Weekly Overview
More indicators of Russian intent to attack Ukraine
The events of the past week were rather clear - yet somehow, they have produced mixed responses and interpretations.
In particular, the Geneva meeting between Blinken and his Russian counterpart Lavrov, have produced extensive (and unwarranted) media speculations that perhaps: a) Russia is only bluffing, and b) the US is ready to make certain concessions to satisfy the bruised Russian ego.
And all this because of routine diplomacy.
Blinken’s promise to produce a written response to Russian demands, was nothing more than ordinary diplomatic stalling and biding for more time - for Ukraine to use in its preparation for a very likely Russian attack.
And Lavrov’s reiterated declarations that Russia doesn’t intend to invade Ukraine were also expected.
Consider the alternative absurd scenario: what was he supposed to say? That the Kremlin is actively preparing for a military campaign?
So then, in spite of Lavrov’s unconvincing pronouncements, a better signal of Russia’s true intent is its observable conduct.
There were many serious indicators of Russia’s active preparation for war.
Amongst these, the following three stand out in particular:
1. The Belarus angle
Last week’s cables outlined the steps needed to be taken to have a shot at deterring Russia, specifically forewarning the possibility of Belarus being used as a launching pad for a Russian attack.
Warning that ‘‘the last thing Ukraine needs is to worry about potential attacks from the border with Belarus’’, the cables highlighted the strategy to be adopted to prevent such an eventuality.
Sure enough, just a day after last week’s cables, Russia announced movement of troops into Belarus.
Troops from all over the country, including a number of BTGs (Battalion Tactical Groups) from the far away Eastern Military District were being transported into Belarus.
The Kremlin’s rationalization of these movements as preparations for joint exercises in February, are wholly implausible, total facades.
Since:
a) Why is there a need for snap military exercises so soon after Zapad 2021 exercises with Belarus?
b) The scale of Russian troops doesn’t correlate with the number of Belarusian soldiers available for ‘‘joint-exercises’’.
c) Russia is deploying some extremely advanced offensive weaponry - from S400s, to Pantsirs and SU-35s fighter jets.
What kind of joint-exercises are these?
Where outnumbered and outgunned Belarusian soldiers sit it out on the sidelines, and watch the Russian soldiers ‘‘train’’?
The Kremlin of course, didn’t also forget to remind Lukashenko of his present-day status as a pawn.
Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin characterization of the ‘‘joint-exercises’’ says it all:
“A situation may arise when the forces and means of the regional grouping will not be enough to guarantee the security of the Union State, and we must be ready to strengthen it. Together with the Belarusian side, an understanding was reached that it will be necessary to involve the entire potential of the state’s military organization for common defense"[emphasis added].
In other words, Lukashenko is reminded that he is a vassal, and should not dare resist any plans of the Union State.
In the meantime, the US is yet to follow prescriptions from the previous cables in deterring Lukashenko from partaking in this adventurism.
2) Evacuation of diplomatic staff from Kiev.
This is self-explanatory.
Why is there a need to evacuate Russia’s diplomatic staff? And note how this was not done during the April 2021 build-up.
3) Russian state propaganda framing of the likely conflict
Russian media propaganda is a great proxy indicator of the Kremlin’s state of mind.
The narrative of a possible nuclear showdown with NATO, first incipient back in November and December, is now amping up.
State TV Channels have frequent opinion guests highlighting the risks of a nuclear conflict with the West.
But why? Why oversell the conflict to the Russian population?
Simply because, it is much easier to frame the upcoming (likely) war with Ukraine in wider geopolitical terms, than pitch it as a local conflict.
How else can the Kremlin justify an attack against a fellow Slavic nation?
If not by portraying the government in Kyiv as pawns of the NATO leaders intent on encircling Russia?
The bigger the potential (made up) risks of the conflict, the easier it will be to justify casualties in both Russia and Ukraine.
Amped up Russian propaganda framing, is therefore a reliable indicator of the Kremlin’s state of mind.
Allied deterrence - highlights, humiliations & opportunisms
The first week following Russia’s declaration that talks were coming to a ‘‘dead-end’’, NATO and EU allies scrambled to respond, and produced some mixed results.
There were some notable and admirable displays of determination to stand up to Putin (particularly amongst the smaller states), some embarrassing responses, and some pure opportunistic backstabbing:
The praiseworthy
The UK
The UK is essentially leading the European response against Russian aggression.
Diplomacy and deterrence are integrated and thus, doubly effective.
Foreign Minister Liz Tuss’s upcoming Moscow visit (and a meeting with counterpart Lavrov) comes after a whole week of UK defense ministry flying its C-17s to supply Ukraine with anti-tank missiles.
At the conclusion of the passing week, the UK’s foreign office furthermore released information warning about the Kremlin plans for a coup in Ukraine - replacing the current Zelensky government with a pro-Kremlin government.
