Ukrainian Maidan after 8 years

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

7 minutes ago, Tomasz said:

There are no oligarchs in russified  Belarus.

In Russia there are, but the Kremlin is center of power  as agreed

Putin's legendary meeting with the oligarchs at the beginning of his tenure that they are not allowed to get into politics.

There are memes all over the net on this topic. Its legendary because  against was Khodorkovsky and he protested loudly because he really wanted to get into politics - its called YUKOS CASE.

 Such oligarchs like Deripaska Alekperov (Lukoil)  Mordashov adopted the rules of the new game

- there is no re-nationalization what you steal in 90s because it would end in another October revolution

-now you pay taxes FAIRLY

-you don't get involved in governing the country

And in Ukraine, there were borderline kings from the Polish Saxon times (it means oligarchs may he more real power like Akmetow) thaan Zelensky .

There is a hit video like Zelenski telling the oligarchs to take the topic of Covid as oligarchs in their royal lands. I would have to look, but it's worth it because it shows who has real power in their hand.

The reality is that Zelenskiy has been struggling currenty to have at least some positions like Putin for 20 years and these famous arrangements, so we have a war Zelenskiy versus the oligarchs primarily Akhmetov

Kommersant, who is a very reliable newspaper, writes that there is a common front in the media (Poroshenko Tymoshenko Razumkov, Ukrainian nationalists).

To be clear, both Poroshenko (Ukrainian nationalism) and Medvedchuk' (the Russian option for Ukraine) are attacking Zelensky similarly.

They accused  Zelensky from every angle in propaganda on the screen of Akhmetov's TV station

And the do this because Ukraine is an oligarchic state and Akhmetov, and probably also Poroshenko are now attacking Zelensky

The reason is the law on oligarchs.

Peace is not likely to be there.

Don't think Khodorkovsky was into politics either. Made a move on Transneft though (the government oil pipeline monopoly)

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Andrei if you want to meet someone sensible on Russia and Ukraine Belarus in Poland its Leszek Sykulski

Leader of realist school in geopolitics

If you want something in polish that is not a crap about Ukraine  this is this interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PGNvoiWrQ

[Tomasz + 1,608]

However, if someone reads some anonymous CIA agents and their shocking unofficial news that Russia will attack Ukraine in a moment  I highly recommend it for the purpose of wakefulness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhWlPo3qxak - not some  strange content from shadow CIA sources get quietly in the corridor but official  statement by US secretary Collin Powell himself in an emergency meetng at the UN Security Council.

Whether you like it or not, Putin and Lavrov will not live long enough life to break Powell achievement with his speech. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Tomasz

[Starschy + 211]

No Oligarchs in Belarus ?

 

I would not bet on that. But I'm sure Western intelligence is very weak on Belarus information.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Putin wins serious concession from Biden for Russia-Nato security deal talks

So IMHO it seems Putin got what he really wanted from this summit: NATO finaly  engages with Russia to discuss security guarantees for Europe with Russia. It’s not a signed deal of course but all he wanted was to get this issue back on the agenda and now it is.

Pentagon also says Ukraine can use Javelin -- but ONLY for self defence. This was the original restriction then it was taken off. Now it seems it is back on again... So another concession to Putin???

US also puts limits on itself to deploy more US troops to Eastern Europe: ONLY if Russia attacks Ukraine so it looks like Putin got a quite lot of concessions from Biden at latest meeting.

Ukraine is now de facto a buffer zone between Russia and NATO.

Now we wait for Third Maidan - again oligarchs against current President that wants to become a biggest oligarch in Ukraine which is threat to other oligarchs vital interests.

https://www.intellinews.com/putin-wins-concession-from-biden-for-russia-nato-security-deal-talks-229560/?source=russia

 

[Starschy + 211]

The other way for Ukraine.

Switzerland 1946 was enclosed by Germany, Italy and less Austria all major war parties.

Those Germans wanted Nukes about 1960 Defence Minister Franz Josef Strauss not always nice times. security wise Switzerlands Shelter System (started about 1960) is quite unique as most houses have a Shelter for War times and other Desaster events.

If Switzerland behaved as Ukraine there would't be Trade between those Countries or at least, significant lower volumes. The Swiss did not behave as Ukraine and tried to balance their trades between all of them. The result is about 80 years later the daily trade volume between Switzerland and Germany exceeds  1 Bio CHF per day.

Ukraines path is to deal with Moscow otherwise Ukraines economy is dead 2035. The way to Europe is a fata morgana. Compare Ukraine with Crimea. Crimea changed more in those 7 years as in the last 25 under Ukraine.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Language situation on Ukraine

 

[El Gato + 251]

Poland, Like Ukraine, Is in Putin's Crosshairs

https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/12/17/poland-ukraine-putins-crosshairs.html

Hey Tomasz, you might want to worry less about Ukraine and more about your country.

