Sekėjai

Ieškoti šiame dienoraštyje

2022 m. vasario 8 d., antradienis

“And then not just America, but also Europe, will turn into radioactive ash”

 

“The standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine could turn into a drawn-out and dangerous diplomatic slog toward a difficult settlement.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is increasingly staking his legacy on reversing Ukraine’s pro-Western shift. Even if he does not order an invasion this winter, he is making clear that he will keep the pressure on, backed by the threat of force, for as long as it takes to get his way.

But Ukraine’s leaders have so far refused to compromise on Mr. Putin’s terms, and the West sees the Kremlin’s demand for a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe as a nonstarter. That leaves the best-case scenario as a long and dangerous diplomatic slog toward a difficult settlement — a process that could consume Western resources and attention for many months.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, shuttling from Moscow to Kyiv to Berlin on Monday and Tuesday, described the coming days as crucial in the West’s bid to avert war. Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany, in some of his strongest comments yet, insisted that Russia would suffer “far-reaching consequences” if it attacked Ukraine.

Mr. Putin has countered with a pledge to keep the “dialogue” going. It is a message that implies he would be deliberate in using his levers of influence and coercion to deal with the longstanding Russian grievances that the Kremlin appears newly determined to address.

Russia’s current military buildup around Ukraine is so extensive that Mr. Putin will have to decide in the coming weeks whether to order an invasion or pull some troops back, analysts say. But even if he draws them down, he will have other means to keep his adversaries on edge, like exercises of his nuclear forces, cyberattacks or future buildups. And if he does attack, the West’s current diplomatic scramble is likely to only intensify.

“I expect we’ll have this crisis with us, in various forms, for all of 2022, at least,” said Andrei Sushentsov, dean of the school of international relations at MGIMO, the elite Moscow university run by the Russian Foreign Ministry.

He described the current standoff as only the first step in a drawn-out Russian effort to force the West to agree to a new security architecture for Eastern Europe. It was a characterization of the start of a more high-stakes phase in Russia’s yearslong conflict with the West that is gaining currency in Moscow’s foreign-policy circles.

Russia’s aim, according to Mr. Sushentsov: keep the threat of war ever-present, and thus compel negotiations that Western officials have avoided until now.

For too long, he said in an interview, people in Western Europe have been lulled into thinking that a new war on the continent was impossible. For Mr. Putin, that point of view needs to be changed, Mr. Sushentsov said, to compel the West to accept Russia’s demands.

“What’s important is this suspense, this feeling of a prewar situation,” Mr. Sushentsov said. “People are spoiled by an overly long peace. They think of security as a given, as something that is attained for free, rather than something that must be negotiated. This is a mistake.”

For the West, that approach could mean being drawn into a new sort of “forever war” — a conflict consuming ever more time and treasure, with no clear exit strategy. The lesson of the chaotic Afghan withdrawal last summer, to Mr. Putin, may have been that the U.S. has no stomach for a distant conflict — and Ukraine is distant to the U.S. but not to Russia.

President Biden came to office determined to focus the U.S. and its allies on the long-term threat of managing a rising China — a technological, military and economic competitor. But now it is Mr. Putin who has seized the administration’s attention.

One senior European diplomat said in Washington recently that six months ago, no one was discussing a threat to the fundamental order that was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“Now we all are,’’ he said.

Mr. Biden on Monday characterized a Russian invasion of Ukraine as “tanks or troops crossing the border.” But American officials say that there remain numerous lower-grade options that Mr. Putin is considering that could touch off a less deadly but still costly conflict.

Mr. Biden’s deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies, Anne Neuberger, was at NATO last week trying to shore up the alliance’s defenses in case Mr. Putin decides that the least costly way to destabilize the Zelensky government is by turning off the power or communications.

Even if Mr. Macron, working with Mr. Biden and other Western leaders, were to help secure a temporary relaxation of tensions, Mr. Putin’s demands are so expansive — and his disdain of Ukraine’s pro-Western leaders so great — that analysts struggle to imagine a grand bargain being struck.

Ruslan Pukhov, a Russian military analyst, said that even if the West and Ukraine were to make sufficient concessions in the coming weeks to avert an armed conflict, they would be unlikely to satisfy Russia in the longer term, adding that a renewed threat of war could come next year.

