Friday, September 13, 2024

 

Putin Is Preparing a Long War Against the West

Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics, and Putin used a lengthy article published on the Kremlin website to explain why he believed Russia's southern neighbour and its people were an integral part of Russian history and culture.

  
3 mins read
 
Vladimir Putin attends an inauguration ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, May 7, 2024. Russia will overcome all obstacles and achieve its goals in development, Vladimir Putin said Tuesday when he was sworn in as Russian president. (Xinhua/Cao Yang)

NEGOTIATIONS WERE UNDERWAY TO END THE WAR IN UKRAINE THROUGH A SUMMIT BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT AND UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT

The German daily Die Welt has just revealed the existence of a 17-page peace agreement that could have ended the war in Ukraine just weeks after Russia began its invasion. Negotiators from both sides had worked hard on the agreement between February and April 2022, and the original version of this special document has now been made available to the German media. “In March 2022, only a few conditions were missing for the resolution of the conflict, which was to be ‘negotiated by Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky at a summit meeting – which never took place’.”

RUSSIA INSISTED UKRAINE RENOUNCE ALL MILITARY ALLIANCES, INCLUDING NATO MEMBERSHIP

Die Welt reports the conditions issued by Moscow to Kiev: the renunciation of all military alliances, including its membership in NATO, the adoption of permanent neutrality, “partial demilitarisation, the reduction of Kiev’s ground army to 85,000 soldiers instead of one million, and the maintenance of Russian troops in Crimea, annexed since 2014.” What could Ukraine expect in return? Its right to self-defence. “In the event of an armed attack against Ukraine, the guarantor states would have undertaken to help Kiev exercise its right to self-defence, as guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, within a maximum period of three days.”

PUTIN’S LAMENTATION OVER THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION

In December 2021, President Vladimir Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago as the demise of what he called “historical Russia,” stating that the economic crisis which followed was so severe that he was forced to moonlight as a taxi driver. Putin’s comments, released by state TV, fuelled further speculation about his foreign policy intentions among critics, who accuse him of planning to recreate the Soviet Union and possibly attack Ukraine—claims the Kremlin dismissed as fear-mongering. “It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired as part of a documentary film titled Russia. New History, reported by the RIA state news agency. “We turned into a completely different country. What had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” Putin remarked, referring to the 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy.”

PUTIN CLAIMS UKRAINE WAS PART OF THE SOVIET REPUBLICS

Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics, and Putin used a lengthy article published on the Kremlin website to explain why he believed Russia’s southern neighbour and its people were an integral part of Russian history and culture. This view, however, is rejected by Kyiv as a politically motivated and oversimplified version of history. The West has accused Russia of massing tens of thousands of troops near Ukraine in preparation for a possible attack.

MOSCOW’S FEAR OF NATO’S EXPANSION INTO FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS

The Group of Seven wealthy democracies warned Moscow of massive consequences and severe costs if it attacked Ukraine. For Moscow, the growing NATO embrace of neighbouring former Soviet republics—and the perceived possibility of alliance missiles in Ukraine targeted against Russia—is a “red line” it will not allow to be crossed. Putin has demanded legally binding security guarantees that NATO will not expand further east or place weapons close to Russian territory. Washington, however, has repeatedly affirmed that no country can veto Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. In 2014, Russia seized the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine, prompting the West to impose sanctions on Russia. The Kremlin insisted that Russian troops posed no threat and that Moscow was being demonised for moving troops around its own territory. Putin and Biden have agreed to hold more talks.

PUTIN AND JOE BIDEN AGREE TO HOLD MORE TALKS AMID TENSIONS OVER TROOP BUILD-UP NEAR UKRAINE

According to Reuters, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Joe Biden agreed to hold more talks amid tensions over a Russian troop build-up near Ukraine. The Kremlin expressed that Putin would like to meet in person at some stage. East-West relations, which have sunk to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, remain strained by the Russian military presence near Ukraine.

CONCLUSION

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 and backed separatists who took control of a swathe of eastern Ukraine that same year and who continue to fight Ukrainian government forces. The G7 warned Moscow that further military aggression against Ukraine would result in massive consequences and severe costs in response. “We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of any sovereign state to determine its own future,” the G7 stated. A Russian Embassy statement released before the joint G7 document was reported criticised Britain’s frequent use of the phrase “Russian aggression” during the G7 meeting as misleading, claiming it was designed to rally the G7 against Russia. “Russia has made numerous offers to NATO on ways to decrease tensions. The G7 forum could be an opportunity to discuss them, but so far we hear nothing but aggressive slogans,” the embassy statement said.

