US, NATO and EU talks with Russia that can pave the way and in negotiations, is a positive development. It reduces the tension between the two sides and the chances for unpleasant “surprises”. Both the West and Russia start talks from completely different geopolitical starting points. The US and NATO sides – and to some extent the EU – are prioritizing Russia’s aggressive policy towards Ukraine.
The issue of Ukraine
Russia, for its part, in the face of Ukraine’s pro-European turn in 2014, reacted in an extremely dynamic way. It annexed Crimea and strengthened Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbass industrial zone on Ukraine’s border with Russia.
This initiative of Russia caused the haircut of Ukraine. That is,
1. Crimea annexed to Russia,
2. Τhe eastern industrial region of Ukraine became autonomous
3. Αnd the rest of Ukraine became the scene of fierce political and geopolitical controversy.
Russia is pursuing a methodical strategy of weakening Ukraine. It has linked major infrastructure projects on the Crimean peninsula to Russia, and has already distributed 600,000 Russian passports to Russian-speaking Donbass separatists seeking a better future in Russia.
Utilizing its influence on powerful Ukrainian oligarchs but also among Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine, Moscow is trying to impose on Ukraine the doctrine of a country of limited sovereignty.
US, NATO and EU They react to Vladimir Putin’s plans, but their determination is limited by various factors. Ukraine has one of the most corrupt regimes, with the oligarchs plundering the economy and specializing in double and triple play.
US and EU often disagree on the assessment of the Russian threat and how to react to it. In addition, in the EU of the “27” there is no common understanding of the strategy to be followed in the issue of Ukraine.
The “Ghost” of the Surrounded USSR
The Americans and Europeans are trying to impose a more constructive approach to Russia on the issue of Ukraine, but Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, reacts by projecting his own strategic priorities and including the issue of Ukraine in the wider issue of US strategic rivalry. .Ε. and Russia.
In Putin’s view, Russia is threatened by the West’s strategy of encirclement. His concerns are well-founded, judging by what happened in World War II and what followed the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago.
Russian public opinion is particularly sensitive to issues of foreign intervention and the threat of national sovereignty.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, fifteen independent states were created overnight, and more than 25,000,000 Russians found themselves living in foreign countries, including 8,000,000 in Ukraine.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union took place on the initiative of the then President of Russia, Yeltsin, and was aimed at the disappearance from political life of his opponent, the President of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union could not maintain its form, but its dissolution could be organized and leave less to be desired.
The Yeltsin period was a period of national humiliation for Russia. The centrally controlled economy collapsed. Large-scale privatizations turned into looting of public enterprises and organizations by oligarchs who sprang from the structures of the communist regime. Separatist movements intensified, with the most threatening one developing in Chechnya. Yeltsin, with his family rule, wickedness and alcoholism, became a symbol of Russia’s national decline and international degradation.
The West did not have a strategic quality plan for post-communist Russia. He was completely satisfied with the disintegration that was observed and took advantage of the fall of Russia from the level of the superpower in any way he could.
The declining Yeltsin era somehow paved the way for the political rise of Vladimir Putin, a determined member of the party nomenclature and the KGB who effectively played the role of the national rallying point and reclaiming Russian greatness.
For domestic political reasons, Putin is pushing his arguments to the limit. While it is clear that Western powers should have treated post-communist Russia with greater respect as part of a long-term strategy of gradual convergence, Vladimir Putin goes so far as to say that a draft strategy of encircling Russia is under way that could threaten its very existence.
With the arguments he develops, he unites a large part of the Russian public opinion towards the foreign enemy. Thus, he avoids giving explanations to Russian citizens about the economic stagnation and the pressure on the real income of the workers, the domination of friendly oligarchs, the corruption of the regime, the social inequalities, the lack of basic infrastructure projects.
Russia believes that NATO and the West in general should limit themselves to Russia in the situation it was in 1997. Since then, fourteen countries have joined NATO, eleven of which are also members of the EU. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Albania, Montenegro and Northern Macedonia.
Russia’s maximalist position to return Western influence to 1997 is, of course, unrealistic. However, it aims at NATO’s commitment to non-enlargement to Ukraine and to prevent other moves that could limit Russia’s geopolitical sphere of influence, such as the democratization of Belarus and its shift to the EU.
NATO’s official response is that it does not negotiate its open door policy and that Ukraine, like other sovereign countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, has the right to choose its own path to the future.
The Strategy of Vladimir Putin
It is without a doubt a great historical success that the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, was achieved without bloodshed. However, the outstanding issues left behind by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in the way it was done, are important and we find them from Kazakhstan to Belarus.
In the perception of Russian President Vladimir Putin, in addition to the threat of siege, there is also the associated threat of regime change.
At every opportunity he denounces the “colorful revolutions” in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, in any country that was part of the Soviet Union and Russia still has great influence.
It is noteworthy that the popular uprising in Kazakhstan, a country in Central Asia five times the size of France, with enormous mineral wealth, was attributed by its leadership to foreign agents and Islamist terrorists. The intervention of the Russian troops was requested by the leader of Kazakhstan, Tokayev, within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In addition to Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia and Belarus are members of this organization, which was established in 2002. Vladimir Putin sent select Russian troops to Kazakhstan.
