Russia - General Discussion.

[kato]

Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm curious because often the internal things within NATO/EU often escape my notice.

If you read through the "US Response" watch for the operative start of each paragraph:

• "along with allies and partners, the US..."
• "the US, in consultation with allies and partners"
• "the US and its allies"
• "the US and NATO allies and partners"
• "the US"

While these may look like subtle differences, they're diplomatically important since they express which "group" is considered relevant to and is being consulted on a certain topic. Quite often you'll see this group selectively further restricted over the course of a paragraph too ("Allies" are concerned about X, while "NATO allies" are also concerned about Y), and on some issues you'll suddenly see it dropping to "the US".

The NATO response is a whole lot more subtly nuanced. Paragraph 2 for example seems to be something specifically France and Germany would have wanted included since it refers to "agreed formats" (in which only FR/GE talk with RU/UK). Paragraph 9.11 expresses something also seen in the US response, namely that anything with regard to nuclear stockpiles or missiles are a thing for RU/US to negotiate, not any other parties.

 

[STURM]

I think one should not completely discount other scenarios, even if their likelihood seems much lower.

Indeed Russia can seize the Gotland; make a grab for Finnish territory; not stop at the Dnieper but make a grab for the whole of the Ukraine; etc, etc, the on paper possibilities are endless really but before we get carried away with ourselves we really have to ask why Russia at this stage would; in addition to an invasion of the Ukraine; also go for the Baltics and other areas? Doing that brings it in direct confrontation with NATO and what does that resolve? It's one thing saying there are possibilities that this and that can happen but there has to be pretty good reasons for them to happen...

I'm not stating that Russian has no designs on the Baltics; merely that it does not hold the same level; of strategic interest as the Ukraine or the annexed Crimea and it will result in a Russia/NATO war which will be contrary to what Putin is trying to accomplish. Note that Putin plays the long game; he understands his opponents and knows how far Russia can push things [Syria, Georgia and the Crimea are examples]. Going for the Baltics at other places at this juncture would not lead to any tangible benefits for Russia ...

The probability of having a fire in my house is quite low, nevertheless I still pay insurance

A fire can break out due to a number of reasons but chances are it won't be due to an arsonist or a pyromaniac...

Also note that it is not just "the West" that is making "a huge fuss about the Baltics" -- it's the Baltic countries themselves.

I have noted that and it's unsurprising given their past history with Russia and their proximity to it.

Not providing support would weaken NATO.

Naturally which is why I suggested that NATO should stop pussy footing and send much more troops with certain types of weaponry to reinforce the point that it's serious about the possibility of trouble in the Ukraine spilling over onto NATO territory and to provide added assurance to NATO members.

You say numbers don't matter.

This is what I earlier said - ''To me it's simplistic to suggest that just because the numbers of troops NATO has is small; that the Russians won't see it as a threat or as provocative. As such it's not the numbers which are the point or are significant but the fact that troops are there and can be reinforced should there be a need. ''

You mentioned that the troops can't be viewed as a threat because of their small numbers; thus my statement that it's not the numbers that matter; it's their presence close to Russian at a time when things are tense. Ultimately however the troops are there to defend the Baltics and Poland; thus their presence has no bearing on what Russia does in the Ukraine.

With 2,000 troops such scenarios are simply not possible.

Nobody suggested otherwise. Nonetheless their presence is significant. They can be reinforced and them being there sends a message.

 

[denix56]

I observation of my own: I live near Rammstein airbase and in the last few days there is a noticeable increase in the number of planes (mostly transporters) flying. There was a decrease some time after Afghanistan.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced

Ukrainian membership of NATO would trigger a conflict with Russia that neither the bloc nor the US is ready to fight or capable of winning

www.rt.com

This makes for very sobering reading
Not looking good for Ukraine re NATO if this is the reality

 

[oldsig127]

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced

Ukrainian membership of NATO would trigger a conflict with Russia that neither the bloc nor the US is ready to fight or capable of winning

www.rt.com

This makes for very sobering reading
Not looking good for Ukraine re NATO if this is the reality

Definitely the opinion I'd expect from Russia Today as an official source of the Russian Government.

oldsig

 

[Feanor]

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced

Ukrainian membership of NATO would trigger a conflict with Russia that neither the bloc nor the US is ready to fight or capable of winning

www.rt.com

This makes for very sobering reading
Not looking good for Ukraine re NATO if this is the reality

Parts of that article are completely wrong, like the part about anti-armor weapons. There's some truth to the part about Russia arty and EW, but overall it's a very biased piece. Russia's biggest strength is the ability to muster large forces in near proximity to Russian borders, and to throw those forces into combat with a speed that's hard to match, especially for someone deploying from out of theater. Russia is, at the strategic level, weaker then the US or the European NATO separately. Certainly much weaker then them combined. It doesn't mean defeating Russia will be easy or cheap. But it's very doable. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't doing objective analysis, they're pushing an agenda.

