Russia amasses troops near U.S. ally Ukraine. But what is Putin's goal?
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 3 years ago • 70 commentsBy: Alexander Smith and Matthew Bodner
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tens of thousands of Russian troops massing near the Ukrainian border, convoys of tanks, and a deadly escalation in the grinding trench war in eastern Ukraine.
These storm clouds on Europe's eastern flank are causing grave alarm in Washington and across the continent.
"We're now seeing the largest concentration of Russian forces on Ukraine's borders since 2014," Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Tuesday after flying to NATO's headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. "That is a deep concern not only to Ukraine, but to the United States."
In a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin later in the day, President Joe Biden declared Washington's "unwavering commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and "called on Russia to de-escalate tensions," a White House readout said.
Western officials and experts are now trying to decipher what Moscow might be planning: Is Putin testing Biden's mettle — or is he actually trying to spark a fresh military conflict on the fringes of Europe?
"The optimistic assessment is that this is meant to intimidate Ukraine," said Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at CNA, a research group based in Virginia. "The pessimistic assessment, which I think is a lower probability but nonetheless very worth considering, is that Russia is actually spoiling for a fight and that they're looking to bait Ukraine into a miscalculation."
Russia and Ukraine have been locked in conflict since 2014, when Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea peninsula and began supporting separatists in the country's east. That war has rumbled on ever since, costing some 14,000 lives despite a series of shaky ceasefires.
But since March experts say they are witnessing something new.
Russia has started sending thousands of troops, tanks, artillery and other units to Crimea and regions along its 1,200-mile land border with Ukraine, according to Western governments and independent experts who monitor these maneuvers.
The Russian troops number 40,000 in Crimea and another 40,000 in other regions along the border, Iuliia Mendel, spokeswoman for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Monday.
Given that the Russian military has an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 troops, "that would be approximately 10 percent of the Russian military's total manpower," according to Rob Lee, a former U.S. Marine who now tracks military deployments at the Department of War Studies at King's College London.
A Ukrainian soldier fighting Russian-backed separatists attempts to shoot down a suspected drone near Donetsk, Ukraine, on Sunday.Oleksandr Klymenko / Reuters
Russia says these movements are "training missions," Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday. But experts say they don't fit the usual pattern for these wargames. Russian military officials haven't provided the usual level of detail or forewarning.
"They are deliberately leaving their intentions ambiguous here," Lee said.
Meanwhile, the fragile ceasefire that's kept the Donbas conflict at a simmer has deteriorated, with more than 30 Ukrainian soldiers killed already this year, compared with 49 in 2020, Ukraine says.
In response, U.S. European Command has raised its threat level to the highest available, the New York Times reported. And it is planning to send two warships to the Black Sea, according to Turkey, which controls passage into it. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on both of these actions at recent briefings.
"If Russia acts recklessly," Blinken told NBC News' "Meet the Press" Sunday, "there will be consequences."
After meeting Blinken on Tuesday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said the "Russian buildup is taking place, not only along the border of Ukraine, but along the border of democratic world."
A Ukrainian soldier near the line of separation between them and the pro-Russia rebels on Saturday.Oleksandr Klymenko / Reuters
Adversary vs. partner
The problem for these allies is that it is still unclear what Russia is trying to do — much less how the West might be able to respond.
"The force assembled is large and heavy and could go deep and do some ugly stuff to Ukraine," said Vladimir Frolov, a former Russian diplomat. Is that what Russia intends to do? "I think an honest answer to your question would be: 'I have no idea,'" he said.
Russia says it's free to move troops internally however it likes.
"Russia has never been a threat to anyone and does not pose a threat," Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters Monday.
The Kremlin has tried to turn the narrative on its head, accusing the U.S. and NATO of being the ones responsible for raising the temperature.
"There is absolutely nothing for American ships to be doing near our shores," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russian news wires. "We warn the United States that it will be better for them to stay far away from Crimea and our Black Sea coast. It will be for their own good."
Ryabkov referred to the U.S. as an "adversary" — a word the U.S. uses to describe Russia, but a clear shift from Russia's preferred term "partner" when referring to the U.S.
Zelensky shakes hands with a serviceman in the Ukrainian town of Zolote last week.Ukrainian Presidential Press Service / AFP - Getty Images
Many experts believe a Russian military offensive is not impossible but unlikely; it would be costly for Putin and it's unclear what he would gain. The buildup has been slow and ostentatious, whereas a genuine invasion would be rapid and more covert.
More likely, according to these observers, is that Russia is attempting to intimidate Ukraine, perhaps to gain leverage in the stalled peace talks over the Donbas conflict.
Putin is also sending a message to Biden and Ukraine's European allies, according to Fabrice Pothier, a consulting senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think tank.
