There were reports this morning of an imminent attack in Kiev that would target the SBU, which is the Ukrainian intelligence service. According to TASS news agency, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated:
“In order to thwart informational attacks against Russia, [Russian forces] will strike technological objects of the SBU and the 72nd Main PSO Center in Kiev. We urge Ukrainian citizens involved by Ukrainian nationalists in provocations against Russia, as well as Kiev residents living near relay stations, to leave their homes,” the Ministry said.
Increased attacks in Kiev would be consistent with RT reports from yesterday stating Russia had warned residents of the capital to evacuate and that a corridor for safe passage out of the city was open. The Kiev mayor Vitaly Klitschko in recent days had said the city was encircled but later backtracked on that statement. An Asia Times report, citing European intelligence officials, suggested that Russia has been making progress on its plan to encircle major cities, like Kiev, and then give an ultimatum of talks or an attack.
A TV tower in Kiev has also purportedly been bombed by Russian forces today leading to the end of local television channel broadcasting.
Lots of people had a scare with Clint Ehrlich’s Sitrep 5, but it was later reported that Poland will not be sending fighter jets to Ukraine and NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg reiterated NATO would not be participating in any fighting.
Sanctions
There are a slew of western companies divesting from and stopping business exchange with Russia. These include Shell, following the example of BP, exiting its joint venture with Gazprom worth about $3 billion. BMW is ending shipments of automobiles to Russia, and Apple will do the same for its electronics.
However, there are a significant number of countries that are declining to sanction Russia: China and India (2 most populous countries of the world), Mexico and Brazil (I’m not aware yet of any Latin American country agreeing to sanctions so far, but feel free to correct me if there are), no countries in Africa or Middle East that I’m aware of either. Additionally, the countries on/abutting the European continent that are declining are: Georgia, Moldova and Turkey.
Media Suppression
Russia’s communications regulator has confirmed that independent radio station Echo Moskovy and independent television station TV Rain have been taken off the air. Interfax News is reporting that both will be appealing those decisions.
Russian Public Opinion
State-sponsored polling in recent days indicates that Russians generally support Putin’s military operation in Ukraine so far and support for the Russian president has increased:
VICOM: “Most Russians (68%) have spoken in support of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, while 22% said they do not support it, according to a poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) obtained by Interfax on Monday.”
FOM: Putin’s approval rating has risen from 60% on 2/20 to 71% on 2/27 (survey by FOM)
Again, these polls are state sponsored so some skepticism may be warranted. However, it’s not unusual to see a rally-around-the-flag jump in support for a wartime leader, especially at the beginning of military engagement.
I will be trying to include an array of perspectives on this blog, in addition to my own, to try to understand the current crisis. I find this analysis to be interesting because one of the authors, Marlene Laruelle, has written extensively about fascism in Europe and had previously debunked assertions from the west that Russian society or the Putin government were fascistic. So she is a knowledgeable and fair-minded academic. I’m not familiar with her co-author. – Natylie
By Marlene Laruelle and Ivan Grek, Russia Matters, 2/25/22
Russia’s strategic concerns regarding the post-Cold War European security architecture, as expressed in the two treaty drafts published by Moscow in December 2021, may be seen as legitimate, or at least deserving to be heard and taken seriously. The new lines of argument expressed in Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 21 and Feb. 24 speeches, however, have irrevocably strayed from those initial concerns.
For a long time, the Kremlin was able to strike a balance between Russia’s pragmatic strategic interests and its more ideologically-loaded constructs inspired by different brands of conservative and/or nationalist thinking. This balance now seems to have been lost, a sign of the ascent of an increasingly rigid ideology in the Kremlin. This week’s speeches have confirmed this dramatic turn, with the construction of a narrative legitimizing the military intervention in Ukraine along three key ideological lines: a historical one, an ethnic one and a political one.
The Historical Line: Ukraine as a Bolshevik Creation
The Russian president started his Feb. 21 speech with long statements on the historical unjustness behind the creation of the current Ukrainian state. Ukraine is presented as part of Russia’s longue durée imperial history, with no history of its own as a fully independent state. Putin argued that the Bolsheviks created the Ukrainian state at the expense of the Russian heartland. Not only did the Ukrainians have the Bolsheviks—and then Stalin and Khrushchev—to thank for having established their artificial statehood, Putin argues, but they also have post-Soviet Russia itself to thank for not claiming the territories that became Ukraine by Soviet decision. “And today the ‘grateful progeny’ has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine. They call it decommunization. … We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine,” concluded Putin, laying out the trope that recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LNR) is an act aimed at fixing Soviet mistakes.