 

[STURM]

There's some truth to the part about Russia arty and EW, but overall it's a very biased piece.

Would you agree that together with the traditional importance it has long placed on EW and the fact it didn't allow its EW ability capability to atrophy too much; its extensive EW capability and the level in which it has been integrated to various levels [I'm referring to land EW]; is a major advantage Russia has over NATO?

Russia is, at the strategic level, weaker then the US or the European NATO separately. Certainly much weaker then them combined.

At an operational and tactical level; due to various factors I would argue that the Russians have an edge.

Parts of that article are completely wrong, like the part about anti-armor weapons

''Even if the anti-tank weapons in the possession of US ground troops were effective against modern Russian tanks (and experience suggests they are probably not),''

I'm assuming here that Javelin and MBT LAW would very highly effective against any Russian armoured vehicle not protected on the top by Kontakt 5 and not fitted with a APS,

Meanwhile the Ukrainian Foreign Minister has publicly disagreed with the U.S.

Ukraine says don’t believe ‘apocalyptic predictions’ over Russia

Comments from Ukraine minister come after US estimates saying Russian invasion could inflict 75,000 casualties.

www.aljazeera.com

''Ukraine downplayed a possible incursion by Russia on Sunday saying do not to believe “apocalyptic predictions” after US officials said Moscow had assembled 70 percent of the military force needed for a full-scale invasion.

''Unnamed American officials were quoted as saying on Saturday in US media reports they were briefed that an operation to quickly capture the capital Kyiv, toppling the democratically elected President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was among the most aggressive possibilities for Russian intervention against Ukraine. Do not believe the apocalyptic predictions. Different capitals have different scenarios, but Ukraine is ready for any development,” he tweeted in Ukrainian only, suggesting the message was intended for a domestic audience. Today, Ukraine has a strong army, unprecedented international support, and Ukrainians’ faith in their country. The enemy should be afraid of us, not us of them.”

 

[ngatimozart]

A war with Russia would be unlike anything the US and NATO have ever experienced

Ukrainian membership of NATO would trigger a conflict with Russia that neither the bloc nor the US is ready to fight or capable of winning

www.rt.com

This makes for very sobering reading
Not looking good for Ukraine re NATO if this is the reality

RT is not regarded as a reliable source because it is a Russian government propaganda mouthpiece.

 

[Vivendi]

I'm not stating that Russian has no designs on the Baltics; merely that it does not hold the same level; of strategic interest as the Ukraine or the annexed Crimea and it will result in a Russia/NATO war which will be contrary to what Putin is trying to accomplish. Note that Putin plays the long game; he understands his opponents and knows how far Russia can push things [Syria, Georgia and the Crimea are examples]. Going for the Baltics at other places at this juncture would not lead to any tangible benefits for Russia ...

Perhaps most analysts probably agree with you, however a minority offer a different perspective: The Outlier: What if Putin's Real Target isn't Ukraine? (thecipherbrief.com)

A fire can break out due to a number of reasons but chances are it won't be due to an arsonist or a pyromaniac...

In general I agree, however, the very special situation that Russia is generating right now, could perhaps be compared to being told that a pyromaniac is moving into the neighborhood (given recent Russian aggression in 2008, 2014, and also in Syria and North Africa), and this should trigger extra precautions.

 

[STURM]

however a minority offer a different perspective: The Outlier: What if Putin's Real Target isn't Ukraine? (thecipherbrief.com)

Macron it seems also has a different opinion.

Ukraine latest updates: US, Germany in ‘lockstep’, says Biden

Ukraine news from February 7: US president says allies will work together to deter Russian aggression in Europe.

www.aljazeera.com

“The geopolitical objective of Russia today is clearly not Ukraine, but to clarify the rules of cohabitation with NATO and the EU,” Macron told French newspaper Journal du Dimanche in an interview published on Sunday.''