 

[El Gato + 251]

Russia Sends Nuclear-Capable Bombers on Patrol Over Belarus

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/18/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-patrol-over-belarus.html

Yeah, Russia is just such a nice neighbor

[Starschy + 211]

2 hours ago, El Gato said:

Russia Sends Nuclear-Capable Bombers on Patrol Over Belarus

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/18/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-patrol-over-belarus.html

Yeah, Russia is just such a nice neighbor

Most Airplanes are nuclear capable at least with one nuke. Those Airplanes check the border and don't contain nukes.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

21 hours ago, El Gato said:

Poland, Like Ukraine, Is in Putin's Crosshairs

https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/12/17/poland-ukraine-putins-crosshairs.html

Hey Tomasz, you might want to worry less about Ukraine and more about your country.

 

My country, Poland, was definitely safer when the Americans did not decide to overthrow the pro-Russian Yanukovych.

With their actions, the Americans introduced a fundamental conflict in Europe and brought the danger of World War III to continent by trying to lay the NATO base in Ukraine or even Crimea.

So thank you for your concern.

The Americans are solely responsible for the current crisis situation in Europe.

The sooner they withdraw entirely from Europe, the better.

And yes I dont give a fuck about Ukraine. Do you know history of Ukraine genocide on polish minority during Second World War?

Yeap in just 2 years on local conflict Ukrainians killed about 200.000 Poles in Wolyn and East Galicia Massacre.

Belarusians could also do that in Second World War. But they didnt..

So please dont ask me to care about Ukraine? 

I personally would care more about well-being of Belarusian than Ukrainians.

Edited December 19, 2021 by Tomasz

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Commenting on the talks with Putin, Biden said a few things (OWN HIGHLIGHTS)

First, additional US troops will be deployed in Central and Eastern Europe ONLY IF Russia attacks Ukraine militarily.

Second, UKRAINE will not be admitted to NATO for the next at least 10 years.

Thirdly, an hour after the end of the conversation, a new American defense budget was adopted, in which no new sanctions against Russia are introduced on NS II.

Fourthly, it was emphasized that the only way to solve the Ukrainian conflict are the MINSk AGREEMENTS and it is now that the US is to replace Germany and France in their implementation in order to resolve the conflict.

The aim of the Minsk agreements is to base the construction of Ukraine on the case of a European country like Bosnia and Herzegovina. I recommend the casus of this country. The implementation of the Minsk agreements will eliminate the need for a guarantee against the non-enlargement of NATO, as it will guarantee the system of Ukraine and its federalisation.

And this is not the case of Sleepy Joe, but we enter the concept of Kindelberger trap in the net and we watch, for example, an appropriate film by Dr. Leszek Sykulski from about 5 years ago - American Kindelberger trap and threats to Poland or something like that.

And by the way, to all fans of NATO expansion.

Are you ready for World War III?

If not, NATO out of Ukraine definitely. Russia will not forgive the topic and it should be crystal clear to all Maidan supporters already in 2013/2014.

Really, if it is faster, they will do Syrian-style mess in Ukraine than they will allow it .

I understand Poland it is much safer anno domini 2021 than anno domini e.g. 2009 when Putin and Tusk met on the pier in Sopot?

Well, I guess if Maidan was to be such a great anti-Russian success.

As long as there is no agreement in Ukraine, taking into account vital Russian interests, there will be no peace in Europe.

And keep blocking NS II. At the spot, the TTF price of gas exceeds $ 1,500 per 1,000 m3 today, so I advise you to read what we have also achieved in the issue of the renegotiation of gas prices with Gazprom in the Stockholm arbitration.

It seems that the contract prices of gas for Poland for 2021 and 2022 have been linked to spot prices by PGNiG.

It is the 19th day of winter and January and February are supposed to be cool.

 

 

[Tomasz + 1,608]

And this talks are also a strategic defeat for European Union in fight for its geopolitical position

Moscow now also has clearest evidence that despite all the talk in Europe about "strategic autonomy" and a Europe that should not have to take directions from Washington, there is a much higher (albeit quiet) level of compliance with American directives.

When outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Russia for her farewell tour, her statements seemed to indicate that Europeans were finally prepared to take greater notice of Ukrainian non-compliance with provisions of the Minsk Accords, while declaring that Germany would not allow any outside pressure to sway its commitment to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

Since that point, however, German and European policy has not changed (in continuing to focus on Russian transgressions).