 Inauguration of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia. Photo Credit: Kremlin.ru

Putin Is Preparing A Long War Against The West – OpEd

By 

The German daily Die Welt has just revealed the existence of a 17-page peace agreement that could have ended the war in Ukraine just weeks after Russia began its invasion. Negotiators from both sides had worked hard on the agreement between February and April 2022, and the original version of this special document has now been made available to the German media.  “In March 2022, only a few conditions were missing for the resolution of the conflict, which was to be ‘negotiated by Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky at a summit meeting – which never took place’”. 

Die Welt reports the conditions issued by Moscow to Kiev: the renunciation of all military alliances, including its membership in NATO, the adoption of permanent neutrality, “partial demilitarization, the reduction of Kiev’s ground army to 85,000 soldiers instead of one million, the maintenance of Russian troops in Crimea annexed since 2014…” What could Ukraine expect in return? Its right to self-defense. “In the event of an armed attack against Ukraine, the guarantor states would have undertaken to help Kiev exercise its right to self-defense, as guaranteed by the United Nations Charter, within a maximum period of three days,” The German daily Die Welt has just revealed the existence of a peace agreement that could have ended the war in Ukraine just weeks after Russia began its invasion.  Negotiators from both sides had worked hard on the agreement between February and April 2022, and the original version of this special document has now been made available to the German media. 

Putin rues Soviet collapse as demise of ‘historical Russia. December 2021. President Vladimir Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago as the demise of what he called “historical Russia” and said the economic crisis that followed was so bad he was forced to moonlight as a taxi driver. Putin’s comments, released by state TV on Sunday, are likely to further fuel speculation about his foreign policy intentions among critics, who accuse him of planning to recreate the Soviet Union and of contemplating an attack on Ukraine, a notion the Kremlin has dismissed as fear-mongering.  “It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called “Russia. New History”, the RIA state news agency reported. 

“We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy”.  Putin also described for the first time how he was affected personally by the tough economic times that followed the Soviet collapse, when Russia suffered double-digit inflation.  Putin, who served in the Soviet-era KGB, has previously called the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was ruled from Moscow, as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, but his new comments show how he viewed it specifically as a setback for Russian power. 

Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics and Putin used a lengthy article published on the Kremlin website this year to set out why he believed Russia’s southern neighbor and its people were an integral part of Russian history and culture. This view is rejected by Kyiv as a politically motivated and over-simplified version of history. The West has accused Russia of massing tens of thousands of troops near Ukraine in preparation for a possible attack as soon as January.

The Group of Seven wealthy democracies warned Moscow of massive consequences and severe costs if it attacked Ukraine.  For Moscow, the growing NATO embrace of a neighboring former Soviet republic – and what it sees as the nightmare possibility of alliance missiles in Ukraine targeted against Russia – is a “red line” it will not allow to be crossed. Putin has demanded legally binding security guarantees that NATO will not expand further east or place its weapons close to Russian territory; Washington has repeatedly said no country can veto Ukraine’s NATO hopes.  In 2014 Russia seized the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea from Ukraine, prompting the West to impose sanctions on Russia.  The Kremlin on Sunday said that Putin told U.S. President Joe Biden that Russian troops posed no threat and that Moscow was being demonized for moving troops around its own territory. Putin and Biden have agreed to hold more talks. 

According to Reuters Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden agreed to hold more talks amid tensions over a Russian troop build-up near Ukraine. The Kremlin said Putin would like to meet in person at some stage too. In December 2021 Putin and Biden agreed to hold more talks despite disagreements.  Russian President Vladimir Putin and his U.S. counterpart Joe Biden have agreed to hold more talks amid tensions over a Russian troop build-up near Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Sunday, and Putin would like to meet in person at some stage too.   The Kremlin said Putin and Biden had agreed to hold more talks during a video call which focused on East-West relations, which have sunk to their lowest level since the end of the Cold War and are currently strained by the Russian troop build-up near Ukraine.  