In Kazakhstan, the Russian leadership applied the same method followed in Belarus. He said the popular uprising against Lukashenko could be a testament to the regime in Russia. And while in Belarus there is a basis for a “colorful revolution” in Ukrainian standards, if Belarusians envision a European future, in Kazakhstan the situation is completely different. The US strategic influence in Kazakhstan after the withdrawal from Afghanistan is almost zero, as in the case of the EU.
Vladimir Putin is annoyed by any questioning of corrupt regimes such as Lukashenko and Nazarbayev, on the grounds that he could create political momentum against the regime in Russia.
The current leader of Kazakhstan, Tokayev, succeeded Nursultan Nazarbayev, who controlled Kazakhstan throughout the post-communist period, as did Lukashenko and Belarus. Health reasons forced Nazarbayev to hand over power to Tokayev’s confidant, but kept the country’s wealth-producing resources under the control of his large family.
Tokayev initially blamed the riots on “foreign agents and Islamist terrorists.” But after the effective intervention of the Russian troops and the bloody suppression of the popular uprising by forces loyal to him, Tokayev told the bitter truth: “Because of the first president, a caste of very profitable companies, very rich people, even by international standards, appeared in the country. “I think the time has come for them to pay what they owe to the people of Kazakhstan.” He then referred, in order to avoid misinterpretation, to the daughters, sons-in-law and grandchildren of Nazarbayev, the absolute ruler of the country until 2018.
It is worth noting that Kazakhstan, like Belarus, pursues a policy based largely on nationalism and the autonomy of the ruling elite from Russia. Mr Lukashenko had organized his own financial exposures to the EU. in exchange for Russian influence, while Nazarbayev had also developed strategic cooperation with the United States, Turkey and Italy, and attached special importance to relations with China.
However, when the structures of the regime in Belarus and Kazakhstan began to be challenged, the similar regime in Russia hastened to help stabilize the situation, considering that a wider destabilization of such regimes also threatens its own interests.
The problems between the West and Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin has managed to re-establish Russia as a major military power that behaves, due to its nuclear arsenal and geopolitical influence in countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, as a superpower.
Overall, however, Russia’s capabilities are quite limited. He does not have the financial means to claim the role of a superpower again. Unlike China, its economy is not competitive and the ruling class is not creative and efficient.
The Russian economy relies heavily on energy wealth, and the regime-linked oligarchs are hoarding without being able to contribute to the overall development of the economy.
Despite the great weaknesses of the Russian regime, this is not going to receive much pressure from the US, NATO and the EU.
A large list of contradictions and differences stands in the way of developing and implementing an effective US, NATO and EU strategy. against Russia. Therefore, the Western encirclement of Russia and the attempt to change the regime have more to do with the fears and propaganda of Putin and his associates than with the international political reality.
1. Ιt is not certain that the United States seeks equal cooperation with Europeans vis-.-Vis Russia. They were “emptied” with the express withdrawal from Afghanistan, they were “emptied” in the Indo-Pacific with the agreement on Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines and they do not seem ready to accept the parity of the Europeans in the formulation and implementation of a common strategy against Russia. Most likely, priority will be given to direct consultation between the US and Russia.
2. Τhe Europeans are claiming parity in words, but they are avoiding the relevant commitments within NATO. It is characteristic that important countries, such as Germany, avoid increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP, as committed to NATO. In addition, Germany and France do not show US NATO zeal in the Ukraine issue. They have paid dearly for the corruption and double game of Ukraine’s political system and the oligarchs it breeds. They are not prepared to take any additional risk with Russia to promote Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Even Ukraine’s European course seems to have frozen because of the extent of corruption, regardless of who is in power.
3. Germany and France do not have a common approach to the issue of relations with Russia. France is seeking a strategic opening towards Russia, provided, of course, that Putin contributes to creating the right climate. The French are influenced by de Gaulle’s view of a Europe of peoples, from the Atlantic to the Urals. The Germans are more careful in their political positions, because they are more interested in the American umbrella of protection. However, they are more daring in their economic initiatives and in the development of energy cooperation with Russia, as shown by the completion of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
The Russians specialize in exploiting the differences between their European partners, while they do not hesitate to exploit former protagonists of politics. Former French Conservative Prime Minister Figion recently met with former German Social Democrat Chancellor Schroeder and former Austrian Conservative Chancellor Seussel on the boards of Russia’s energy giants.
4. Ιt exists within the EU. a group of countries – Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia – which, due to their historical experience with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, are in favor of an uncompromising attitude towards Russia. They reject any idea of EU autonomy. against the US in matters of defense and strategy. They give top priority to maintaining and strengthening US defense and security guarantees vis-.-Vis Russia. The choices of these four countries make it even more difficult to develop and implement a common strategy. It is no coincidence that Moscow is raising the bar of criticism against them and making demands on them, in order to make reconciliation between European partners even more difficult.
US, NATO and EU are called upon to solve the Russian crossword puzzle despite significant differences in priorities, interests and in the analysis of the situation and perspective.
Russia is again an important international player. It may not be a superpower like the Soviet Union, the US and the EU. but they need to negotiate – if conditions allow – and work with it, at a time when they see China as a key competitor and a strong strategic adversary.
