So, as someone on the other side of the world, I’m confused by all the Russia threat rhetoric recently. They can’t manage Ukraine, are in dire economic straits, are scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower, and you’re expecting them to open a new front?
I don’t get it. Is this about cyberattacks, drones, propaganda, and other asymmetric harassment (AKA terrorism)? Because I hear posturing about rearming and preparing for war (which I generally associate with invasion). Tanks and war planes don’t stop those kinds of threats. Is it general military ‘give us more budget’? Is it military industrial complex lobbying for profit? What’s going on?
FWIW, genuinely curious.
Russia is not planning on invading and conquering the whole Europe. The want to disrupt supply chains and divert resources going to Ukraine. Russia already has a lot of military on the borders with NATO (for example Finland). They are just sitting there not helping them win the war in Ukraine in any way. So Russia would like to:
- Force NATO to gather more resources on their side of the border instead of sending them to Ukraine
- Test if NATO members are actually willing to fight to defend each other (we know USA won’t)
- Disrupt supply chains and destroy factories used by Ukraine
Crimea was overtaken by Russia without officially sending any troops. It was all done by some independent “mercenaries” that went there to protect Russian minority. (later Putin admitted it were in fact Russian soldiers)
NATO is worried same thing can happen in Latvia or Estonia: small number of “mercenaries” engaging with the tiny armies those countries have. Other worry is long range missile attacks on critical infrastructure. So far NATO members did not respond to drone attacks and terrorist attacks on their infrastructure. Russia is checking how far they can go and so far NATO let them do anything without any consequences. It’s clear Putin will keep escalating (why wouldn’t he?) and what everyone is saying is that EU should be ready for the next step: direct attack.
Putin doesn’t have to win it. He just has to divert enough resources away from Ukraine for it to pay off. Every drone that flies into NATO means more air defense systems in EU and less air defense in Ukraine. Same with everything else.
That makes some sense of it. Thanks.
They can’t manage Ukraine, are in dire economic straits, are scraping the bottom of the barrel for manpower …
Putin doesn’t care about all this. Lavrov and the other sycophants are hailing their leader for whatever he does (maybe he really thinks that things go well in Russia). Putin is indifferent about the economic strain of ordinary Russians, he will drink their blood, and doesn’t care about the soldiers in the meat grinder.
There is no “Russia threat rhetoric.” There is a Russia threat.
So the threat is Putin is a psychopath (no argument) and might do something batshit crazy before someone finally throws him out a window? While that may be valid, not sure it justifies billions on war machinery, or even the media frenzy recently. I wonder about ulterior motives, perhaps a media push to support right wing politics?
No, it’s about preparing for Russian aggression.
Besides what other commentators already highlighted about what is going on with Russia, there is another component to this: other autocratic and warloving leaders might feel inspired by a lacking response from Europe to such a development.
Xi wants Taiwan (and other territories in SEA, especially oceanic regions), and an attack on Taiwan would have a huge impact on global computing infrastructure. So a Europe seeming willing and able to help who it calls allies would be a better deterrent to war plans elsewhere.(And yes, it’s quite cynical to argue with the impact on economy rather than humanitarian arguments, but you have to put things into a politician’s perspective.)
Russia ‘not interested in peace at all,’ Kallas
I mean…Russia is interested in peace. Everyone is always interested in peace. Countries don’t take war purely for love of war. The difference between parties in a conflict is the terms on which that peace is desired; war is a tool to coerce another into accepting one’s desired terms.
This is not to dispute Kallas’s point about faster rearmament being a good idea.
I mean…Russia is interested in peace. Everyone is always interested in peace. Countries don’t take war purely for love of war. The difference between parties in a conflict is the terms on which that peace is desired; war is a tool to coerce another into accepting one’s desired terms.
That is a really stupid thing to say. Russia is maybe interested in everybody elses surrender, but they are not interested in peace. As we all know, because they’ve started this war.
No, I genuinely don’t think they are interested in peace at all. You don’t indoctrinate kindergardeners to die for the motherland if you aren’t planning to have wars going forward.
Planning to have war doesn’t mean that one is after war. You just hope to negotiate that peace you want using war. More power or territory or wealth or whatever. If you could force the other guy to give them to you sans war, you’d do it.
There will be no peace as long as Putin is in power. Any ‘peace agreement’ will end up in a new war after some time.
Edit:
Russia’s lies about peace: 30 years of broken promises in international negotiations
… History shows that taking Russia’s promises of peace at face value is an extremely risky proposition. Historically, such decisions have inevitably led to catastrophe and further bloodshed since the underlying problems of Russian aggressive imperial policies have never been solved. True accountability was never part of the equation. The fate of Chechnya shows one of the most clear-cut scenarios of Russia’s political tactics: sue for peace, recover its military strength, and come back for a second decisive attack. The Chechens fought Russia to near-defeat in the first war, then believed Moscow’s safety assurances. In two years, the Chechen capital was all but obliterated, and Chechnya was entirely subjugated by Moscow …
