When the diplomatic delegations from Russia and the United States sit at the table in Geneva this Monday (10), two decades of Vladimir Putin’s politics will be at stake.
The president of Russia, who took over from the ruins of the ten years of crisis after the end of the Soviet Union, worked out a clear geopolitical plan.
Critics accuse him of seeking to restore the communist empire, but his concerns are the same as those of rulers of the world’s largest country since imperial times: increasing the distance between his territory and opponents, lost when the union fell in 1991.
There are other points, such as the protection of ethnic Russians who were left behind, and the maintenance of popularity, which has the idea of ​​a strong Russia as one of its pillars. The adversary, of course, is NATO, led by the Cold War victors, the US.
Three decades on, the West finds itself cornered by the Russians in Ukraine, a crisis that Putin is trying to resolve with checkmate — or an ippon, to stay in the judo he likes. Next, the leaf will try to summarize in a questionnaire the path that brought the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals in the world face to face, again.
THE is happening in Ukraine right now? In early November, Putin deployed more than 100,000 troops and equipment to areas relatively close to Ukraine. The neighbour, the US and NATO have accused him of planning a military invasion, which he denies.
But what is there that interests Putin? In 2014, Kiev’s pro-Russian government was overthrown (coup or revolution, it depends who counts). Putin realized that NATO and the European Union could absorb the neighbor and acted, promoting the annexation of Crimea, an ethnic Russian territory that had been ceded to Ukraine in Soviet times, in 1954. And he fomented a civil war of pro-Kremlin separatists in Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, which is at the center of the confusion right now.
The UN said what? She does not recognize Russian Crimea.
Does anyone recognize? Just eight Kremlin allies. But in practice, annexation is seen as a fait accompli in the diplomatic community.
And the autonomous areas? Here things get complicated. First, because they are not so ethnically homogeneous, and second, because Putin has not thrown all his military weight to decisively support the rebels.
But didn’t that interest you? Annexing the Donbass would be much more complex and expensive, as well as having a clear military and human cost. Putin’s priority is another: to prevent Ukraine, or any other ex-Soviet country, from joining NATO and, perhaps more secondarily, the European Union.
Why? Historically, the Russians have their most vulnerable flank in Eastern Europe. Therefore, both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union either dominated or had allies in the region. The Soviet decline meant that part of these countries was absorbed into the western sphere, and in 2004 the expansion of NATO reached three republics that were part of the union: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That was the last straw for Putin, in power since late 1999.
But wouldn’t that be a country issue? Yes, that’s what international law and Western logic says, when it matters. Politically, however, the US behaved like less than magnanimous winners of the Cold War, missing the opportunity to lure Russia into a more stable partnership with its European allies.
And then Putin acted. He first fought a war in 2008 in Georgia, a small country in an explosive region, the Caucasus, which is one of the historic routes of invasions and wars — in this case, against Turkey. Today, the problem there is the infiltration of Islamic radicals, as the two wars Moscow fought in Chechnya, which is part of its territory, demonstrated. In the Georgian case, the then president of the country had an aggressive attitude and was seen as reckless in provoking the Russians, giving the excuse for them to attack on behalf of the ethnic minority that inhabits two areas of the country. As a result, Georgia today does not control 20% of its territory, which in practice prevents it from joining NATO.
Which is exactly what Putin wanted. Yes, and that’s why he’s seen as a villain in the West, for using brute force when he sees fit. The next step was the series of actions in Ukraine in 2014.
And did Western sanctions have any effect?There is pressure on Russia, but experts are divided on the real impact because the result of the sanctions was an increase in the domestic market, the greater detachment of the international financial system and a certain diversification of the economy, which is still dependent on the export of hydrocarbons ( Oil and Gas).
And Europe continues to buy Russian gas.The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, completed last year, will allow, when Germany allows Russia to operate, to remove much of the transit of the natural gas it sells to Europeans through old lines that pass through Ukraine. As a result, Kiev could lose much of the $2 billion it earns annually in fees. Nord Stream 2 and its operating brother, branch 1, link Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. Today, 40% of the gas that Europe consumes comes from Putin, and the US is fighting to make the gas pipeline unfeasible because it believes that the Europeans play a double game.
Why didn’t Ukraine join NATO and the EU?For the same reason as Georgia: club rules do not allow countries with active territorial conflicts. This makes Western discourse convenient, as no one wants to pay to see a direct confrontation with Russia. Thus, Kiev receives support and some weaponry from NATO, but no troops are expected to defend it.
And what happens now?Putin wants to see the 2015 Minsk Accords 2, which froze the civil war in Donbass, implemented. But they provide a degree of autonomy to Russian areas that Kiev does not accept. By moving his troops, he insinuates that he can use force like in 2014, which some think is a bluff.
Why?Because the Ukrainian army cannot defeat the Russian, but cause good damage. And an invasion would involve annexing areas, costing billions that Putin does not have. That was the risk of NATO changing its mind and defending Kiev, which would risk a dangerous escalation, perhaps nuclear. Not coincidentally, the five atomic powers recently pledged never to start a war with these weapons.
What will be traded?Russians and Americans are expected to discuss Putin’s terms this week to pacify the region. He “cheated”, asking for commitment to the end of NATO expansion and withdrawal of forces from the alliance of members that entered after 1997, that is, the entire bloc that was communist. This will not be accepted, but there may be occasional concessions and the resumption of negotiations on Ukraine, which will already be sold in Moscow as a victory for the leader.
If it doesn’t work out, can there be war?It’s not the most likely scenario, but the risk is real.
And the crisis in Kazakhstan, how does it fit into that?There are two theories as to why legitimate protests against fuel increases turned into a near-revolution, with armed people on the streets. First, that it was fostered by the West to weaken Putin. Second, that it was the work of the Kremlin to, quickly resolved, put him in a position of strength. Whatever it is, or none of it, the chance that Putin will emerge stronger from the episode, as a peacemaker in Central Asia, is quite high.
Are there other implications?The crisis has brought Russia even closer to China, which has supported Putin and said both countries need to defend themselves against the West together. It is a trend that was already in place, but that may have effects in the near future.
.