Although this is consistent with the Kremlin’s compellence strategy (where the primary political objectives of the military campaign are to compel Ukraine to act in a certain pro-Kremlin/anti-NATO way, instead of a desire to occupy large swathes of land), the details of the alleged coup are a bit murky to say the least.
For starters, the named individuals in the allegedly uncovered plot are not some big shot power brokers with tons of political capital.
Yevhen Murayev, who would allegedly lead this new pro-Kremlin government is at measly 6.3% in the opinion polls for the next presidential elections.
Not to mention that Murayev is currently under Russian sanctions, and is furthermore in conflict with Viktor Medvedchuk - a Ukrainian oligarch closest to Putin.
It is doubtful that Murayev could even hold onto power once installed - and for Putin, it certainly doesn’t make sense to take huge risks in merely replacing Zelensky, and providing an opening for a more aggressive and charismatic anti-Kremlin candidate retaking power in Kyiv.
It is of course possible that a Russian intel agency (and or figures close to the Kremlin) were actively working Murayev and promising him that he would be of a high value as an asset for the Kremlin - after all, for a successful control of the new government, Russia would also need secondary actors, in addition to the ringleaders.
Diving further into unsubstantiated speculation, this possible conversation could have been leaked, which in turn prompted the UK to release the information - just to be on the safe side.
Having said all this, and in spite of the concerns around the veracity of the claims advanced by the UK’s foreign office, one thing is clear: precise specifics aside, Putin is most certainly exploring options to topple Zelensky.
That much is clear - and the UK’s forewarning serves to remind the allied nations to remain vigilant.
It is also a call for the ordinary Ukrainians to be on high alert, and not let the Kremlin’s stooges usurp their government.
Canada
After realizing that mere diplomatic visits wouldn’t cut it, the Canadian government decided to deploy special forces operatives to train Ukrainian soldiers.
Additional (and lethal) military aid is also under consideration.
Naturally, Canada’s active involvement in this standoff, has to be partially explained by the existence of a large Ukrainian diaspora in the country.
But the general trends remain - from China to the Ukraine crisis, Canada is becoming an assertive and reliable NATO ally for the US.
Spain
With its decision to send warships into the Black Sea, Spain surprised many military analysts.
The strongly framed commentary by the Spanish Defense Minister, indicates a revitalized ambition to shape European affairs:
“Russia cannot tell any country what to do, so NATO will protect and defend the sovereignty of any country that can or wants to join NATO”.
Spain will of course benefit strategically beyond the current crisis.
A precedent is now being set for the Spanish involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean region - this is a challenge to France’s hitherto dominance (amongst the EU states) in the said region, and is therefore, a very good thing for the US interests as well.
The US-led unified front
The US-led coalition demonstrated willingness to prolong the conflict and absorb the costs of a longer showdown - thereby adding to the credibility of the US threats of inflicting exorbitant costs on Russia.
To start, the US approved the transfer of anti-tank missiles (as well as other US-made military hardware), from the Baltic NATO states to Ukraine.
(side note: but this also adds pressure on the US to do much more than the meager $200m of lethal military hardware aid to Ukraine. American contribution cannot be on par with those from the small Baltic states.)
And this further added to the weight of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg’s warning that the Kremlin’s aggression would lead to accumulation of even more Western troops near Russia (and highlighting how Putin’s actions contradict his political objectives, is precisely what was advocated in last week’s cables).
The US also held contingency energy talks with the EU - to explore options if the conflict with Russia was to escalate and the Russian gas to the EU was consequently cut off.
This was yet another credibility boost for the US claims that it was ready to sustain a long-term conflict with Russia.
Opportunisms
France
In the midst of a crisis, not only did Macron somehow forget his over the top (and uncredible from the outset) promise “to defend” Ukraine, but he went further in an opportunistic attempt to promote his ‘‘strategic autonomy’’ at the expense of NATO-wide unity.
Macron called EU lawmakers to have a ‘‘frank dialogue’’ with the Kremlin - culminating in a new security deal with Russia.
Naturally, this would sideline the US - right at the moment where the US-EU cooperation and unity is most needed.
Macron is pursuing narrower ambitions at the expense of Western unity - and a divided West clearly hurts the chances of preventing further escalation in Ukraine.
After all this demonstration of unreliability, the French leaders shouldn’t be surprised that they were left out of a high-caliber strategic alliance - like the AUKUS in the Pacific.
One hopes that this is also a wake up call for the Biden admin to stop labeling Macron’s calls for an EU army as a complement (instead of a replacement of) to NATO.
As a global superpower, the US will always have to come to the aid of Europe - it is therefore essential to do so under Washington’s terms, and prevent spoilers like Macron from getting too cocky.
The Blunders
Germany
Continued to embarrass itself and its allies.
The German Navy Chief had to resign after his public statements on how Crimea will never be returned to Ukraine, and that Putin deserved respect (counting the days before he joins other former German officials, and magically reappears on the board of the Russian state gas company ‘‘Gazprom’’).