Moreover, the sudden discovery by German regulators that the operating company for Nord Stream 2 was registered in Switzerland, and needed to be re-registered as a German corporate entity—a detail that seems to have not been noticed for the five years of its existence—could be interpreted as a face-saving device by the Germans: while still proclaiming that the United States cannot dictate to Germany what to do about Nord Stream 2, the effective suspension of the certification process, which all but guarantees that Nord Stream 2 could not go into service until summer 2022, is a de facto acquiescence to U.S. requests

Result of this - EXTREME HIGH NG prices in Europe for coming months..

[Tomasz + 1,608]

Quote

Poll shows that 33.3% of Ukrainians will put up an armed resistance if Russia invades. Even if only 5% of those are true to their word that's an extra 2 million people that will put up a fight and make Putin's war that much more costly. #UkraineWillResist

MY COMMENT:

Context: 33% for Ukraine as a whole is basically the same as 21% for the eight Novorossiya oblasts back in early 2014 (when denizens of current LDNR were also polled!). Incredibly bearish for Ukraine (or rather the svidomy).Funny how among six possible answers, not one includes an option that is opposite of resisting Russia.

 

[El Gato + 251]

On 12/18/2021 at 10:34 PM, Starschy said:

Most Airplanes are nuclear capable at least with one nuke. Those Airplanes check the border and don't contain nukes.

You either missed the point, or trying to play innocent like most Communists do when they are caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. The flights are an implied threat of what could be. And Poland better take notice

[Tomasz + 1,608]

So Zelenski has arrested both Medvedchuk and Poroshenko and is fighting with Akhmetov for power

Another thing is that Poroshenko even now has a chocolate factory in Russia today, and in any case he did not want to get rid of it

Because Zelenski goverment accused him of terrorism and treason in favor of Russia

Medvedchuk I could understand that but Poroshenko?

This seems to be a the dintoyr between two kosher mafias members.

Something like Berezovsky and Gusinski at Yeltsin's court fought for power.

Their successor Putin finally reconciled them just at the begining off his rule and sent them both on forced exile to Londongrad. 

[Starschy + 211]

10 hours ago, El Gato said:

You either missed the point, or trying to play innocent like most Communists do when they are caught doing something they shouldn't be doing. The flights are an implied threat of what could be. And Poland better take notice

I don't miss the point. Those TU 22 are Nuke capable but for those

flights no one adds Nukes. The Russian are not the US which lost a least 6 Nukes. 2 in Savanah River Georgia, 2 on Mediterranean Sea and two in Alaska i to the Pacific.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Starschy

[Starschy + 211]

2 hours ago, Tomasz said:

So Zelenski has arrested both Medvedchuk and Poroshenko and is fighting with Akhmetov for power

Another thing is that Poroshenko even now has a chocolate factory in Russia today, and in any case he did not want to get rid of it

Because Zelenski goverment accused him of terrorism and treason in favor of Russia

Medvedchuk I could understand that but Poroshenko?

Poroshenko  chocolate Factory is for many years in Russia (Lipetzk)

But no one is buying that large Company.

Poroshenko was accused of buying Coal in Donetzk for the Ukraine Power station. A small amount  of 7-10 Million USD.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Starschy

[Starschy + 211]

At the moment it is very cold in Ukraine. Dtek the largest Power company Importes electricity from Slovakia. Worse only 25% of the Coal is available compared to normal. Which could mean buying Gas over the reverse Flow from Germany. Maximum prices would be 1800 Usd per 1000 m3. Money the Ukrainian don't have.

Dtek belongs to Mr. Ahmetov the richest Ukranian. Dtek manages 30% of all Ukrainian electric power.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

By Ben Aris in Berlin December 17, 2021

Quote

 

Newspapers have been gleefully reporting about a “possible” invasion of Ukraine by Russia since the end of October. But analysts – both Russian and international – are almost unanimous in the belief that the chances of an actual invasion are almost zero.  

As bne IntelliNews has reported on in detail, the reasons are obvious: it would be too costly in Russian lives, something that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s slowly falling approval and trust ratings make extremely unappealing to the Kremlin; while Russians overwhelmingly support the annexation of Crimea, they are a lot more uncomfortable with the war in Donbas; eastern Ukraine could be taken easily, but western Ukraine could not; and finally the international diplomatic backlash would be catastrophic for Russia’s economy.  

And why bother? What would Russia gain? The only thing of value Ukraine has is agriculture, which would collapse in the event of an all-out war followed an inevitable viscous and impassioned insurrection. On top of that, the Kremlin would take on the cost of fixing Ukraine at a time when it is struggling to fix Russia Inc. It’s not going to happen.  

So what is actually going on here? As usual, all you have to do is listen to what Putin says. Putin has a history of telegraphing his moves well in advance. That was the big difference between Putin and his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, who never said what he meant.  