Ukraine crisis: Macron says a deal to avoid war is within reach

France's leader calls for a "new balance" to protect European states while affording Russia respect.

www.bbc.com

''Mr Macron, who also spoke with US President Joe Biden on Sunday, cautioned against expecting Moscow to take unilateral measures to de-escalate the situation and said Russia had the right to raise its own concerns. But he said setting up dialogue with Russia could not "pass through the weakening of any European state". We must protect our European brothers by proposing a new balance capable of preserving their sovereignty and peace," he said. This must be done while respecting Russia and understanding the contemporary traumas of this great people and great nation."

could perhaps be compared to being told that a pyromaniac is moving into the neighborhood

Indeed. The Russians on the other hand could claim that the said pyromaniac was a U.S. led and dominated NATO which has been expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders and Russia is not supposed to complain or react.

(given recent Russian aggression in 2008, 2014, and also in Syria and North Africa), and this should trigger extra precautions.

'Russian aggression'' in Syria? The West keeps harping about how Russia enabled Assad to stay in power but is hugely silent about how Russian involvement [together with the Iranians] played a huge part in defeating IS; long before Western airpower.

The West was hoping that Assad would be defeated and in his place the 'moderate' rebels [who as it turned out weren't so ''moderate'' after all] would create a democratic Western and Israel friendly state. That was an illusion because had Assad been toppled it would probably have been IS which would have emerged as the most powerful player and the region would have become more unstable; with tragic consequences for the locals.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Not everyone in Russia is happy about Putin's foreign policy.

Top hardline Russian general warns Putin NOT to invade Ukraine

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov penned an open letter in which he blasted Putin's 'criminal policy of provoking a war' despite Russia not facing any 'critical threats'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Apologies for the Daily Mail link, but it appears to have been confirmed by The Times (behind a paywall).

Not a dove either, this retired General previously wrote in support of the Russian intervention in Syria.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

RT is not regarded as a reliable source because it is a Russian government propaganda mouthpiece.

My apologies I double checked the author but didn't even catch the big RT in the corner heading
Will be more vigilant in future

 

[denix56]

Not everyone in Russia is happy about Putin's foreign policy.

Top hardline Russian general warns Putin NOT to invade Ukraine

Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov penned an open letter in which he blasted Putin's 'criminal policy of provoking a war' despite Russia not facing any 'critical threats'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Apologies for the Daily Mail link, but it appears to have been confirmed by The Times (behind a paywall).

Not a dove either, this retired General previously wrote in support of the Russian intervention in Syria.

It might be, that it is a backup. In case the situation will be deescalated, Putin can say that he listens to what the people ask him and he cares about Russians.

 

[Atunga]

Parts of that article are completely wrong, like the part about anti-armor weapons. There's some truth to the part about Russia arty and EW, but overall it's a very biased piece. Russia's biggest strength is the ability to muster large forces in near proximity to Russian borders, and to throw those forces into combat with a speed that's hard to match, especially for someone deploying from out of theater. Russia is, at the strategic level, weaker then the US or the European NATO separately. Certainly much weaker then them combined. It doesn't mean defeating Russia will be easy or cheap. But it's very doable. Anyone claiming otherwise isn't doing objective analysis, they're pushing an agenda.

Russia is weaker than NATO and US on the strategic level, 100% agreed But defeating Russia is not doable, in an all out war, when do u think Russia will start fighting dirty? By dirty, I mean tactical nukes and even nuclear weapons deployed and used, do you think the Russians will wait for all their fleet and planes to be destroyed before they think of using the nuclear option? Is this not the reason why the US don't want to attack Russia in Syria or even in Ukraine, NATO has clearly said they are not sending troops to fight the Russians

 

[Feanor]

Russia is weaker than NATO and US on the strategic level, 100% agreed But defeating Russia is not doable, in an all out war, when do u think Russia will start fighting dirty? By dirty, I mean tactical nukes and even nuclear weapons deployed and used, do you think the Russians will wait for all their fleet and planes to be destroyed before they think of using the nuclear option? Is this not the reason why the US don't want to attack Russia in Syria or even in Ukraine, NATO has clearly said they are not sending troops to fight the Russians

Sorry, yes, I should have specified. I was referring to a conventional fight. Obviously if things approach a nuclear threshold, all considerations change. But let's not forget two sides have tactical nukes. It's less the fact that Russia could use nuclear weapons to win and more so that it could use them to prevent defeat if things cross a certain line.

 

[STURM]

Not everyone in Russia is happy about Putin's foreign policy.

