave you alone.  They might even help you, like they did after the fall of the USSR.

[viper37]

Russia wants to be left alone.

I think they do. Unfortunately that usually seems to mean being behind a cordon of "friendly" countries and territories who act as buffer and remain firmly in their sphere of influence, whether they like it or not.

Only with the West, Syt. Our eastern border is mostly unprotected.

I wonder why

It is a good question because I think you have had more border skirmishes with China than with NATO, so far.

I guess it comes back to "Russia" meaning a very different geographical area for Russians than to the rest of the world.

We don't expect any threat whatsoever from China.

And anyway, Ukraine wasn't a "buffer state" before the 2014 coup. It was our ally and partner.

Russia and the USSR have always relied on buffer states in the West, Ukraine was no different.
Putin maintained a corrupt puppet in Ukraine and even invaded part of a sovereign country because he didn't like the new regime's open attitude toward Europe.  That "ally" was ousted after he tried basically selling the country to Russia.  Is it really a surprise he's now living in Russia?
You can't be serious about all that propaganda shit.
Stop interfering and attacking your neighbors and the West will leave you alone.
They won't even lift a finger when you jail homosexuals and political opponents to Putin.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Russia push its neighbours into western arms because it tries to destabilize them repeatedly and subvert local democracy to its own interest.  Then it complains these countries want to join NATO and NATO accepts them.

the way Russia/USSR treated Eastern Europe between 1939 and 1989 pretty much guaranteed that everyone one who could would join NATO asap. The way Russia treated other countries after 2005 pretty much guarantees that those that can join NATO but haven't done so yet will try to do so asap.

Maybe Russia should have taken a leaf from the German playbook: show genuine contrition for the atrocities committed. Who knows what would have happened in that case? But no, instead the country went around being a bully, but without the massive reserve of diplomatic credit the US had.

[Zoupa]

Russia and its leaders have had the same obsession since Ivan and Putin is no different. We learned this in middle school:

• Secure the plain
• Get access to year-round ports

Hence Crimea, hence Syria, and now hence Ukraine. History has repeatedly underlined the importance of securing the northern european plain for Russia. Poles, Swedes, Napoleon, Germans (twice).

I'm not saying the EU should let Russia have free reign in Ukraine, but Putin is not acting any different from any other Russian leader. Russia is cursed by geography.