War in Ukraine - part 2/4

RUSSIA’S WAR OBJECTIVES: MYSTERIOUS – RUSSIA’S STRATEGY: BAFFLING.

(DE April/May 2022). There should be a rude awakening for the Russian government or, to be more precise, for Russian President Putin. This war does not seem to be going as planned. At least, that’s what is being reported in the European media.

However, I wanted to understand Russia’s objectives and examine its statements. So, I tried to analyse Putin’s speech on Russian television because reading what the man himself has to say may shed light on the objectives of this war or special operation.

Contents of President Putin’s TV speech on the eve of the invasion

This half-hour speech on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was published online in German by almost all major newspapers, magazines and broadcasters.

A link to the website of “Zeit-online”: Excerpts of President Putin’s speech: https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/wladimir-putin-rede-militaereinsatz-ukraine-wortlaut

The press calls this speech a “declaration of war” because Western states call the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army war of aggression. In contrast, Russian media, politicians and the military must call the invasion and the attack a “special operation”.

But what explicit concerns does Putin express in his speech?

On par with the USA

This speech focuses on the Western alliances’ disregard for Russian security interests, especially the US-dominated NATO. According to Putin, Russia has been striving for security standards in Europe for 30 years but has been treated disrespectfully. Its concerns have been ignored. The USA would abuse Russia’s weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union, would lie and impose its interests everywhere in the world, even with violence and terror.

Putin recalls the broken promise of the Western powers not to pursue an eastward expansion of NATO but also emphasises Russia’s military regaining strength, including as a nuclear power. (Summarised)

According to Zeit-online, he literally says: “…today one of the most powerful nuclear powers in the world and also has certain advantages in several state-of-the-art weapons systems. There should therefore be no doubt that a direct attack on our country would lead to defeat and dire consequences for any potential aggressor (…)”.

So, in my eyes, it is about showing strength, demanding respect, preventing an attack and being perceived as a military opponent on an equal footing.

The “state-of-the-art weapons system”, as referred to in his speech, probably refers to the hypersonic missiles presented by Putin in 2018. These can be armed with nuclear warheads, are manoeuvrable at high speed and have a range of 2,000 kilometres.

The NATO powers have not yet developed corresponding defence capabilities and fear this weapon very much.

But what does this have to do with the attack on Ukraine?

To what extent does the hypersonic missile bring a strategic advantage in the fight against the USA on Ukrainian territory?

Did an advantage come into play in the course of the war year?

Mentioning his weapons system, this threatening gesture raises even more questions for which I don’t have an answer for now.

Who is threatening Russia, or whom is Russia threatening?

Putin also addresses in his speech a particular threat.

He speaks of “adjacent territories” that are “their own historical territories” but are being built up and controlled from the outside as “hostile anti-Russia”. He claims that these territories are “intensely populated” by the armed forces of NATO countries and equipped with the latest weapons.

Now it is a question of how to interpret these words.

He speaks of territories, i.e. in the plural, not only of Ukraine. He speaks of NATO forces in these areas and massive armament.

The Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, are indeed NATO members, anti-Russian, keen to have arms and can’t get enough of them.

Ukraine, against its will, is not a NATO member, has become increasingly anti-Russian in recent years and is ready for military cooperation with NATO.

Thinking of the Soviet Union’s territory, the term “own historical territories” could mean the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova.

However, Russia’s historical ties with Kievan Rus go back centuries. This historical identification of Ukraine and Russia is worthy of a dispute between historians but is not a reason for war. However, if one looks around the world, for example, in the Middle East, the problem no longer sounds absurd.

There is some scope for interpretation of the term “territories”.

Does he mean the territories in the Donbas, Luhansk and Donetsk, and Transnistria in the Republic of Moldova that split off and are leaning towards Russia? In any case, the People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine are indeed Russian-speaking and pro-Russian. Ukraine has been fighting them as separatists for eight years.

Or does he mean that the neighbouring Baltic states are also under attack? Unlike the separatist areas, these states are NATO members. They feel threatened, and NATO is currently pumping even more weapons and soldiers into the region.

This situation potentially creates the danger of a world war because if NATO members were attacked, an alliance case would be declared.

The reason for the attack on Ukraine

All these considerations are speculation for the time being. Russia attacked Ukraine, and the Russian president is explicit about this:

Denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine and the overthrow of its fascist regime serve to prevent the genocide in the Donbas that has been going on for eight years and to protect the independent people’s republics of Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas and Crimea.

According to the translation, President Putin does not want to occupy the whole of Ukraine.

Looking at the course of the war so far, this is consistent with his stated objective.