This narrative derives from conservative monarchist circles, represented by people such as media mogul Konstantin Malofeev and his Tsargrad TV. Its modus operandi is the idea that the Bolsheviks were anti-Russians at heart who created Ukraine in order to break up the Russian nation and gave power to the empire’s other ethnic minorities in order to weaken the Russian state. Such fundamentalist discourse not only interprets Soviet land management as Russophobia, but claims that all such actions were illegitimate because the Soviet regime was itself legally illegitimate.
This narrative has circulated for years among certain segments of the Russian Orthodox Church and the propagandists of rehabilitating the White movement and the tsarist monarchy. For a long time Putin and his government tried to keep both “red” (pro-Soviet) and “white” (anti-Soviet) narratives equal, following a classic balancing act that the regime had been building between different vested interest groups. But the anti-Bolshevik narrative has been elevated quite suddenly over the last two to three years, resulting in a rapid decommunization of the historical narrative at the higher level of the state apparatus.
This discrepancy in discourse is noticeable when comparing Putin’s July 2021 text on the unity of Russia and Ukraine and his Feb. 21, 2022, address. The 2021 text is already negative on the Bolsheviks: “One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.” But the general tone was less critical of the Soviet Union and more respectful toward Ukraine, even if it was a clearly Russia-centric reading of Ukraine’s history. These nuances have totally disappeared in the 2022 storyline, which presents Ukraine as a stateless territory, governed by the illegitimate U.S. puppet administration. The anti-Bolshevik “white” narrative seems therefore in the process of winning out amid the upper echelons of the state.
The Ethnic Line: “The Genocide of Russians”
Then Putin moved to a second line of argument: the genocide of Russians in Ukraine. The argument is not a new one. It was already well developed in the 1990s, advanced by the ethno-nationalist opposition, such as Dmitri Rogozin’s movement, the Congress of Russian Communities, directly inspired by Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s discourse of a demographically dying Russia. “Genocide: Russia and the New World Order,” was even the title of the 1999 book by Sergey Glazyev, who was at that time in the national-patriotic opposition before occupying a series of government positions.
The genocide narrative was revived in 2014 in order to justify Crimea’s annexation and support for the Donbass secessionist movements, with the deaths of 42 pro-Russian protestors in the Odessa Trade Unions House fire as its centerpiece. The concept has since been regularly mentioned (in 2015 and in 2018) by Putin himself or by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and has been revitalized in light of the current crisis. Putin stated that “what is happening in the Donbass today is genocide,” a discourse echoed by State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and complemented by two measures: the opening of a criminal case by the Russian Investigative Committee over the discovery of supposed mass graves of civilians killed in the shelling of Donbass, and the release of documents to the U.N. Security Council accusing Ukraine of “exterminating the civilian population of the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk,” thereby also referring to the idea of a genocide.
The use of the genocide argument allows Russia to play several cards at once: it echoes the demographic fears of Russians’ ethnic disappearance, presents itself as the mirror of the Ukrainian narrative on the Holodomor and seeks to guilt-trip Germany for its Nazi past. For instance, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was mocked by Russian officials for not recognizing the supposed genocide. It also allows Russia to participate in the “search [for] lost genocide” (to borrow a phrase from political scientist and Holocaust scholar Evgeny Finkel) that is happening all over Central and Eastern Europe, using victimhood as a tool for political legitimacy.
The Political Line: “Denazification”
The third argument is a more political one: the “denazification” argument, put forward mostly in Putin’s Feb. 24 speech justifying his military intervention in Ukraine. Here too, it is far from a recent trend, as it has a long Soviet history and was revived in 2014. Obviously, Russia’s memory of the Great Patriotic War has become a central part of the nation building process and the symbolic politics built by the Putin regime in the last 20 years. But the obsession with presenting Russia as the antifascism power par excellence has now transformed from a nation building tool to a literal weapon.
Since the mid-2000s, memory wars with Central and Eastern European countries have been a permanent mutual otherization, with Russia accusing its western neighbors of becoming “fascist again.” Meanwhile, Central and Eastern European countries—mainly Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine—along with some Western experts, politicians and media accuse Russia of being a fascist regime or a fascist country.
