From Prisoners of Geography. Tim Marshall. 2015. Kindle online sample. Section 5.
Covert support for the uprisings in eastern Ukraine was logistically simple and had the added benefit of deniability on the international stage.
Barefaced lying in the great chamber of the UN Security Council is simple if your opponent does not have concrete proof of your actions and, more important, doesn’t want concrete proof in case he or she has to do something about it.
Many politicians in the West breathed a sigh of relief and muttered quietly, “THANK GOODNESS UKRAINE ISN’T IN NATO OR WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO ACT.”
…
THE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA SHOWED HOW RUSSIA IS PREPARED FOR MILITARY ACTION to defend what it sees as its interests in what it calls its “near abroad.”
It took a rational gamble outside powers would not intervene and Crimea was “doable.”
It is close to Russia, could be supplied across the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, and could rely on internal support from large sections of the population of the peninsula.
Russia has not finished with Ukraine yet, nor elsewhere.
Unless it feels threatened, Russia will probably not send its troops all the way into the Baltic States, or any farther forward than it already is in Georgia.
But it will push its power in Georgia, and in this volatile period further military action cannot be ruled out.
…
However, just as Russia’s actions in its war with Georgia in 2008 were a warning to NATO to come no closer, so NATO’s message to Russia in the summer of 2014 was “This far west and no farther.”
A handful of NATO warplanes were flown to the Baltic States, military exercises were announced in Poland, and the Americans began planning to “pre-position” extra hardware as close to Russia as possible.
At the same time there was a flurry of diplomatic visits by defense and foreign ministers to the Baltic States, Georgia, and Moldova to reassure them of support.
Some commentators poured scorn on the reaction, arguing that SIX RAF EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON JETS FLYING OVER BALTIC AIRSPACE WERE HARDLY GOING TO DETER THE RUSSIAN HORDES.
…
But the reaction was about diplomatic signaling, and the signal was clear—NATO is prepared to fight.
Indeed it would have to, because if it failed to react to an attack on a member state, it would instantly be obsolete.
The Americans—who are already edging toward a new foreign policy in which they feel less constrained by existing structures and are prepared to forge new ones as they perceive the need arises—are DEEPLY UNIMPRESSED WITH THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES’ COMMITMENT TO DEFENSE SPENDING.
…
In the case of the three Baltic States, NATO’s position is clear.
As they are all members of the alliance, armed aggression against any of them by Russia would trigger Article 5 of NATO’s founding charter, which states:
“AN ARMED ATTACK AGAINST ONE OR MORE NATO MEMBER STATES IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACK AGAINST THEM ALL,” and goes on to say NATO will come to the rescue if necessary.
Article 5 was invoked after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, paving the way for NATO involvement in Afghanistan.
…
President Putin is a student of history.
He appears to have learned the lessons of the Soviet years, in which Russia overstretched itself and was forced to contract.
AN OVERT ASSAULT ON THE BALTIC STATES WOULD LIKEWISE BE OVERSTRETCHING and is unlikely, especially if NATO and its political masters ensure Putin understands their signals.
…
At the beginning of 2016, the Russian president sent his own signal.
He changed the wording of Russia’s overall military strategy document and went further than the naval strategy paper of 2015.
FOR THE FIRST TIME THE U.S. WAS NAMED AS AN “EXTERNAL THREAT” TO RUSSIA.
Russia does not have to send an armored division into Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia to influence events there.
But if it ever does, it would justify the action by claiming the large Russian communities there are being discriminated against.
…
IN BOTH ESTONIA AND LATVIA, APPROXIMATELY ONE IN FOUR PEOPLE ARE ETHNICALLY RUSSIAN AND IN LITHUANIA IT IS SIX PERCENT.
In Estonia, the Russian speakers say they are underrepresented in government and thousands do not have any form of citizenship.
This does not mean they want to be part of Russia, but they are one of the levers Russia can pull to influence events.
The Russian-speaking populations in the Baltics can be stirred up to making life difficult.
There are existing, fully formed political parties already representing many of them.
RUSSIA CONTROLS THE CENTRAL HEATING IN THE HOMES OF THE BALTIC PEOPLE.
It can set the price people pay for their heating bills each month, and, if it chooses, simply turn the heating off.
Russia will continue to push its interests in the Baltic States.
They are one of the weak links in its defense since the collapse of the USSR, another breach in the wall they would prefer to see forming an arc from the Baltic Sea, south, then southeast, connecting to the Urals.
…
This brings us to another gap in the wall and another region Moscow views as a potential buffer state.
FIRMLY IN THE KREMLIN’S SIGHTS IS MOLDOVA, on the southwest border of Ukraine.
Moldova presents a different problem for all sides.
An attack on the country by Russia would necessitate crossing through Ukraine, over the Dnieper River, and then over another sovereign border into Moldova.
…
It could be done at the cost of significant loss of life and by using Odessa as a staging post and there would no deniability.
Although it might not trigger war with NATO, Moldova is not a member, it would provoke sanctions against Moscow at a level hitherto unseen
It would confirm what this writer believes to already be the case - THE COOLING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST IS THE NEW COLD WAR.
…
Why would the Russians want Moldova?
Because as the Carpathian Mountains curve around southwest to become the Transylvanian Alps, to the southeast is a plain leading down to the Black Sea.
THAT MOLDOVA PLAIN CAN ALSO BE THOUGHT OF AS A FLAT CORRIDOR INTO RUSSIA, and just as the Russians would prefer to control the North European Plain at its narrow point in Poland, so they would like to control the plain by the Black Sea—also known as Moldova—in the region formerly known as Bessarabia.