In Putin’s big set-piece speeches he lays out his plans in black and white and almost always follows through on them. But as it is Putin and as he has been so demonised in the last two decades a lot of what he says is ignored, or twisted to suit the various narratives used to describe Russia.  

Putin said in his very first speech as president that demographics was the main danger to Russia and as we reported in “Putin’s babies”, he did something about that a decade later. Putin warned in his 2007 Munich Security Conference speech that Russia would push back if its security concerns were ignored and he started modernising the army in 2012, annexed the Crimea in 2014 and is now moving up troops that could invade Ukraine in 2021. You can draw a straight line through all these points.  

What did he say?

Putin has just done it again. During the Munich speech he brought up the broken verbal promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev of no Nato eastern expansion. And he has mentioned them again in the last month several time.

The year after Munich in 2008 the Russian Foreign Ministry drew up detailed plans for a new pan-European security deal that included a fair specific framework proposal released by the Russian Foreign Ministry in 2009. Putin has now brought that up again, demanding “legal guarantees” from Nato that it will not expand further (i.e. allow Ukraine or Georgia to join). The Russian Foreign Ministry followed up a few days after the two-hour December 7 virtual summit with Biden with a concrete five point list of demands and on December 15 the MFA sent even more extensive details on what a security deal could look like. Clearly the MFA has been working on this for some time and has a very clear idea of what it wants.

There is a general assumption that the current war talk will die away in the New Year. Daniel Salter, head of Equity Strategy and head of Research at Renaissance Capital, said during a conference call on December 16 that Russia is one of the more prospective investment stories in 2022, as the house view is that Russia won’t invade Ukraine and that things will “calm down” at the beginning of next year.

It’s clear to everyone that Putin is dead set against Ukraine joining Nato, but the assumption is that he is satisfied with the frozen conflict he has caused in the Donbas because that guarantees Ukraine can never join Nato. So after the current posturing is over the status quo will resume.

And that is the bit that has changed.  

New Deal  

If you listen to what Putin has been saying he is no longer happy with the status quo of maintaining a costly and embarrassing insurrection in the Donbas. He wants a resolution of the Nato question. He wants the promises made to Gorbachev fulfilled and guaranteed. He wants the status of Ukraine in Europe defined. And he wants the West to stop interfering in Russia’s affairs.  

Again, all this was laid out in black and white by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in his new rules of the game speech in February and again a month later when he said Russia would break off diplomatic relations with Europe if the West continued its policy of sanctioning Russia. To underscore the point the Kremlin did break off diplomatic relations with Nato in October.  

Things won’t calm down in the New Year if the West does not take these demands seriously. Russia will not withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian border regions until meaningful progress has been made on starting on these talks. Lavrov made it clear in his speech that Russia has set the bar at zero tolerance and is not prepared to compromise or make concessions with the West unless the West moves first.  

In the meantime, Russia will continue its military preparations. It will continue to build up its economic and military ties with Beijing, which has exactly the same agenda. Pointedly eight days after Putin’s summit with Biden, Putin held the same online summit with China’s President Xi Jinping where they pledged their mutual friendship on what was clearly intended as a message to Washington: you cannot divide the Russian and Chinese “problems” unless we are prepared to co-operate.  

Thrashing out a new security deal will be extremely difficult. Both sides of the House in the US are strongly critical of Russia and after the Afghanistan debacle Biden is keen to show that the US will stand by its allies, said Renaissance Capital’s chief economist Charles Robinson at the same briefing. That means supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and maintaining Nato’s compelling deterrent.  

However, it appears that Biden has already agreed to a more comprehensive deal with Putin than was revealed in the post December 7 summit comments.  

Biden backed talks between four “leading members” of Nato and the Kremlin to discuss Putin’s demands within days. Putin restored all the machinery of diplomatic relations with the US that have been frozen since the summer following a row. A $200mn US military aid package to Ukraine has been frozen. Harsh sanctions that were included in the US defence-spending bill by Senator Bob Menendez were quietly removed before the bill passed in the same week as the summit. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said it is “not opposed” to the US joining the Normandy Four group that is trying to broker a peace deal in Donbas.  

Likewise, in Europe the new German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said last week that the certification for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be suspended “if Russia invades Ukraine”, but in the meantime Germany has suspended arms sales to Ukraine via its state procurement agency.  

Biden continues to make very tough statements above the severity of the response “should Russia invade Ukraine,” but increasingly this is looking like a smokescreen that allows Biden to appear strong, but actually buys him the room to engage with Russia on the more subtle job of working out a workable deal with Putin.

Most of the war talks that started at the end of October have been driven by US intelligence briefing US newspapers. “One scenario that a Democrat party member told me,” says Robinson, “was that you can talk tough about Ukraine’s invasion, but when it doesn't happen then somehow the US and Biden can take some credit for that not happening.”  

