WAfter last week’s diplomatic meetings, it is unclear how the dispute between Russia and the West will continue. The US government and NATO have agreed to further talks, but the Russian government is first demanding a written response to its latest draft treaties. This is as unusual as the submission of finished designs was. However, it does not predict further developments either. Very different developments are still possible.
What is striking is the haste that Moscow continues to urge. It could have something to do with the fact that, according to Western estimates, large-scale military action against Ukraine will become more difficult from March onwards. Then the ground in Ukraine begins to thaw, which would make it difficult for tanks to advance. So if Russia doesn’t reach an agreement in the next few weeks, Putin could lose his greatest asset, the threat of invasion, at least until next winter.
The invasion is Putin’s option, which is the most talked about in public. The Russian troop deployment on the border with Ukraine has recently continued. Various scenarios are discussed in Western analyses. They range from an open deployment of Russian troops in the breakaway areas of Donbass, where they have only been deployed covertly, to attacks on other parts of Ukraine, including the capital Kiev. A possible goal is the establishment of a land connection from the breakaway areas to the Crimea, which would be advantageous, among other things, for the difficult water supply of the peninsula.
However, Western experts point to the burden on Russia of such a far-reaching operation. It would be expensive, likely to involve heavy military losses, and involve a costly occupation of Ukraine. In addition, there are the threat of economic sanctions from the West. Measures against Russian financial institutions and in the technology sector, such as restrictions on the export of computer chips to Russia, are under discussion. In addition, the American leadership has apparently indicated to the Russians that they would support a Ukrainian insurgency in the event of an invasion.
Nor would a war in Ukraine bring Putin any closer to his goal of persuading NATO and the United States to withdraw from Eastern Europe. NATO has ruled out an intervention in Ukraine’s favor because the country is not a member. But the alliance would probably increase its military presence on the eastern flank, especially in the states with a border with Russia, where it already has (rotating) units: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
room for compromise
Another Russian option is “military-technical” steps, as already suggested by Putin. Among other things, he mentioned the stationing of new supersonic weapons on submarines within close range of Washington. He spoke of a flight time of five minutes. The deputy Russian foreign minister did not want to rule out the possibility of weapon systems being stationed in Cuba or Venezuela.
There is no indication that the governments there are currently ready for such cooperation that could get them into trouble with Washington; A few years ago, however, Venezuela had landed Russian strategic bombers for training purposes. From a Russian perspective, the advantage of this option would be that it directly affects the security of the United States, which would not be the case if a Russian invasion of Ukraine were to take place.
The background is that Russia accuses the United States of working towards acquiring comparable capabilities in Eastern Europe. That is why comparisons are being made in Moscow with the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The American missile defense system in Romania, which is soon to be stationed in Poland as well, has been a topic of discussion for some time. It is intended to ward off possible long-range Iranian missiles in an advanced position and is equipped with SM-3 missiles without an explosive device. However, its Mk-41 launch system is also used on American ships for Tomahawk cruise missiles that can be nuclear-armed; the Americans recently carried out a land-based test. Putin has also said the United States could deploy missiles in Ukraine that would fly a few minutes to Moscow. Washington has stated that it does not intend to do either.
Should there be talks about arms control, then that would be a possible item. Unlike the United States, Russia has already deployed a land-based medium-range nuclear weapon, a new cruise missile (SSC-8). This led to Washington’s termination of the INF Treaty in 2019, in which both sides had renounced land-based intermediate-range weapons worldwide. NATO does not want to respond to the new Russian weapon with its own nuclear missile, but the United States is developing new conventional medium-range missiles.
There might be room for compromises here. In 2019, Putin proposed a new moratorium in Europe that would also apply to short-range missiles for the first time. That would be of particular interest to the Europeans because Russia maintains short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad. The US government, for its part, might be interested in a new deal if it were limited to Europe. In this matter, she is likely to be primarily concerned with new capabilities in Asia, where China has built up a large arsenal of medium-range weapons.
.
#Putins #Options #War