…
After the Crimean War fought between Russia and Western European allies to protect Ottoman Turkey from Russia, the 1856 Treaty of Paris returned parts of Bessarabia to Moldova, thus cutting Russia off from the Danube River.
It took Russia almost a century to regain access to it, but with the collapse of the USSR, once more Russia had to retreat eastward.
THE RUSSIANS DO ALREADY CONTROL PART OF MOLDOVA—A REGION CALLED TRANSNISTRIA, part of Moldova east of the Dniester River that borders Ukraine.
…
Stalin, in his wisdom, settled large numbers of Russians there, just as he had in Crimea after deporting much of the Tatar population.
MODERN TRANSNISTRIA IS NOW AT LEAST 50 PERCENT RUSSIAN- OR UKRAINIAN-SPEAKING, and that part of the population is pro-Russian.
When Moldova became independent in 1991 the Russian-speaking population rebelled and, after a brief period of fighting, declared a breakaway Republic of Transnistria.
It helped Russia had soldiers stationed there, and it retains a force of two thousand troops to this day.
…
A Russian military advance in Moldova is unlikely.
But the Kremlin can and does use its economic muscle and the volatile situation in Transnistria to try to influence the Moldovan government not to join the EU or NATO.
MOLDOVA IS RELIANT ON RUSSIA for its energy needs, its crops go eastward, and Russian imports of the excellent Moldovan wine tend to rise or fall according to the state of the relationship between the two countries.
(end of section 5)
... ...
(own comments)
Section 1:
“Behind the rhetoric of ‘Workers of the World Unite’ the USSR was simply the Russian Empire writ large.”
Nationalism is tribalism writ large, the Older the person’s or nation’s mentality the more tribalist he/she/it be.
Hyper-nationalism/tribalism fueled by misery-wuvvers (we’re united victims and victimizers) be the core geopolitical problem not communism.
The United States suffered through a huge nationalism/tribal problem during the Civil War, and the under-freedom unification resolution has worked out well for both sides.
…
“Russia, like all great powers, is thinking in terms of the next one hundred years and understands in that time anything could happen.”
Seems Biden should assure Putin the U.S. will not support any effort to have Ukraine become a member of NATO, the world will naturally fix zat and oll geopolitical problems with tHAT international New soon anyway.
…
Section 2:
“Russia is at a geographical disadvantage, saved from being a much weaker power only because of its oil and gas.”
Oil wealth for Russia is like gold wealth was for Spain, wallow in it and export it for imported goods enriching other countries and eventually disabling and impoverishing their own.
…
Section 3:
“President Putin did not have much of a choice—he had to annex Crimea, which contained not only many Russian-speaking Ukrainians but most important the port of Sevastopol.”
Ever wonder why the Putin regime of Russia fights against the West rather than fights to join it?
Putin is one of the 5% quark shapeless forms at the core, the mafia-monopolists.
These be mostly dead-head opportunist “leaders” of governments and their lackeys who use blue tribalism as philosophy and for energy.
Dem feed on and are ego-n-money enriched by their and every country’s 47.5% misery-wuvvers forced and enforced negativity-poverty polity and society.
Joining the West means more happy, fighting the West means more misery.
…
Section 4:
“It is far less painful, and cheaper, to encourage unrest in the eastern borders of Ukraine and remind Kiev who controls energy supplies, to ensure what [wut] Putin wants: Kiev’s infatuation with the flirtatious West does not turn into a marriage.”
Why is Putin-regime Russia against a marriage of Ukraine with the West?
It would bring much wealth, freedom, and happiness to the peoples of Ukraine and then Russia.
Ethnicity and national and cultural pride are only excuses and distractions, not the real reason.
We and They see and know the actual answer is clear, simple, and fundamental.
Russia historically has been and still is dominated by their 47.5% negative misery-wuvvers.
These people don’t want a culture of wealth, freedom, and happiness.
These want a “Russian” culture of ever-increasing misery and decreasing happy.
These want Lenin-Stalin-Putin 5% shapeless-form mafia-monopolist dictator regimes who provide, protect, and project misery.
The 47.5% positive happy-lovers of Russia continue to stand around.
….
Section 5:
“In both Estonia and Latvia, approximately one in four people are ethnically Russian and in Lithuania it is six percent.”
It’s estimated 17% of Americans have German ancestry (personally Riedesel, Schneider and more), we don’t have any desire for Germany to invade the U.S. and save us.
…
“That Moldova plain can also be thought of as a flat corridor into Russia.”
The West has no intention of militarily invading Russia, with worldwide free markets doesn’t matter what geographical area goods come from, this is only an excuse for Putin-Russian territory expansion.
…
“Modern Transnistria is now at least 50 percent Russian or Ukrainian speaking, and that part of the population is pro-Russian.”
Actually only about 50 percent of that part of the population are pro-Russian.
…
“For the first time the U.S. was named as an ‘external threat’ to Russia.”
The U.S. is not a military but rather a cultural threat.
To Putin and the bowing 47.5% who empower him too many young Russians are too increasingly tempted to turn away from enduring misery and toward assuring happy.
Russia president Putin, probably the richest person in the world, is fat and content with his results of zat misery as too are his oligarch shapeless-form mafia-monopolist buddies.
He be hiding in his dacha in the Ural Mountains and sending young Russians to die, as Ukraine President Zelensky fights in the streets with young Ukrainians.
Comments
Post a Comment