Rusia

At a State Department press briefing, the department’s spokesperson Ned Price fielded the following question:

QUESTION: Russian officials have warned Moscow could deploy troops to Cuba and Venezuela if the U.S. and NATO insist on the crisis of Ukraine. Is the U.S. concerned about it? Have you seen any movement in that regard?

MR PRICE: Look, we are not going to respond to bluster. If we do see any movement in that direction, we will respond swiftly and decisively.[1]

At a White House Press Conference, US President Joe Biden fielded a question about a hypothetical NATO response to a Russian attack on Ukraine. He answered: “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion.”[1]

The essence of the crisis in Ukraine is that Russia can gain many benefits from its unspoken threat to invade, but none at all from actually doing so. “Russia will keep piling on the pressure,” a veteran analyst of Ukrainian affairs, who wishes to remain anonymous, told me. “But I can see no upside for Putin in carrying out an invasion.”

Russian troops might be able to capture Kyiv in a week, but this would only be the start of a long war that Russia would find it impossible to win. A more limited Russian offensive in east Ukraine – such as seizing a land corridor between the Russian separatist Donbas and Russian annexed Crimea – is scarcely a more attractive option. It would push the rest of Ukraine further into the embrace of Nato, which would be exactly the opposite of what Russia wants.

Beyond its immediate implications for European security, the current crisis at the Ukraine-Russia border highlights the enduring importance of state sovereignty as an ordering principle in world politics, notwithstanding frequent claims that globalization has rendered it obsolete. It also exposes the tendency of governments to invoke, dismiss or reinterpret this bedrock principle to suit their situational needs. In fact, global stability now depends on whether the United States and European Union are able to reaffirm and defend the centrality of state sovereignty against a Russian attempt to dismiss it.

Introduction

It took more than 20 years for Russian President Vladimir Putin to define Russia’s new ideology.[1] However, the development of this ideology has been in progress since day one of Putin’s appointment as President of the Russian Federation, and it is probably not yet systematized and finalized. Russia’s Constitution prohibits the establishment of a state ideology, but many Russian intellectuals – and Putin himself – have been pushing for the return of an ideology and of a “new Russian idea.” In the shaping of Russia’s new ideology, there are a few Putin’s speeches that can be considered as milestones.

The Pentagon on Friday called on Russia to stand down on Ukraine as tensions rise over the threat of a Russian military invasion.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in a briefing with reporters said Moscow has for months been deploying forces along Ukraine’s border at a “consistent and steady pace,” which has been supported by Russian naval activity in the northern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea.

Ukraine’s leader and his defense and security aides are assessing Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions differently from many of their Western counterparts. Are they just more stoical after eight years of persistent Russian provocations and a long-running war in eastern Ukraine—or are they misreading their Russian adversary?

The deployment, which Moscow has described as routine exercises, risks escalating a flashpoint in the strategic sea lane that Russia has previously used to pressure Kyiv.

Russia deployed more than 20 warships into the Black Sea on Wednesday, representing a troubling new source of potential military escalation at a time of already heightened tensions with Ukraine and its Western backers.

NATO unity and diplomacy are the hopes for preventing a wider Russian invasion.

The risk of a new Russian invasion of Ukraine remains high after today’s meeting in Geneva between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The United States delivered its warning, with European allies, of what Blinken called a “swift, severe and a united response” if the Russian troops massed at Ukraine’s border should attack. But the outcome offered at least a hope of avoiding war as Blinken agreed to offer a set of “written comments” to Russia next week on its demand for “security guarantees” that include barring Ukraine from ever joining NATO — a demand that Ukraine, NATO and the United States reject.