Biden has deployed harsher rhetoric toward Putin compared with President Donald Trump, and last month the U.S. announced $125 million in military aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Ukraine is renewing calls to join NATO, something the alliance promised in 2008 but is vehemently opposed by Russia.
"Putin is testing what President Biden's Russia-Ukraine policy is really made of," said Pothier, NATO's former head of policy planning. "Is the U.S. willing to go as far as providing either indirect or direct military support to Ukraine forces? Basically, is the U.S. willing to go into some kind of escalation with Russia?"
Alexander Smith reported from London, Matthew Bodner reported from Moscow, and Abigail Williams and Mosheh Gains reported from Washington.
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
The question is whether Putin is playing a game of brinkmanship or if he intends to take overt military action against Ukraine. Either way, it is a very serious situation and requires careful response on the part of Ukraine, the U.S. and our NATO allies. The future of Europe could rest on the outcome.
It will also send a message to China who wants Taiwan and more power over Hong Kong, and N. Korea and that's not a message we want. England and Japan get that and have sent battleships to Chinese waters.
Re China:
Russia is testing the waters. Same as China, Iran, and North Korea. While our allies might be happy they get Biden to push around (Just like they have every other President outside of Trump); our enemies might be just as happy.
Is Biden willing to end the world over a former Soviet Border state that Obama backed a coup with groups that included fascists? About the only thing Ukraine has going for it is a very corrupt, easy to control government; and being a lucrative job hot spot for politicians kids and grand kids. Politicians may not be willing to give that up.
Putin doesn't give a shit about his people (sanctions haven't worked, and more sanctions will be equally worthless); his troops; or especially NATO. All of Europe is not in danger; but the border states that the US/NATO flipped might be ripe for the picking. In other words the Bear is about to poke us back.
Just like the former occupant of the White House
Would you care to provide even 1 example of Trump pushing back on Putin? Just 1.
Sure that is easy.
Trump gave permission to send Ukraine lethal weapons. Something Obama never did after backing the coup.
Trump also sent US ground forces into Syria.
Then he didn't pull those US ground forces out of Syria when he said he would.
The Trump administration increased sanctions on Russia:
Trump expelled Russian diplomats from US.
There you go. Far more than the silly one time you requested.
So much for the left's claim Trump was Putin's puppet, sleeper, or anything else.
You didn't read my question, did you?
What did Trump say to Putin about the bounty he put on US soldiers?
What did Trump say to Putin about interfering in the 2016 election?
When did Trump say anything bad to Putin?
Or Russia got the go message from Trump's friendliness? Or maybe neither matters. Putin is doing what he is good at doing. The question is how long do we sit back and wait?
Isn't that what we thought when Hitler took Poland?
Allow me to answer that: We are not going to war over a state that used to be part of Russia. Everyone knows that! So if Biden wants to talk tough to Russia, Putin will get tough. Meanwhile our real enemy, walks all over us.
It has not been part of Russia for a long time already, so this is an act of aggression. I am not suggesting going to war, but maybe being in their face a bit more.
And what has Biden not done to China that Trump hasn't already done?
Clearly, it is such an act. It is one that the US isn't going to do a thing about. Just like Russia wouldn't do anything if we invaded Cuba, except that JFK signed an agreement promising that we never would.
I am not suggesting going to war, but maybe being in their face a bit more.
Why the hard stance on this 2nd rate power? Democrats never used to take a hard line on Russia. Why the hard line stance now?
And what has Biden not done to China that Trump hasn't already done?
Ah, that's right, Biden left all those tariffs in place - the ones we don't hear anything about anymore. What I was referring to is the way China recently taunted & lectured Biden's diplomats at the Alaska Summit.
I don't feel like retyping it, so see post 2.2.1.
Putin didn't pull this shit with Trump in office. Chances are not even Putin wanted to risk Trump being more concerned with his image than with saving his own skin. He is giving Biden and NATO a test run. Obama may have pushed him one border state too far as well.
If Putin was really good. Kosovo would still be a province of Serbia. Former Soviet/Russian satellite border states wouldn't be flipping to the West. Russia wouldn't be having problems with Chechnya terrorists and rebels. Russia's economy wouldn't be crumbling. Putin is good at staying in power. He is willing to do whatever it takes to do so. Leading a country- not so much.
Unless Biden wants to end the world, forever. Russia has nuclear weapons; and Putin has nothing to lose. Is Ukraine really worth it?
Did Hitler have nuclear weapons; did he have to contend with his enemies having them? Did he have the US/NATO to contend with? Putin might regain a few border states. That will be about the extent of it.
Hard to say what Russia would do. They were very involved in the "Missle Crisis".