Not everyone is happy with his foreign policy and other aspects of his rule but nonetheless many still agree with the narrative that a U.S. led NATO is trying to isolate and weaken Russian and that Russia is only doing what it needs to to secure its interests.

I'm interested in figuring out how much personal control and interest Putin takes in military matters? Does he have a firm grasp of the limitations and strengths of the Russian military in relation to NATO? Or does he rely largely on advisors? We know that Stalin took a very keen personal interest; he personally approved of most plans presented by the STAVKA; was personally briefed by Front commanders on major operations; at times even personally decided on issues such as releasing reserves; changing unit boundaries; etc, but what is the level of Putin's interest and involvement?

 

[Vivendi]

Russia deploys MiG-31K with hypersonic Kinzhal land-attack missile. The nuclear-capable Kinzhal can reach most European capitals when launched from the MiG.

Russia Deploys Hypersonic Missile To Baltic In Range Of NATO Capitols (forbes.com)

This seems a pretty clear message of threat to European countries, and most likely should bee seen in the context of the "Ukrainian" situation.

I wish NATO start reminding Russia a bit more forcefully that one of the key demands from Russia must be reciprocal -- that "a country should not strengthen their security on the expense of others". Seems to me that this is exactly what Russia has been doing quite a lot since 2008. A pity Russia refuse to accept that it is mainly their own actions that has been pushing European countries to increase their defense budgets since then and, during the current crisis, also pushed them to ask for more NATO troops, and increased their military readiness.

Lavrov demands 'clear answer' from Nordic neighbors on security guarantees | The Independent Barents Observer (thebarentsobserver.com)

 

[STURM]

The nuclear-capable Kinzhal can reach most European capitals when launched from the MiG.

The Iskanders deployed in Belarus are also 'nuclear capable'. No idea if the Russians still stockpile nuclear arty rounds though.

This seems a pretty clear message of threat to European countries, and most likely should bee seen in the context of the "Ukrainian" situation.

That ''clear'' message was sent quite a while ago.

I wish NATO start reminding Russia a bit more forcefully that one of the key demands from Russia must be reciprocal -- that "a country should not strengthen their security on the expense of others".

The only thing NATO can do at this stage - apart from continuing with whatever diplomatic initiatives currently ongoing - is to deploy more assets to Poland instead of the relatively small numbers sent so far. NATO is supposed to be a multi national effort; why aren't more countries deploying troops there [even in small numbers] to demonstrate the resolve and solidarity NATO always talks about.

A pity Russia refuse to accept that it is mainly their own actions that has been pushing European countries to increase their defense budgets since then and, during the current crisis, also pushed them to ask for more NATO troops, and increased their military readiness.

Maybe but it's a two way street; the Russians can point out that a NATO which has been steadily expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders and its traditional spheres of influence has led to where we are now; Russia responding in a way it feels it has to.

Something which occurred to me is that when it comes to coverage and footage on Russia we tend to see heavy stuff in the form of MBTs. IFVS, arty and other things but with the Ukrainians it tends to be more of infantry. No idea why but this is certainly the case.

 

[Todjaeger]

Maybe but it's a two way street; the Russians can point out that a NATO which has been steadily expanding closer and closer to Russia's borders and its traditional spheres of influence has led to where we are now; Russia responding in a way it feels it has to.

An 'interesting' question to ask and consider, is how many of the non-Russians feel about being within areas that others consider to be within the "traditional Russian sphere of influence". It might also be worth reconsidering how one is defining those "traditional" areas. IIRC most of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations which were firmly within the Soviet sphere of influence following the end of WWII had not traditionally been within such a sphere of influence.

 

[STURM]

An 'interesting' question to ask and consider, is how many of the non-Russians feel about being within areas that others consider to be within the "traditional Russian sphere of influence".

I would think they are aghast and annoyed.

IIRC most of the ex-Warsaw Pact nations which were firmly within the Soviet sphere of influence following the end of WWII had not traditionally been within such a sphere of influence.

Indeed but they were under the spheres of influence of different players at various times in history; more powerful players. Take the Baltics; for different periods they were under the Swedes, Germans, Russians and Poles; all countries which at one time or the other considered the Baltics to be areas of strategic importance. Turkey [non Warsaw Pact of course] was never under the Soviets or the Czars but was considered at various times to be a Russia/Soviet sphere of influence due to the strategic area the country was located in. The former Soviet Central Asian republics are still considered to be in Russia's backyard; in it's sphere of influence.