Since 2014, Russia has emphasized that Ukraine is supposedly run by a fascist regime and allows radical far-right movements to proliferate. This line constitutes the other side of the “genocide” coin, as it projects neo-Nazi Ukrainians committing genocide against Russians. Justifying Russia’s military intervention as a “denazification” strategy supposes some kind of punitive operations—already mentioned in the Feb. 21 speech—against targeted people, but also and mostly, tries to present Putin as a “Nazi hunter,” thereby confirming that the metaphor has now become literal.
The Russian Public’s Response
What is striking is that Russian audiences do not seem to respond the same way to the different ideological lines advanced by Putin. According to Google Trends and Yandex Stats, after Putin’s Feb. 21 address, searches for “Ukrainian history” increased sharply, while searches related to “genocide” did not register a spike. After his Feb. 24 speech, one of the key searches on the Russian net was “what is denazification,” a sign that people are trying to make sense of the official reasoning. However, tellingly, after both speeches, the top search was the ruble-dollar exchange rate, confirming that the Russian population is mostly interested in the impact of the current crisis on their everyday future.
Conclusion
The 2014 Crimean crisis saw the blossoming of a romanticized war narrative around the idea of Novorossiya. Now, gone are the romantic exaltations of a reunified Russian nation and of young men wanting to try their hand at war as a kind of self-fulfilling coming of age à la Byron. Today’s language is a darker, vernacularized mixture of negative messaging in which the strategic line of argument—that Russia feels insecure in the current European security architecture and needs to be given a say—is lost in profit of purely ideological arguments inspired by imperialist and nationalist thinking.
The decommunization of Russia’s official historiography as revealed by Putin’s speeches and the literal weaponization of the anti-fascism positioning are more than concerning. It seems suddenly that the key issue for Putin is not so much NATO and European security architecture as the simple existence of Ukraine. In Russian, the word “Ukraine” means a frontier. In his two speeches, Putin seems to have “decapitalized” Ukraine from its statehood and nationhood in order to transform it into a lowercase frontier territory in the American sense. Such an ideological shift can do nothing but cripple Moscow’s desire to have its strategic concerns heard on the international scene.
The Moon of Alabama blog also has a daily sitrep. Here is their report for Day 5 of the war, with an emphasis on potential economic blowback for US and EU from the sanctions it has imposed. – Natylie
The above are what you hear and see in current ‘western’ news. It is not reality.
The U.S. and its proxies in the EU and elsewhere have put up very harsh sanctions on Russia to damage its economy.
The final intent of this economic war is regime change in Russia.
The likely consequence will be regime change in many other countries.
This war is waged at a financial size that is unprecedented. The consequences in all markets will be very significant to extreme. But experience from Iran shows that such financial wars have their limits as the targeted country learns to survive. Moreover Russia is in a much stronger position than Iran ever was and is better prepared for the consequences.
The rubel fell some 30% today but Russia’s central bank immediately more than doubled its interest rate to 20%. It is willing to fight inflation before it is really sets in. How much of Russia’s investment and consumption depends on imports from the ‘west’? Can’t most of it not be replaced by imports from China?
All energy consumption in the U.S. and EU will now come at a premium price. This will push the EU and the U.S. into a recession. As Russia will increase the prices for exports of goods in which it has market power – gas, oil, wheat, potassium, titanium, aluminum, palladium, neon etc – the rise in inflation all around the world will become significant.
‘Western’ central banks are still at practical 0% interest rates and will be reluctant to increase those as that will cause a deeper recession. This makes it likely that inflation in the ‘western’ world will increase at a higher rate than Russia’s.
Germany’s crazy move to add $120 billion to defense spending (up from some $40 billion p.a.) will within a few years create a strong military imbalance in Europe as Germany will then dominate all its neighbors. This is unnecessary and historically very dangerous. The shunning of economic relations with Russia and China means that Germany and its newbie chancellor Olaf Scholz have fallen for the U.S. scheme of creating a new Cold War. Germany’s economy will now become one of its victims.
On February 4 Russia and China declared a multipolar world in which they are two partnering poles that will counter the American one. Russia’s move into the Ukraine is a demonstration of that.
It also shows that the U.S. is unwilling to give up its supremacist urges without a large fight. But while the U.S. over the last 20 years has spent its money to mess up the Middle East, Russia and China have used the time to prepare for the larger conflict. They have spent more brain time on the issue than the U.S. has.