Russian President Vladimir Putin had described the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 as the demise of “historical Russia,” a comment that could fuel speculation about his foreign policy intentions amid a buildup of tens of thousands of Russian troops in regions bordering Ukraine. “It was the disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union while speaking in a documentary film called Russia. Recent History that aired on state television on December 12 2021. “It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called “Russia. New History”, the RIA state news agency reported.  “We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy”.  Putin, who served in the Soviet-era KGB, has previously called the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was ruled from Moscow, as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, but his new comments show how he viewed it specifically as a setback for Russian power.   Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics and Putin used a lengthy article published on the Kremlin website this year to set out why he believed Russia’s southern neighbor and its people were an integral part of Russian history and culture. 

This view is rejected by Kyiv as a politically motivated and over-simplified version of history.  The West has accused Russia of massing tens of thousands of troops near Ukraine in preparation for a possible attack. The Group of Seven wealthy democracies warned Moscow on Sunday of massive consequences and severe costs if it attacked Ukraine. The Kremlin said Russia had no plans to launch a fresh attack on Ukraine and that the West appeared to have convinced itself of Moscow’s aggressive intentions based on what it called false Western media stories.  Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 and backed separatists who took control of a swath of eastern Ukraine that same year and who continue to fight Ukrainian government forces.  The G7 said in a statement that “Russia should be in no doubt that further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe cost in response.   “We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of any sovereign state to determine its own future.”   A statement released by the Russian Embassy in London before the joint G7 document was reported, said that Britain’s frequent use of the phrase “Russian aggression” was misleading and designed to create a cause for the G7 to rally round.  “Russia has made numerous offers to NATO on ways to decrease tensions. The G7 forum could be an opportunity to discuss them, but so far we hear nothing but aggressive slogans,” the embassy statement said. 

 President Vladimir Putin has lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union three decades ago as the demise of what he called “historical Russia” and said the economic crisis that followed was so bad he was forced to moonlight as a taxi driver.  Putin’s comments, further fueled speculation about his foreign policy intentions among critics, who accuse him of planning to recreate the Soviet Union and of contemplating an attack on Ukraine, a notion the Kremlin dismissed as fear-mongering. “It was a disintegration of historical Russia under the name of the Soviet Union,” Putin said of the 1991 breakup, in comments aired on Sunday as part of a documentary film called “Russia. New History,” the RIA state news agency reported.  “We turned into a completely different country. And what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost,” said Putin, saying 25 million Russian people in newly independent countries suddenly found themselves cut off from Russia, part of what he called “a major humanitarian tragedy.”  Putin also described for the first time how he was affected personally by the tough economic times that followed the Soviet collapse, when Russia suffered double-digit inflation.  Putin, who served in the Soviet-era KGB, has previously called the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was ruled from Moscow, as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, but his new comments show how he viewed it specifically as a setback for Russian power.  

Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics and Putin used a lengthy article published on the Kremlin website this year to set out why he believed Russia’s southern neighbor and its people were an integral part of Russian history and culture. This view is rejected by Kyiv as a politically motivated and over-simplified version of history. The West has accused Russia of massing 175,000 troops near Ukraine in preparation for a possible attack as soon as January. The G7 warned Moscow of massive consequences and severe costs if it attacked Ukraine. Moscow said the expansion of NATO threatens Russia and has contravened assurances given to it as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.    The Kremlin has said Russia has no plans to launch a fresh attack on Ukraine and that the West appears to have convinced itself of Moscow’s aggressive intentions based on what it calls false Western media stories.

CONCLUSION 

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 and has backed separatists who took control of a swath of eastern Ukraine that same year and who continue to fight Ukrainian government forces.   The G7 said in a statement that “Russia should be in no doubt that further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe cost in response.   “We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the right of any sovereign state to determine its own future.”   A statement released by the Russian Embassy in London before the joint G7 document was reported, said that Britain’s frequent use of the phrase “Russian aggression” during the G7 meeting was misleading and designed to create a cause for the G7 to rally round.   “Russia has made numerous offers to NATO on ways to decrease tensions. The G7 forum could be an opportunity to discuss them, but so far we hear nothing but aggressive slogans,” the embassy statement said.  

 Indian navy submarine INS Arihant. Photo by Chanakyathegreat, Wikimedia Commons.

India Is Far Behind China In Naval Power- OpEd

By 

India’s two frigates are central to the country’s ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, sea and air. India’s recent launch of its second nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine may have boosted its deterrence capabilities, but analysts say the country has a long way to go in closing the gap on China’s naval power.  