The holidays are on us, but in the New Year a much more difficult process starts of the Kremlin negotiating with a reluctant Washington on a new security deal. At this point it is not clear if Washington is even willing to contemplate any sort of deal at all. However, if that happens then Putin is very likely to turn up the temperature again and cause a fresh flaring in tensions – possibly with the increasingly participation of China.  

New Cold War

What Putin is proposing in effect is a return to the Cold War relations between East and West. And many of those security arrangements are reappearing.  

In this sense the current showdown is better understood as a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis where Putin, like John F Kennedy, finds the possibility of western missiles on Ukrainian soil, a few minutes flight time to the largest part of Russia’s urban population, anathema. Like in 1962 no one actually wants to go to war and are willing to do a deal, but like then the threats of war are serious and remain a real possibility.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has explicitly compared the current crisis to the Cuban Missile Crisis and went on to  say on December 13 Russia may be forced to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in response to what it sees as NATO's plans to do the same.

Ryabkov said if the West did not engage in the talks that Putin is proposing the Russia would escalate by moving missiles west. Specifically he said if the West declined to join it in a moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) in Europe, that is included in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s list, “It will be a confrontation, this will be the next round," he said, referring to the potential deployment of the missiles by Russia.

Poignantly Ryabkov said Russia has a "complete lack of trust" in Nato, which was the basis of the Cold War thinking. "They don't permit themselves to do anything that could somehow increase our security - they believe they can act as they need, to their advantage, and we simply have to swallow all this and deal with it. This is not going to continue," Ryabkov added, echoing Lavrov's "new rules of the game" speech. 

Another trope of Putin’s is to complain about the US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM missile treaty in 2002, a key piece of the Cold War security infrastructure. The decision marked the end of the bonhomie between Putin and Bush and arguably started Russia off on the road that would lead to the current clash.  

Following that, the US withdrew from several other Cold War treaties, with the most recent being the US nixing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and Open Skies treaty under Trump.  

One of the positive signs in the prospects for a deal between Biden and Putin is that the US president is in favour of these old deals and was vocally opposed to the US exit from the ABM treaty while he was a senator. Moreover, in the first week on the job Biden rushed through renewing the START III missile deal and broached the topic of new arms deals during his meeting with Putin in Geneva.  

For its part the Kremlin is also keen to see these deals back in place and one of the items on the Russian Foreign Ministry list is to restart the INF treaty, which was also mentioned by the Russian side when the START III deal was done in January.

However, this set-up is to concede that all hope of friendly relations between Russia and the West are over. Security will be based on arms controls deals, backed by the threat of force. Russia is now actively avoiding engaging with multilateral organisations other than the UN, where it has a veto, and the G20, where it is actively building a network of allies and illiberal and barely democratic countries are in the majority.  

But this set-up will bring peace and quiet. It could end the war in Donbas relatively quickly. And it could mean that Putin steps down as president in 2024, as he is clearly tired of the job, but Ukraine’s status is his big legacy issue and he won’t leave as long as that is unresolved.  

 

 

[Tomasz + 1,608]

On 12/22/2021 at 8:17 PM, Starschy said:

At the moment it is very cold in Ukraine. Dtek the largest Power company Importes electricity from Slovakia. Worse only 25% of the Coal is available compared to normal. Which could mean buying Gas over the reverse Flow from Germany. Maximum prices would be 1800 Usd per 1000 m3. Money the Ukrainian don't have.

Dtek belongs to Mr. Ahmetov the richest Ukranian. Dtek manages 30% of all Ukrainian electric power.

Russia learns from USA. Venezuelian sanctions variant not Invasion on Iraq 2003

Did USA have Blackwater? So Russia now has Wagner Group

Its high time for Russia to study and implement Venezuelian variant on Ukraine

Ukraine NG stocks 15 bilion cubic meter lowest from May (start of gas injections) 10 bilion now taken

Coal stocks  now only 0,5 instead of 2,5 milion tons needed

Why to invade Ukraine NOW? Lets check how winter heat is going.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 12/19/2021 at 2:21 AM, El Gato said:

Russia Sends Nuclear-Capable Bombers on Patrol Over Belarus

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/12/18/russia-sends-nuclear-capable-bombers-patrol-over-belarus.html

Yeah, Russia is just such a nice neighbor

Nuclear-capable, but only with anti-ship weapons. Those are naval bombers, only a treat to US carrier fleets.