The Europeans should have acknowledged that instead of helping the U.S. to keep up its self-image of a unipolar power.
It will take some time for the new economic realities to settle in. They will likely change the current view of Europe’s real strategic interests.
—
Some tactical observations:
This map shows the ground taken by Russian military over the first days. Source – bigger
This map shows the likely current intent of the Russian forces. Source – bigger
There are 12 to 15 brigades of Ukrainian forces (blue) at the Donbas front. If the Russian’s (red) move fast enough they can cut those off from the rest of the country or bomb them while they try to escape on the only big road between those two pincer arrows.
After a lull Russia has reintroduced Su-34 fighters to Ukraine. They will attack Ukrainian troop concentrations.
The Russian elements north of Crimea have taken two important bridges and crossed the Dnieper towards the west. This opens the way to Odessa further west as well as for a march northward towards Kiev on the western side of the Dnieper.
This is a situation report from yesterday from Clint Ehrlich. I have found him to be a good source of information. You can follow him on Twitter. – Natylie
Day 4- SITREP: The gulf between popular perception and strategic reality continues to grow in Ukraine.
If you only read Western media, you would think the Russian military was on the verge of defeat.
In reality, they have a clear path to victory.Satellite imagery indicates that a massive Russian armored column, with +800 vehicles, is approaching Kiev from the north.
At the same time, Russian forces in the East are working to link up and encircle a large fraction of the Ukrainian military.
What we’re witnessing is a funhouse mirror version of the Gulf War.
During that conflict, images of smart bombing broadcast into American homes highlighted U.S. dominance.
Today, Twitter images of Ukrainian tactical success are creating a false narrative of Russian defeat.
The single least appreciated fact about the current conflict is that Russia has only committed 1/2 to 2/3 of the forces it built up around Ukraine’s borders.
It also has the ability to draw Belarus into the war, whose armored divisions would represent a potent “fourth wave.”
What Russia *has* suffered is a massive defeat in information warfare.
The narrative of Ukrainian success is having real consequences in terms of the willingness of foreign powers to toughen sanctions and provide military aid.
We have already seen the Ruble fall to its lowest exchange rate in history (100:1) vs. the Dollar.
This is not quite enough to destabilize the Russian economy – in the sense of causing internal political chaos – but it’s enough that ordinary Russians are scared.
Before the war, Western polling showed that Russians favored military intervention in Ukraine to prevent NATO membership by a 2:1 margin.
But it’s clear that they did not appreciate that Russia would become a global pariah state. I don’t believe the war enjoys that support now.
Today, I’m worried that Western nations may overplay their hand in trying to remove Putin.
They have drawn blood in their attempts to harm Russia’s economy, and they will seek to go further in driving the Russian people to rise up and demand an end to the war.
There are two scenarios that could endanger the world.
First, if the West attempts to take direct action against Putin – e.g., foreign intelligence agencies trying to stage a “Maidan on Red Square” – the Kremlin may consider that an attack on the existence of the Russian state.
Critically, Russia has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to attacks that threaten the existence of the state.
With Putin already putting nuclear forces on high alert, and Western powers now seeking to remove him, we have entered a dangerous new era.
Second, if the West *succeeds* in ousting Putin, that could be even more dangerous.
The last thing the world needs is a civil war inside a country with thousands of nuclear weapons.
But that is exactly what we could get if we try to destabilize the Russian state.
I am not predicting that Putin will lose power in the foreseeable future.
But in a week, we have gone from that being *unthinkable* to it instead being a remote possibility.
His legacy has already been permanently altered. His popular support inside Russia is not infinite.
Russia today presents a paradox.
On paper, it is a state with a GDP the size of Spain, whose economy is vulnerable to disruption by the West.
But its *military technological capabilities* exceed ours on many axes.
For example, Russia fields the Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (“Dagger”) missile.
It is three times the size of a Tomahawk, and 13 times faster. It has the range to annihilate any U.S. carrier strike group at Mach 10.
Technology like that is why poking Russia is scary.
By invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has demonstrated a willingness to use force against his neighbors.
But it’s unlikely he would actually seek a confrontation with NATO.
The best way to bring about that kind of war is to pursue his removal from power, as many now want to.
I mentioned GDP above, since it’s the point Western critics often echo.