Defense Minister Rajnath Singh expressed confidence that the new submarine would fortify India’s nuclear deterrence and play a decisive role in national security.  The submarine’s introduction was timely, according to former chief of India’s naval staff Admiral Arun Prakash, amid challenges posed by the country’s two nuclear-armed neighbors: Pakistan and China.  He highlighted the stark contrasts in nuclear policies among these nations. “India’s 2003 doctrine states that it will not be the first to use a nuclear weapon ever whereas Pakistan has made no such commitment and it keeps threatening it would use nuclear weapons when required,” he told This Week in Asia. “China also adopts the ‘no first use’ policy but its intentions are not clear.”

In an article another analyst opined that the growing China-Pakistan nexus raises the threat to India. Their strategic and territorial interests have been cemented by the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). With the flow of Chinese military power into Pakistan, China veritably straddles India, with its armed forces present on India’s  northern, eastern and western borders. This not only raises the real specter of a ‘two-front’ war, but positions China to play a role in Kashmir and the region. The only other country with which China has a special category of strategic partnership is Russia. 

Since 2015, the CPEC has brought China and Pakistan even closer. It was the first leg of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to get operationalized, knitting their economic development and fusing their military capabilities. In this context, the remark made privately in late 2015 by a Chinese academic and expert, who is often called to brief the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s Politburo on Pakistan and Afghanistan affairs, is especially relevant. His remarks give an insight into Beijing’s view of the relationship. Asked what Beijing hopes to gain from the CPEC considering that Pakistan is not in sound financial condition, he replied: “You know, till now we have been purchasing the Pakistanis. Now, we are going to buy Pakistan!

Later, in another private discussion about China’s internal situation and the pressure being exerted by the United States, a senior Chinese cadre confided that as long as Xi Jinping is China’s ‘leader’ the BRI will remain a priority for the country. Since April 2015, when the CPEC was announced, China’s animus towards India has increased. The newfound assertiveness of Xi Jinping’s foreign policy has meant that China’s earlier practice of ‘managing’ contentious issues, or setting them aside for being dealt with later, has been discarded in favor of a more direct and aggressive approach. This assertiveness is becoming more apparent as China’s comprehensive national strength grows. 

From the onset of Sino-US tensions in 2018, China has visibly become more confident and willing to confront the United States in pursuit of its national agenda. Xi Jinping’s calls for “rejuvenation of the great Chinese nation” and advocacy of the concept of ‘a common destiny for mankind’ as well as the ‘Chinese model of governance’, especially in the midst of the Covid pandemic, are almost reminiscent of Mao’s policy of exporting revolution! 

The ‘Rejuvenation of the great Chinese nation’ impacts India more directly than is commonly understood. It essentially means “the recovery of territories that China feels it has lost through the imposition of unequal treaties by hostile foreign powers”. China’s constant refrain while commenting on the border issue — that it is a colonial legacy left behind by history — flows from this narrative. For India, the implication is that China is negotiating to ‘recover’ Indian territories that it claims namely, Aksai Chin, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. The issue of ‘stapled visas’ to residents of Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh despite India’s protests reinforces this. As its national strength grows, China is becoming more aggressive on the border issue, indicating that these are areas of potential conflict. Had India been alert to this, China’s military aggression and the pressure it has put on India since May 2020 could have been thwarted. 

At China’s 18th and 19th Party Congresses in 2012 and 2017, Xi Jinping announced ambitious goals for his country. His declaration that by 2025, China would enter the ranks of the world’s most technologically advanced nations and by 2049 it would be “a power with pioneering global influence” put the United States on alert that it plans to rival, if not surpass, the world’s leading power! The US reaction was swift. It specifically targeted China’s technology sector, setting it back by at least 5 years. Some senior Chinese cadres said in confidence that it would have been better had Xi Jinping not made these declarations publicly. Despite mounting US pressure on multiple fronts, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remain undeterred. Successive nationwide campaigns have been launched to infuse the people with nationalism, reinforce party ideology and self-confidence and ensure the CCP’s monopoly on power. 