[Starschy + 211]

No, the Tu-22 (all modern version) are ready for nukes at least up to 350 Kilotonnes which is about 20Times the Nagasaki Variant. There are other sources which claims Nukes up to 1000 Kilotonnes could be added. I would not underestimate that variant.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

MOSCOW BLOG: Russia won’t invade Ukraine. This crisis is more serious than that

By Ben Aris in Berlin December 17, 2021

Newspapers have been gleefully reporting about a “possible” invasion of Ukraine by Russia since the end of October. But analysts – both Russian and international – are almost unanimous in the belief that the chances of an actual invasion are almost zero.  

As bne IntelliNews has reported on in detail, the reasons are obvious: it would be too costly in Russian lives, something that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s slowly falling approval and trust ratings make extremely unappealing to the Kremlin; while Russians overwhelmingly support the annexation of Crimea, they are a lot more uncomfortable with the war in Donbas; eastern Ukraine could be taken easily, but western Ukraine could not; and finally the international diplomatic backlash would be catastrophic for Russia’s economy.  

And why bother? What would Russia gain? The only thing of value Ukraine has is agriculture, which would collapse in the event of an all-out war followed an inevitable viscous and impassioned insurrection. On top of that, the Kremlin would take on the cost of fixing Ukraine at a time when it is struggling to fix Russia Inc. It’s not going to happen.  

So what is actually going on here? As usual, all you have to do is listen to what Putin says. Putin has a history of telegraphing his moves well in advance. That was the big difference between Putin and his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, who never said what he meant.  

In Putin’s big set-piece speeches he lays out his plans in black and white and almost always follows through on them. But as it is Putin and as he has been so demonised in the last two decades a lot of what he says is ignored, or twisted to suit the various narratives used to describe Russia.  

Putin said in his very first speech as president that demographics was the main danger to Russia and as we reported in “Putin’s babies”, he did something about that a decade later. Putin warned in his 2007 Munich Security Conference speech that Russia would push back if its security concerns were ignored and he started modernising the army in 2012, annexed the Crimea in 2014 and is now moving up troops that could invade Ukraine in 2021. You can draw a straight line through all these points.  

What did he say?

Putin has just done it again. During the Munich speech he brought up the broken verbal promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev of no Nato eastern expansion. And he has mentioned them again in the last month several time.

The year after Munich in 2008 the Russian Foreign Ministry drew up detailed plans for a new pan-European security deal that included a fair specific framework proposal released by the Russian Foreign Ministry in 2009. Putin has now brought that up again, demanding “legal guarantees” from Nato that it will not expand further (i.e. allow Ukraine or Georgia to join). The Russian Foreign Ministry followed up a few days after the two-hour December 7 virtual summit with Biden with a concrete five point list of demands and on December 15 the MFA sent even more extensive details on what a security deal could look like. Clearly the MFA has been working on this for some time and has a very clear idea of what it wants.

There is a general assumption that the current war talk will die away in the New Year. Daniel Salter, head of Equity Strategy and head of Research at Renaissance Capital, said during a conference call on December 16 that Russia is one of the more prospective investment stories in 2022, as the house view is that Russia won’t invade Ukraine and that things will “calm down” at the beginning of next year.

It’s clear to everyone that Putin is dead set against Ukraine joining Nato, but the assumption is that he is satisfied with the frozen conflict he has caused in the Donbas because that guarantees Ukraine can never join Nato. So after the current posturing is over the status quo will resume.

And that is the bit that has changed.  

New Deal  

If you listen to what Putin has been saying he is no longer happy with the status quo of maintaining a costly and embarrassing insurrection in the Donbas. He wants a resolution of the Nato question. He wants the promises made to Gorbachev fulfilled and guaranteed. He wants the status of Ukraine in Europe defined. And he wants the West to stop interfering in Russia’s affairs.  

Again, all this was laid out in black and white by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in his new rules of the game speech in February and again a month later when he said Russia would break off diplomatic relations with Europe if the West continued its policy of sanctioning Russia. To underscore the point the Kremlin did break off diplomatic relations with Nato in October.  

Things won’t calm down in the New Year if the West does not take these demands seriously. Russia will not withdraw its troops from the Ukrainian border regions until meaningful progress has been made on starting on these talks. Lavrov made it clear in his speech that Russia has set the bar at zero tolerance and is not prepared to compromise or make concessions with the West unless the West moves first.  

In the meantime, Russia will continue its military preparations. It will continue to build up its economic and military ties with Beijing, which has exactly the same agenda. Pointedly eight days after Putin’s summit with Biden, Putin held the same online summit with China’s President Xi Jinping where they pledged their mutual friendship on what was clearly intended as a message to Washington: you cannot divide the Russian and Chinese “problems” unless we are prepared to co-operate.  

Thrashing out a new security deal will be extremely difficult. Both sides of the House in the US are strongly critical of Russia and after the Afghanistan debacle Biden is keen to show that the US will stand by its allies, said Renaissance Capital’s chief economist Charles Robinson at the same briefing. That means supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and maintaining Nato’s compelling deterrent.  