The capture of Kyiv was intended to enable the overthrow of Selensky’s government. Since no counter-candidate had been built up, the military was probably supposed to take over administrative tasks on behalf of the Kremlin and prevent all military operations in the east and south.

However, this goal was not achieved. The Russian troops had to leave unsuccessfully at the beginning of April 2022. But they did not go towards the homeland but to the east. As he had already announced in his speech, his priorities are the people’s republics and Russian interests. So perhaps the attack on Kyiv was a wartime ploy to distract Ukrainian troops and assemble them in the wrong place, as a former NATO general suspects.

The fact that the war in May 2022 will extend exclusively to the country’s east, the Donbas, Mariupol and possibly as far as Odesa also matches the expressed objective.

You only have to listen to him if you want to know what he is up to.

Possible Russian objectives and strategies – an attempt to explain

For me, it is clear that Russia’s president considers Ukraine dangerous because it aspires to join the EU and NATO and maintains close relations with US President Joe Biden.

This alliance, combined with steadily growing hostility towards Russia and propagandistically built-up nationalism, is extremely worrying from Russia’s point of view and, therefore, unacceptable. (Besides, similar developments are also taking place in Russia).

The support and recognition of the People’s Republics and the annexation of Crimea were like getting a foot in the door of Ukraine.

Russia and Ukraine were and are closely linked. Not long ago, both peoples felt like brothers. Hostilities, threats and betrayals among brothers do not only hurt more; they also evoke existential fears. Combating these fears could be one of Russia’s motives.

A possible specific goal could be Ukraine’s massive destabilisation or destruction.

Destabilisation and destruction would make Ukraine a poor house, unattractive for NATO and the EU. It would also slow down the Baltic states’ devotion to the West. Poland would not get off unscathed, either. The continuing and gigantic flow of refugees from Ukraine will destabilise this country sooner or later. The attempt in 2021 to deliberately flood Poland with refugees via Belarus failed. Instead, Poland had erected barbed-wire fences and took strict action against refugees.

But the Ukrainians are neighbours, and not even Poland is prepared to act inhumanely. At least in the early days!

A potential goal often discussed at the beginning of the war is the division of Ukraine into the Europe-oriented Ukraine in the West, Russian-oriented Ukraine in the east and the south at the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.

This scenario seems unlikely, as massive resistance would have to be expected. Ukraine and NATO, the EU and the USA would not see any advantage in this compromise and would eye the presence of the Russian fleet suspiciously. Having its eye on Ukraine to build its Silk Road with a hub in Kyiv, China would not be happy with such a tense situation.

Could the neutrality of the whole of Ukraine be the goal of the Russian invasion?

Possibly! The following strategy could be behind it:

The world will get used to the war in Ukraine the same way it got used to the war in Syria, Afghanistan or the war-like situation in the Middle East or Myanmar. Every country in the world will have to deal with a host of its own problems because of this war, the climate crisis, the effects of pandemics and the like. These will come to the fore one day in the not-too-distant future.

And after a while, the world will no longer know why there is a war in Ukraine.

-The world will remember that it only came to know this country through the war and had no deeper relationships before.

-The world will ponder why they sent money, weapons, and aid to this country for years.

-The world will wonder why this country is not simply neutral like Switzerland.

-The world will want peace at any price.

-The world will push for peace negotiations, and the interests of all parties, including Russia, will be taken into account.

There will also be those interested in the reconstruction of devastated Ukraine.

I am thinking in particular of China, which has already made other countries dependent on its credit programmes and infrastructure projects. It will be easy for China to outdo the USA, which also likes to earn money from the reconstruction. Nobody knows who will govern the USA in a few years and which priorities and affinities will have priority. China knows, and it also knows its goal, namely the expansion of the new Silk Road through Ukraine and the massive expansion of its sphere of influence.

However, a long war would also be a severe economic, political and social burden for Russia. One only has to consider the effects of the war in Afghanistan.

Let us conclude by looking at the “classics” among the reasons for war and its objectives!

Russia’s obsolete Soviet-era weapons stockpile is disposed of by war, and modern re-armament will be necessary. Whether from its own production or through imports from China or other states that do not join in the outlawing of Russia or know how to circumvent it, remains to be seen. In any case, the arms industry is a wealthy enterprise.

A defensive war, as the Ukraine war is perceived in Russia, unifies society, makes it easy to manipulate its people and has a stabilising effect for some time. The government is firmly in control, at least at the beginning.

Behind President Putin, grey eminences from the economy (oligarchs) and the military may have more influence than the West believes. This is, of course, speculation because there is no information available.

But perhaps it is a mistake that the whole world has focused solely on Putin as a person! (TA)