A. It is a mistake to think of them as a 2nd rate power give their military power. Two, I I am not sure where you got that Democrats never take a hardline. Obama did remain in the ME, and took out Bin Laden and al -Awlaki . LBJ taking a strong stance in Vietnam and Clinton Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence Service's command and control complex in Baghdad. The only one that I remember being weak was Carter.
Why would he remove them? That only goes to show that he is not a petty man. And he did announce that they would stay in place, so I am not sure what you are talking about:
The job of a diplomat is to be diplomatic. The Chinese can lecture away, which is poor form, but it hasn't changed a thing, has it?
I agree.
Wrong. Those were part of Yugoslavia and they had a civil war after Glasnost. Putin had nada to do with them at that point. They have been having problems with Chechnya since before Reagan's time. Terrorists are a bit hard to stop or did you miss 9/11?
I agree that he good at staying in power... but you underestimate him.
Or we take a look at what England, Japan, and now Australia are doing to China.
No one is going to take it to that point. And with a guy like Putin, it's give an inch take a mile, just like with Hitler.
Ukraine, Taiwan, Spratly’s – I think we’re all done hearing about how the U.S. is destabilizing and provoking tensions in these regions. The Sino-Russian propagandists and troll farms are hereby dismissed. These two regimes are each robbing Peter to pay Paul. Their movements may intimidate their own populations, thus sustaining despotism and nationalism. But the side effects are:
1. Unifying NATO and Asian allies (believe it or not..!)
2. Alarming neutral states to come off the fence (Watch what the Philippians do..)
3. Gravitating allies and neutrals toward U.S. and Western leadership;
4. Justifying more U.S. and allied defense spending, and;
5. Exacerbating economic sanctions and tariffs.
Ukraine has no aggressive anything. Taiwan is no threat to china. The adversaries want to see how much of Trumps damage to the alliances remains, and increase stress and fractures if possible. Its deliberate by them. The net effect: Beijing and Moscow are burning their furniture to heat their houses.
Of course it's a test of China Joe. Putin didn't try shit like this when Trump was there.
Tell me again how Putin/Russia ended up with the Tartus Naval base in Syria.....?
ell me again how Putin/Russia ended up with the Tartus Naval base in Syria.
Well during the Obama administration , the Russians began to modernize the facility in 2009,. Starting in 2012, Russian began using it for troops, armaments and military cargo. Then before Trump was sworn in, Russia and Syria agreed to a 49 year lease of the base by Russia.
It appears that base has been around awhile. WWDD about it?
They seem to act like Obama was never president at times.
And some act like he didn't have a hostile congress for six years.
Then before Trump was sworn in, Russia and Syria agreed to a 49 year lease of the base by Russia.
I guess you never get tired of being corrected Sean
Syrian Parliament Approves Russia’s 49-year Lease of Tartus Port June 13, 2019 The parliament of Syria has ratified a bill handing management of the country’s largest port to a Russian firm for 49 years, state media said, according to RIA.
Tartus hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. Tartus is the last Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union, and its only Mediterranean fueling spot, sparing Russia's warships the trip back to their Black Sea bases through straits in Turkey , a NATO member . [14]
And your hero Trump was all okay with it.....
It what way was Trump was OK with it. Looks like he didn't have much of a say so in the matter.
It'd be a first for you. Sadly for you, today is not that day. Feel free to try and fail again.
The lease was agreed to on January 17, 2017. Guess who was President? Not Trump.
Congress had nothing to do with Obama's failure in Syria. He did that all on his own.
Of course we never should have gone there in the first place; but Obama did love starting and getting involved in wars. By the way, Congress had nothing to do with that either.
Corrected? Russia was already the hell there. Their military involvement started under the Obama administration. Just because they signed the lease extension (you did read your own link stating it was an extension right? The base is a hold over from the Soviet Union. It has been upgraded and expanded during the Obama administration when Russia entered the conflict on the Syrian side) during the Trump administration means jack shit of nothing.
Maybe if Obama hadn't been so eager to remove Assad; instead of just fighting ISIS/ISIL- which he entered Syria under the guise of, Russia wouldn't have gained naval and air bases in Syria?
But Trruuuummmmmpppppp!!!! Do Democrats ever take responsibility for any of the shit they cause?
Just like Republicans stopped Obama in Libya right; or re-entering Iraq?
Obama never listened to Republicans when it came to deploying the military. He could have bombed, and did bomb Syria, w/o asking Congress using "The War on Terror". He was just too chicken shit to back up his own "Red line" garbage after Russia entered the conflict. He wanted Republicans to take responsibility for his stupidity.
Bullshit. You are willing to put all the blame on one president while completely absolving the next.
You are giving a standard to one that you do not hold the other to.