In the meantime, adding to the continuous refusals to provide weaponry itself, Berlin reached a new low by preventing the delivery of weapons that were of German origin - Estonia was blocked from delivering artillery to Ukraine.
(side note: there were even rumors that Germans blocked the UK from flying its Ukraine bound C-17s over its air space. But those were later refuted, and it is possible that the Brits could have shrewdly and deliberately avoided the German airspace to create precisely the resulting impression: that Germans aren’t the ones to rely on in Europe)
Those that defend the German refusal to provide weapons by rationalizing it with the existence of some magical ‘‘foreign policy principle’’ against armament of other states, conveniently forget how Germany is a major weapons exporter.
Officials in Berlin are quite comfortable with supplying weapons to the Egyptian dictator - but not to a country that is about to enter an existential fight for its independence.
Of course, the real reason is quite different - it has nothing to do with ‘‘principle’’ and is instead due to Berlin’s repeated attempts to maintain warm relations with Russia.
This happens when you foolishly fail to diversify your crucial energy sector (doggedly refusing to re-consider Nuclear energy) - which is now largely dependent on the whims of a revisionist dictator in Moscow.
And those that sit in DC think-tanks and ‘‘think’’ that Berlin is merely pursuing a ‘‘rational foreign policy’’, don’t account for one major factor: that the US can also start pursuing a similar rational policy, refuse to subsidize the German army, and relocating its own troops to another continental European state - one which is a more reliable NATO ally.
Biden’s faux pax
The whole Western world winced - when during a press conference, President Biden announced that the extent of the US response to the Kremlin will depend on the degree of Russian “incursions” - and that a ‘‘minor incursion’’ could receive a lesser pushback.
Granted, Biden did indeed clarify (at the very same press conference) that he meant something akin to a cyber attack when referring to ‘‘minor incursions’’.
Concerned about further misinterpretations of his remarks, the president made further clarifying comments the very next day - making it clear that any Russian border violation will be considered as a full-on invasion.
In spite of the clearly bad delivery (of original remarks), the comments themselves obviously did not materially change the fundamental facts on the ground.
It is a stretch to suggest that Putin would treat such gaffes as genuine statements of intent, and revelations of Biden’s state of mind - especially when they are repeatedly clarified.
But the optics of the leader of the free world caught in such a gaffe were pretty bad.
How bad?
Bad enough that the NATO Secretary General thought it prudent to offer a clarification that Biden wasn’t in fact greenlighting the invasion of Ukraine (and the decision to treat Biden’s statements as genuinely confusing, and in need of clarification - instead of mere slips of tongue, was arguably even a bigger blunder than the original faux pax).
Then there was also the comment from the President of Ukraine - reminding that Kyiv would not consider any attack against itself as a ‘‘minor incursion’’.
But, going back to the original comment, and even if applied to cyber attacks only, the judgment to make the distinctions was still erroneous - since cyberattacks in 2022 should not be treated as minor incursions.
We all witnessed the crisis caused by the Colonial pipeline attack of 2021.
And that was in the US.
Ukraine (with its fragile state institutions - already under a lot of strain due to the ongoing war) will most likely face cyber attack crises with far worse implications.
A well-coordinated state sponsored Russian cyber attack could bring the whole country to a standstill.
How many civilian lives could be lost due to emergency services not being able to do their jobs?
Indeed, in this day and age, a well-executed cyber campaign that targets vital state institutions could (albeit indirectly) lead to more civilian deaths than a brutish artillery barrage targeting dense cities.
The statement also sets a negative precedent that harms America’s own national interest - adversaries (not limited to Russia) will be incentivized to conduct more cyber campaigns targeting the US mainland, once they realize that these ‘‘incursions’’ are viewed as less hostile than outright physical attacks.
This could lead to perverse outcomes: where for example, a Russian intel saboteurs’ bombing of a US hospital (resulting, let’s say in dozen deaths) could amount to an act of war - whereas, a cyber attack debilitating a whole health network, and causing hundreds of deaths, may not receive the same designation.
Finally, and largely overlooked, there was another damaging blunder when Biden made the prediction that Putin would most likely ‘‘move in’’, because he placed himself into a position where ‘‘he has to do something’’ (to save face).
The leader of the free world should not be involved in a prediction making business - especially when such prophecies open him to valid attacks and questions around his own conduct to prevent the projected military campaign.
“Well what are you doing to stop him then?” is indeed a valid retort in this case - given that the US president is expected to shape global events, instead of being a passive and helpless observer.
The ‘‘he has to do something’’ part was also exceptionally unhelpful.
Instead of egging Putin on, (by reminding him that his withdrawal would be viewed as humiliating backtracking) Biden should be constructing off-ramps in tandem with concrete actions to raise the costs of invasions.
And shipping weapons worth only $200m, and in combination with bad diplomatic messaging, is simply not going to cut it.