But PPP is the more accurate metric for Russia’s military capabilities, since most of its expenses are Ruble denominated.
Its PPP is more than twice that of Spain and just under Germany.An even better metric is CINC – Composite Index of National Capability.
This is a metric that factors a state’s fraction of global demographic, economic, and military power.
It ranks Russia as the #5 power on Earth, and China as #1. Not a perfect indicator, but informative.Update: I can’t vouch for this journalist, but his information is logical. Highly plausible Europeans will fly these planes while pretending they’re piloted by the Ukrainian Air Force.
For now, I’ll be adding more updates on the Russian war in Ukraine here.
First, there’s been a lot of attention on Belarus revoking its status as a nuclear-weapons-free state.
This opens the door for Russia to deploy nukes to its territory. Is this significant? Yes and no.
A naive person looking at a map would think that Belarus’ decision would push Russian nukes far deeper into Western Europe.
In reality, Russia is already likely storing nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, between Poland and Lithuania.
There has also been a lot of attention paid to the E.U. banning transactions with Russia’s Central Bank.
However, there is a big loophole: Transactions will still be processed when necessary to preserve the “stability” of the Union or its members.
Ultimate effect = Unclear.There is video that seems to show Russian forces attacking Kiev.
However, I advise remaining skeptical. We’ve heard reports like this before that did not pan out.
If it were a full assault, I would expect much more media to already have appeared.
Vladimir Putin is a madman. He’s lost it. At least that is what the leaders of the West would like you to believe. According to their narrative, Putin — isolated, alone, confused, and angry at the unfolding military disaster Russia was undergoing in Ukraine — lashed out, ostensibly threatening the entire world with nuclear annihilation.
In a meeting with his top generals on Sunday, the beleaguered Russian president announced, “I order the defense minister and the chief of the general staff of the Russian armed forces to put the deterrence forces of the Russian army into a special mode of combat service.”
The reason for this action, Putin noted, centered on the fact that, “Western countries aren’t only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country” in relation to the ongoing situation in Ukraine.
The “deterrence forces” Putin spoke of refers to Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
What made the Russian president’s words resonate even more was that last Thursday, when announcing the commencement of Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine, Putin declared that “no one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to the destruction and horrible consequences for any potential aggressor.” He emphasized that Russia is “one of the most potent nuclear powers and also has a certain edge in a range of state-of-the-art weapons.”
When Putin issued that threat, The Washington Post described it as “empty, a mere baring of fangs.” The Pentagon, involved as it was in its own review of U.S. nuclear posture designed to address threats such as this, seemed non-plussed, with an anonymous official noting that U.S. policy makers “don’t see an increased threat in that regard.”
NATO’s Response
For NATO’s part, the Trans-Atlantic military alliance, which sits at the heart of the current crisis, issued a statement in which it noted that:
“Russia’s actions pose a serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security, and they will have geo-strategic consequences. NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to ensure the security and defense of all Allies. We are deploying additional defensive land and air forces to the eastern part of the Alliance, as well as additional maritime assets. We have increased the readiness of our forces to respond to all contingencies.”
Hidden near the bottom of this statement, however, was a passage which, when examined closely, underpinned the reasoning behind Putin’s nuclear muscle-flexing. “[W]e have held consultations under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty,” the statement noted. “We have decided, in line with our defensive planning to protect all Allies, to take additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defense across the Alliance.”
Under Article 4, members can bring any issue of concern, especially related to the security of a member country, to the table for discussion within the North Atlantic Council. NATO members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland triggered the Article 4 consultation following the Russian incursion into Ukraine. In a statement issued on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expanded on the initial NATO statement, declaring that NATO was committed to protecting and defending all its allies, including Ukraine.
Three things about this statement stood out. First, by invoking Article IV, NATO was positioning itself for potential offensive military action; its previous military interventions against Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2004, and Libya in 2011, were all done under Article IV of the NATO Charter. Seen in this light, the premise that NATO is an exclusively defensive organization, committed to the promise of collective self-defense, is baseless.
Second, while Article V (collective defense) protections only extend to actual NATO members, which Ukraine is not, Article IV allows the umbrella of NATO protection to be extended to those non-NATO members whom the alliance views as an ally, a category Stoltenberg clearly placed Ukraine in.