It is clear that China’s ambitions far outweigh those of Pakistan. Pakistan’s interests are comparatively narrow. The Pakistan army unequivocally supports the CPEC, indicating its close collaboration with China’s security and military establishments, which is why the opposition has been unable to dent it. It is because of the Pakistan Army’s direct support to CPEC, most of whose projects are located in the Pakistani heartland where the more conservative elements of its Islamic society reside, that friction has been contained. Little enclaves of Chinese workers whose consumption of pork, alcohol and other proclivities go against the tenets of Islam are a constant source of tension. Video clips and reports of clashes between the two have been suppressed; but resentment lingers. China clearly sets the agenda. It probably views Pakistan as a junior partner, but certainly one that is important enough for its strategic ambitions to make huge investments and secure its enduring influence. As China’s strategic and financial investments in Pakistan have grown, so too has its influence and interest in the country. Having staked his personal prestige on the BRI and CPEC, Xi Jinping will not allow Pakistan to sink beyond a point. China and Pakistan both share a common objective: to prevent India’s rise. 

A paper published in October 2020 by the  head of  the South Asia Affairs Department of the Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR)  is revealing. This unusually frank appraisal of Sino-India relations appeared in CICIR’s official publication and was soon followed up in mid-December by another article in the CCP-owned Global Times. Both articles certainly had high-level official approval. CCIR stated that ever since China got ‘liberated’ and India became independent, a military showdown between the two was inevitable. It opined that India’s rising international status since 2014 was a major contributory factor for the present crisis and anticipated an uneasy and tense period ahead in Sino-India relations with occasional, even major, clashes between the armed forces — including exchanges of fire — till they reach their respective ‘red lines’ and settle on a Line of Actual Control (LAC).

CCIR expected that India would attempt to frustrate China’s rise, including by disrupting groupings like the SCO and BRICS from within. Since April 2015, when Xi Jinping announced the CPEC in Islamabad, there has been a pronounced shift in China’s policy towards India. This is particularly evident on the issue of J&K, on which Beijing had maintained ambiguity for decades. By pursuing the CPEC and making enormous investments in it, China ignored India’s sovereignty claims on Pakistan occupied Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan and the Shaksgam Valley and accorded de facto acknowledgement to Pakistan’s claim over these territories. 

In a bid to secure its military and strategic interests Beijing began urging India at official and unofficial meetings, including with opinion-makers and think-tanks, that it should ‘ease tensions with Pakistan, resume talks with Pakistan, resolve the Kashmir issue and then look to improving ties with China’. This stance has persisted. After India revoked Article 370 in August, 2019, China raised the issue in the UNSC on three occasions and could well do so again, indicating its willingness to strain ties with India. That China is prepared to intervene militarily if it perceives a threat to the CPEC or its assets became clear in 2016, with the establishment of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s Western Theatre Command, as part of the restructuring and reorganization of its army. The operational tasks allotted to it are significant. They include “protecting China’s borders, eliminating threats in Xinjiang and Tibet, as well as in Afghanistan and other states that host training bases for separatists and extremists and protecting the Chinese workers and assets of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor”. The Western Theatre Command is a very real and potent threat for India. 

The uninterrupted pace of development of the Gwadar port, after China was granted “sovereign rights”, highlights its importance to China. China has an electronic eavesdropping station near Gwadar to monitor naval and shipping activities in the Arabian Sea as far as the Gulf of Aden. China’s military media already refer to Gwadar port as a “logistics base” and Karachi as a “naval base”! China’s Naval Base at Djibouti elevates the maritime threat. Plans also provide for linking the Punjab Railway with the South Xinjiang railway, providing seamless military transport capability supplemented by the proposed railway line and highway from Karakoram to Gwadar. The Intelligence establishments of China and Pakistan have developed very close ties over the decades. This was observed during the clandestine flights in connection with the nuclear technology-for-missiles deal between North Korea and Pakistan, brokered by China. Collaboration extends to other areas, like the clandestine development of tactical nuclear weapons. While close Sino-Pak ties in the diplomatic, economic, military and nuclear fields and the development of weapons systems is fairly well documented, their cooperation in the maritime domain is becoming a greater and lethal concern. 

Reflecting official level thinking, China’s military media in 2019 mentioned that China might sell its first aircraft carrier, Liaoning, to Pakistan, once its fourth aircraft carrier is ready. They have also mentioned that Chinese air force fighter aircraft could be given to Pakistan in event of the outbreak of hostilities with India. China’s efforts to isolate India, restrict its rise, and expand Chinese influence in our neighborhood will continue. India must expect increased Sino-Pakistan collusion on issues like Kashmir. The convergence of Sino-Pak interests on strategic and territorial issues points to increased and enduring Chinese military pressure on India, as presently seen in Ladakh. China could well open hostilities through Pakistan, creating a “two-front war” situation for India.