However, it appears that Biden has already agreed to a more comprehensive deal with Putin than was revealed in the post December 7 summit comments.  

Biden backed talks between four “leading members” of Nato and the Kremlin to discuss Putin’s demands within days. Putin restored all the machinery of diplomatic relations with the US that have been frozen since the summer following a row. A $200mn US military aid package to Ukraine has been frozen. Harsh sanctions that were included in the US defence-spending bill by Senator Bob Menendez were quietly removed before the bill passed in the same week as the summit. The Russian Foreign Ministry has said it is “not opposed” to the US joining the Normandy Four group that is trying to broker a peace deal in Donbas.  

Likewise, in Europe the new German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said last week that the certification for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be suspended “if Russia invades Ukraine”, but in the meantime Germany has suspended arms sales to Ukraine via its state procurement agency.  

Biden continues to make very tough statements above the severity of the response “should Russia invade Ukraine,” but increasingly this is looking like a smokescreen that allows Biden to appear strong, but actually buys him the room to engage with Russia on the more subtle job of working out a workable deal with Putin.

Most of the war talks that started at the end of October have been driven by US intelligence briefing US newspapers. “One scenario that a Democrat party member told me,” says Robinson, “was that you can talk tough about Ukraine’s invasion, but when it doesn't happen then somehow the US and Biden can take some credit for that not happening.”  

The holidays are on us, but in the New Year a much more difficult process starts of the Kremlin negotiating with a reluctant Washington on a new security deal. At this point it is not clear if Washington is even willing to contemplate any sort of deal at all. However, if that happens then Putin is very likely to turn up the temperature again and cause a fresh flaring in tensions – possibly with the increasingly participation of China.  

New Cold War

What Putin is proposing in effect is a return to the Cold War relations between East and West. And many of those security arrangements are reappearing.  

In this sense the current showdown is better understood as a modern version of the Cuban Missile Crisis where Putin, like John F Kennedy, finds the possibility of western missiles on Ukrainian soil, a few minutes flight time to the largest part of Russia’s urban population, anathema. Like in 1962 no one actually wants to go to war and are willing to do a deal, but like then the threats of war are serious and remain a real possibility.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has explicitly compared the current crisis to the Cuban Missile Crisis and went on to  say on December 13 Russia may be forced to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in response to what it sees as NATO's plans to do the same.

Ryabkov said if the West did not engage in the talks that Putin is proposing the Russia would escalate by moving missiles west. Specifically he said if the West declined to join it in a moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) in Europe, that is included in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s list, “It will be a confrontation, this will be the next round," he said, referring to the potential deployment of the missiles by Russia.

Poignantly Ryabkov said Russia has a "complete lack of trust" in Nato, which was the basis of the Cold War thinking. "They don't permit themselves to do anything that could somehow increase our security - they believe they can act as they need, to their advantage, and we simply have to swallow all this and deal with it. This is not going to continue," Ryabkov added, echoing Lavrov's "new rules of the game" speech. 

Another trope of Putin’s is to complain about the US unilateral withdrawal from the ABM missile treaty in 2002, a key piece of the Cold War security infrastructure. The decision marked the end of the bonhomie between Putin and Bush and arguably started Russia off on the road that would lead to the current clash.  

Following that, the US withdrew from several other Cold War treaties, with the most recent being the US nixing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and Open Skies treaty under Trump.  

One of the positive signs in the prospects for a deal between Biden and Putin is that the US president is in favour of these old deals and was vocally opposed to the US exit from the ABM treaty while he was a senator. Moreover, in the first week on the job Biden rushed through renewing the START III missile deal and broached the topic of new arms deals during his meeting with Putin in Geneva.  

For its part the Kremlin is also keen to see these deals back in place and one of the items on the Russian Foreign Ministry list is to restart the INF treaty, which was also mentioned by the Russian side when the START III deal was done in January.

However, this set-up is to concede that all hope of friendly relations between Russia and the West are over. Security will be based on arms controls deals, backed by the threat of force. Russia is now actively avoiding engaging with multilateral organisations other than the UN, where it has a veto, and the G20, where it is actively building a network of allies and illiberal and barely democratic countries are in the majority.  

But this set-up will bring peace and quiet. It could end the war in Donbas relatively quickly. And it could mean that Putin steps down as president in 2024, as he is clearly tired of the job, but Ukraine’s status is his big legacy issue and he won’t leave as long as that is unresolved.  

https://www.intellinews.com/moscow-blog-russia-won-t-invade-ukraine-this-crisis-is-more-serious-than-that-230323/?source=blogs

[Tomasz + 1,608]

The best-case scenario in Ukraine Rather than risking war, the US would be wise to accept neutrality for Russia’s western neighbor.