Finally, Stoltenberg’s anointing of Ukraine as a NATO ally came at the same time he announced the activation and deployment of NATO’s 40,000-strong Response Force, some of which would be deployed to NATO’s eastern flank, abutting Ukraine. The activation of the Response Force is unprecedented in the history of NATO, a fact that underscores the seriousness to which a nation like Russia might attach to the action.
When seen in this light, Putin’s comments last Thursday were measured, sane, and responsible.
What Happens if NATO Convoys or EU Jets Are Hit?
Since the Article IV consultations began, NATO members have begun to supply Ukraine with lethal military aid, with the promise of more in the days and weeks to come. These shipments can only gain access to Ukraine through a ground route that requires transshipment through NATO members, including Romania and Poland. It goes without saying that any vehicle carrying lethal military equipment into a war zone is a legitimate target under international law; this would apply in full to any NATO-affiliated shipment or delivery done by a NATO member on their own volition.
What happens when Russia begins to attack NATO/EU/US/Allied arms deliveries as they arrive on Ukrainian soil? Will NATO, acting under Article IV, create a buffer zone in Ukraine, using the never-before-mobilized Response Force? One naturally follows the other…
The scenario becomes even more dire if the EU acts on its pledge to provide Ukraine with aircraft and pilots to fight the Russians. How would these be deployed to Ukraine? What happens when Russia begins shooting down these aircraft as soon as they enter Ukrainian airspace? Does NATO now create a no-fly zone over western Ukraine?
What happens if a no-fly zone (which many officials in the West are promoting) is combined with the deployment of the Response Force to create a de facto NATO territory in western Ukraine? What if the Ukrainian government establishes itself in the city of Lvov, operating under the protection of this air and ground umbrella?
Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine
In June 2020, Russia released a new document, titled “On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence,” that outlined the threats and circumstances that could lead to Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. While this document declared that Russia “considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence,” it outlined several scenarios in which Russia would resort to the use of nuclear weapons if deterrence failed.
While the Russian nuclear policy document did not call for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons during conventional conflicts, it did declare that “in the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.”
In short, Russia might threaten to use nuclear weapons to deter “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”
In defining Russia’s national security concerns to both the U.S. and NATO last December, Putin was crystal clear about where he stood when it came to Ukrainian membership in NATO. In a pair of draft treaty documents, Russia demanded that NATO provide written guarantees that it would halt its expansion and assure Russia that neither Ukraine nor Georgia ever be offered membership into the alliance.
In a speech delivered after Russia’s demands were delivered, Putin declared that if the U.S. and its allies continue their “obviously aggressive stance,” Russia would take “appropriate retaliatory military-technical measures,” adding that it has “every right to do so.”
In short, Putin made it clear that, when it came to the issue of Ukrainian membership in NATO, the stationing of U.S. missiles in Poland and Romania and NATO deployments in Eastern Europe, Russia felt that its very existence was being threatened.
The Disconnect
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, when seen from the perspective of Russia and its leadership, was the result of a lengthy encroachment by NATO on the legitimate national security interests of the Russian state and people. The West, however, has interpreted the military incursion as little more than the irrational action of an angry, isolated dictator desperately seeking relevance in a world slipping out of his control.
The disconnect between these two narratives could prove fatal to the world. By downplaying the threat Russia perceives, both from an expanding NATO and the provision of lethal military assistance to Ukraine while Russia is engaged in military operations it deems critical to its national security, the U.S. and NATO run the risk of failing to comprehend the deadly seriousness of Putin’s instructions to his military leaders regarding the elevation of the level of readiness on the part of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces.
Far from reflecting the irrational whim of a desperate man, Putin’s orders reflected the logical extension of a concerted Russian national security posture years in the making, where the geopolitical opposition to NATO expansion into Ukraine was married with strategic nuclear posture. Every statement Putin has made over the course of this crisis has been tied to this policy.
While the U.S. and NATO can debate the legitimacy of the Russian concerns, to dismiss the national security strategy of a nation that has been subjected to detailed bureaucratic vetting as nothing more than the temper tantrum of an out of touch autocrat represents a dangerous disregard of reality, the consequences of which could prove to be fatal to the U.S., NATO, and the world.
President Putin has often complained that the West does not listen to him when he speaks of issues Russia deems to be of critical importance to its national security.
The West is listening now. The question is, is it capable of comprehending the seriousness of the situation?
So far, the answer seems to be no.
Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
