Russia has scheduled mobilizations of more than 100,000 troops, as well as unannounced exercises that move thousands of troops with almost no notice. These efforts serve as combat training for the troops and as a show of military strength to the world. They often involve units that control Russia’s nuclear arsenal, calling attention to the country’s nuclear abilities. NATO has responded by expanding its own exercises.
“The image that Russian official sources convey is that they’re preparing for large-scale interstate war,” said Johan Norberg of the Swedish Defense Research Agency. “This is not about peacekeeping or counterinsurgency.”.. “Putin is trying to provoke the United States and NATO into military action and create the appearance that they are posing a threat to Russia, in order to bolster his own popularity,” said Kimberly Marten, a professor at Barnard College and director of the United States-Russia Relations program at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute.
Three Questions About the Downed Russian Jet
As the Times noted in a survey of the candidates’ comments even before the Paris attacks, they seem to treat “no-fly” as a cue for toughness. The piece quoted Bush, when asked about the potential for a conflict with Russia, as saying, “Well, maybe Russia shouldn’t want to be in conflict with us.” Often, the talk descends to some version of a line that Chris Christie delivered last month: “My first phone call would be to Vladimir, and I’d say to him, ‘Listen, we’re enforcing this no-fly zone.’ ” But, if Vladimir shrugged, what would each of them do next? For that matter, what happens if American special-operations forces encounter Russian forces? Or a Russian pilot is held by rebels America supports?
Putin’s politics of uncertainty: how the Kremlin raised the stakes
Earlier this year, observers declared that the Kremlin would have to suddenly change the agenda in order to find a way out from the conflict in Ukraine. This is exactly what he’s done in Syria.
.. We often see figures on the differing resources of the US and Russia, the consequences of falling oil prices and sanctions on the Russian economy. Putin, it seems, doesn’t have the resources to continue raising the stakes. But while this assertion is correct, the timeline is unclear—perhaps seven or ten years of economic sanctions will lead to catastrophic economic collapse in Russia. You can achieve a lot in that time.
.. In 2015, the Kremlin put the word ‘partners’ to one side. Now it uses the word ironically: ‘so-called partners’. Six or seven years has passed since Putin’s 2007 speech in Munich and Dmitry Medvedev’s announcement of a new contract for collective security in Europe in 2009—this was the last time the Kremlin called western leaders partners.
Now the Kremlin is saying the following: the collective security issue and a second Helsinki Pact are off the table. You didn’t agree back then, and now we’re raising the stakes. You’ll have to evacuate not only the train stations in Paris and Brussels, but Prague too.
Instead, there’s a terrible suspicion in the air: hybrid warfare—no matter who conducts it, or where—is profitable for the Kremlin. Russia is a far different source of power today than it was in September 2001.
Looking at the Kremlin’s tactics, many people see signs of the anti-liberal, revanchist rhetoric of 1930s Europe, the provocative actions characteristic of Mussolini and Hitler. And they’re right: the Kremlin is playing the ‘politics of increasing uncertainty’. Moreover, it’s playing this game whilst democracy is in crisis, and millions are on Putin’s side.
Putin’s tactics may be brilliant’ ‘Meduza’ interviews Celeste Wallander, one of Barack Obama’s top advisors on Russia
Meduza‘s own Konstantin Benyumov recently met with Celeste Wallander, the US National Security Council’s senior director for Russia and Eurasia, to discuss the goals and effectiveness of Russia’s actions in Syria, as well as the general state of affairs between the Kremlin and the White House.
.. What Russia has chosen to begin and execute in Syria did not take us completely by surprise. Uninformed commentators often claim that the United States was taken by surprise. That analysis is wrong. Sometimes you just have to listen very carefully to what President Putin says. He pretty clearly laid out what he was going to do in Syria. He gave a speech in Dushanbe [Tajikistan], and laid it out quite clearly that Russia saw—that he saw—the need for Russia to intervene to save the Assad regime. And that’s how he frames the Syria crisis, in terms of saving the Assad regime: stability and preventing color revolution, and preventing regime change. You just need to pay attention sometimes to what he says.