By Stephen Kinzer Contributor,Updated December 2, 2021, 2:59 a.m.

Soldiers swarmed over the tarmac of an airport in Ukraine for several days in mid-November. They were unloading 80 tons of American weaponry. As they worked, Ukraine’s defense minister was being welcomed with an “enhanced honor cordon” at the Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin pledged that the United States would give Ukraine “unwavering support” in its suddenly escalating confrontation with Russia.

In recent weeks, tens of thousands of Russian troops have massed near the Russia-Ukraine border. Ukrainian troops are massed on their side. Some in Washington fear that war is approaching. Pledges like Secretary Austin’s suggest that the United States could be drawn into it. That would be disastrous.

Ukraine has a 1,300-mile border with Russia, so Russia sees the possibility of it allying with the United States much as we would see a foreign-allied Mexico. It is half a world away from American shores and has little strategic value for us other than as a tool against Russia. Our arms shipments and pledges of unlimited support send a dangerously misleading message to our Ukrainian friends. Despite all our bluster, the United States would be highly unlikely to send troops to support Ukraine in a war with Russia. Instead, we should promote a settlement that would turn Ukraine into a Slavic version of Finland or Austria: open to all, West-oriented if its people so desire, but militarily neutral.

Today’s Ukraine emerged 30 years ago from the wreckage of the Soviet Union. Its current leaders are strongly anti-Russian and would like to bring Ukraine into the US-dominated NATO military alliance. Russia says it will do whatever is necessary to prevent that. Since 2014, Russian troops have occupied two pieces of Ukraine that are inhabited mainly by Russian speakers, including the strategic Crimean Peninsula. Ukraine threatens to seize them back. Russia may try to take more. Rather than seek to calm this dispute, the United States is pouring gasoline on the smoldering embers.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently called the US commitment to Ukraine “ironclad.” Note to President Volodymyr Zelensky: Don’t take him literally. Going to war on the presumption that the United States will send troops or gunships to fight Russia would be a grave miscalculation. It’s good to reassure your friends, but if war breaks out, this promise is likely to prove falser than vows made in wine.

Russia has strong reasons for restraint. If it invaded Ukraine, it would certainly suffer heavy sanctions from the European Union. In some areas, its ground forces would encounter fierce resistance. Even if successful, Russia would have a hard time controlling a country that is twice the size of Britain.

For the United States, the list of dangers is even longer. Countering a Russian force on the battlefield in Ukraine would require large deployments, produce casualties, and quite possibly result in defeat. War would create economic upheaval across Europe and distract Congress from President Biden’s cherished domestic agenda. The big winner would likely be the Chinese, since isolation from the West would all but force Russia into their arms. China could even decide that with the United States at war with Russia, the time would be right to strike against Taiwan.

Despite this shared interest in peace, both sides are engaged in high-stakes geopolitical gambling. Russia holds better cards. It cares far more about Ukraine than we do, and it is willing to sacrifice far more to secure its position there. “If some kind of strike systems appear on the territory of Ukraine, the flight time to Moscow will be 7-10 minutes, and five minutes in the case of a hypersonic weapon being deployed. Just imagine,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday. “What are we to do in such a scenario? We will have to then create something similar in relation to those who threaten us in that way.”

Ukraine is hardly the first European country to find itself torn between East and West. During World War II, the Soviet Union failed to overrun Finland and settled for an accord guaranteeing Finnish neutrality. Over the decades that followed, Finland studiously avoided provoking Moscow. It did not participate in US-sponsored projects like the Marshall Plan and did not join NATO. In exchange for this deference, the Soviets generally respected Finland’s independence and democracy.

A similar arrangement shaped Austria. American and Soviet troops that occupied the country after World War II withdrew in 1955. As part of the deal, which took years to negotiate, a declaration of “permanent neutrality” was added to the Austrian constitution. “In all future times,” it says, “Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”

President Eisenhower didn’t like this deal. He wanted Austria to be on our side, not neutral. Today many in Washington feel the same way about Ukraine. They see it as a valuable chess piece in our campaign against Russia. Allowing it to be neutralized would end this contest without victory. In the United States, where the “will to win” is deeply ingrained in both security policy and collective consciousness, that feels close to defeat.

In fact, it would be the opposite.

The greatest defeat the United States could suffer in Ukraine is to be drawn into war there. An accord that Russia and Ukraine signed in 2015 provides a basis for peace, but it is languishing. Now, as war drums beat, is the time to revive it. Eisenhower swallowed hard and accepted permanent neutrality for Austria. Biden should follow his example and seek the same for Ukraine.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/12/02/opinion/best-case-scenario-ukraine/

Edited December 27, 2021 by Tomasz