Or Greg, they were testing the waters during Trump's administration and found a very friendly administration. Tell me, what do you think Trump would have done differently?
Btw, Biden already announced sanctions on Russia yesterday. Hardly sounds like the go-ahead.
Btw, Biden already announced sanctions on Russia yesterday. Hardly sounds like the go-ahead.
Wow...... bet those toothless moves will get their attention!
So, what do you suggest? Personally, I think we should follow the English example and send battle ships into the area. Are you on board with that not so toothless idea?
I doubt the Russians are much impressed with shows of force at this point
The Russians might be; but Putin isn't.
I disagree...
I disagree again. And if he isn't, then there is a bigger issue at hand, and declaring him weak as some here have said, would be a huge mistake.
Putin ran wild under Obama and probably sees this as his chance to do so again. Even Obama's defender, the Washington Post, had to admit how Obama enabled Putin in Syria:
FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladimir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal.
Sean,
How so in a way that affected us?
What I find amazing is how you dismiss the Wapo most of the time, except when they agree with you.
And Biden is not Obama, so if that is what they are thinking, they may be right or terribly wrong.
And you are fine with the Washington Post, except when it disagrees with you, apparently.
I use Liberal sources like the Wapo to cut down on the ad hominem type responses. Plus, when a liberal source admits something against the party line it follows, an informed reader should give it more weight. Just like using a reliably conservative source that admits something against conservative talking points is effective.
d Biden is not Obama, so if that is what they are thinking, they may be right or terribly wrong.
They sure aren't. Obama at least was willing to kill Bin Laden. As Obama's defense secretary wrote, Biden's "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."
I'm not the one quoting the Wapo, you are. And I don't quote the Wapo ever...
Also I am not a liberal, so frankly, I don't care what the source is, as long as it is accurate.
As for Biden being "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.", he was not the president. We will have to wait and see.
Yikes, another libertarian monarchist ... all this cell division is getting out of hand.
No Hallux. I am an independent, which means that I go by the issue and don't hold to a party.
He just held a less than inspiring press conference, in which he tried to say the reason for Russia sanctions was SolarWinds intrusion, reports of bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and attempts to interfere in the 2020 U.S. elections."
On the same day his intelligence service downplayed those reports, no less.
Not that facts matter to Joe Biden.
this is months after the top general in the middle east found no evidence of the bounties...
Those reports seem to be important one day and invisible the next. Shades of John Brennan.
Funny how that works.
Gambit v. Gambit, played well the result will be a draw even though white has the initial advantage.
Frankly these are political games we see with every Admin change. We'll see what our NATO and Asian allies do and how new sanctions will act. A bigger issue (imo) is the troop withdrawal in the ME. That power vacuum sucking sound will be followed up with the cheering of Iranian back militants.
Send Rudy Giuliani over there to negotiate this crisis on behalf of the rump nation of Maralagostan.
We need a calm rational voice like that during these troubled times
oh never mind.
More seriously, I would like to see Biden, and all administrations, address issues like this through NATO. Of course to do that , the NATO countries have to be on the same page and equally willing to take action such as sanctions etc. if necessary, and I dont know if we are at that point.
John,
If you want to call a body of power useless, it is NATO. You don't see England, Japan, or Australia waiting on NATO to send in Battleships into Chinese waters....they know better.
I really question if sending a battleship into the waters of a massive nuclear power like China , or Russia , is anything more than a signal. It certainly isnt a threat to them.
I prefer we handle military situations through NATO.
So I guess the build up on the Ukraine border isn't a threat either?
We don't have to go straight to MADD you know.
A German warship was also reported crossing into the South China Sea for the first time in March.
My hubs read we had 2 ships deployed to the Black Sea but today they were recalled. Not sure why but they were.
My error, they were not there but were "supposed" to be deployed to the Black Sea
Interesting. Not unhappy with the idea.
they were likely recalled due to political sanctions imposed by the administration.
only one way in or out of the black sea, why risk capture on some trumped up boundry dispute or worse , make them sacrificial lambs at the slaughter in a place their destruction is all but assured.
if they are not there they can not be considered as provocative or provoking.
We don't have active "battleships" in the fleet anymore, and haven't since WW2..
"Aircraft Carriers" have replaced them.
We have destroyers and littoral combat ships. Please don't be so literal. England does and I was referencing them many times in this discussion.
the last US battleship was deactivated 31 mar 1992 it was BB-63 USS Missouri, and all battleships were stricken from naval vessel record in the early 2000s.
actual battleships ( usually the 4 iowa class) were used in korea, vietnam , lebanon and the 1st gulf war. after the beruit barracks bombing , the new jersey was parked off lebanons coast with its 16 inch main guns pointed inland. those guns were designed to shoot PAST the visable horizon on the open sea.....