“The West just doesn’t understand how much this is a question of life or death for us,” said Mr. Pukhov, who runs the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a privately owned think tank in Moscow. “Ukraine in NATO, from my point of view or Russia’s, would be the equivalent of nuclear war.”

Mr. Putin made the threat of war over Ukraine between nuclear superpowers explicit twice in recent days — in news conferences after his meetings with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary last week and with Mr. Macron on Monday. Both times, Mr. Putin described a scenario in which Ukraine would join NATO and then, with the Western alliance’s backing, try to recapture Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014.

Dmitri Kiselyov, one of Russian state television’s leading anchors, on Sunday detailed what would happen next: a nuclear war in which Russia, faced with its own destruction, would take the West with it.

“Let’s remember that Russia doesn’t need a world without Russia,” Mr. Kiselyov intoned at the beginning of his weekly prime-time show, paraphrasing a 2018 line by Mr. Putin. “And then not just America, but also Europe, will turn into radioactive ash.”

Western officials describe NATO membership for Ukraine as unrealistic anytime in the near future, but the Kremlin insists that even the possibility poses an existential threat. On the ground, analysts see preparations gaining pace for a possible military solution to preventing Ukraine from ever joining NATO.

Researchers monitoring satellite imagery and footage of troop movements posted to social media say that Russia is deploying personnel and equipment to within miles of the border with Ukraine. The forces have been filmed setting up tents in the mud and snow, adding to fears that Mr. Putin could order an attack as early as this month.

“It’s safe to say that this is not a force posture that Russia is going to maintain for an extended period of time,” said Michael Kofman, the director of Russia studies at CNA, a research institute based in Arlington, Va. “They are entering a go/no-go posture, and they’re going to make that decision in the coming weeks.”

But even if an attack were to happen, touching off what would most likely be enormous human suffering in Ukraine, the diplomatic scramble would continue — with Russia exercising even more leverage, Mr. Kofman argues.

“Diplomacy continues throughout war,” he said. “Ultimately, there would need to be some sort of agreement.”

Despite the worrying troop movements, many analysts inside Russia continue to doubt that Mr. Putin will actually order a full invasion. The risks would far exceed any of Mr. Putin’s prior military pushes, like the five-day war against Georgia in 2008 or the still-simmering proxy war in eastern Ukraine that he started in 2014. Russian missiles could miss their targets, causing civilian casualties; Ukraine could respond by attacking Russian targets across the border.

“I think most military officials understand that any operation would be rife with great difficulties,” Mr. Pukhov, the Russian military analyst, said. “One has to understand that even in the event of limited military action, you won’t be able to avoid a major escalation and it won’t conclude in five days.”

The Kremlin said on Tuesday that Russia would withdraw the thousands of troops it had sent to Belarus, Ukraine’s northern neighbor, after large-scale joint exercises concluded there on Feb. 20. Whether the Russian troops indeed leave will be one closely watched signal of Mr. Putin’s military intentions. Even if they do, Russia’s newfound appetite for attention-grabbing military pressure against Ukraine and the West is likely to remain.

“Russia has departed from the tactic of simply asking to be listened to,” Mr. Sushentsov, the university dean, said. “Russian leaders have seen that this does not work and that it is necessary to make clear the risks of the Russian position being ignored.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/world/europe/ukraine-putin-russia.html

Vokietijos kancleris Olafas Scholzas buvo ne kartą klausiamas apie Vokietijai pelningą dujotiekio projektą...

    „Tai pasakė prezidentas Bidenas. Tai pasakė jo valstybės sekretorius Antony J. Blinken ir jo patarėjas nacionalinio saugumo klausimais Jake'as Sullivanas.

 

    Tačiau Vokietijos kancleris Olafas Scholzas negalėjo pasakyti, kas jo sąjungininkams yra akivaizdu: Rusijos invazijos į Ukrainą atveju dujotiekis „Nord Stream 2“, jungiantis Vokietiją ir Rusiją po Baltijos jūra, išnyks.

 

    Šalia Bideno Baltuosiuose rūmuose pirmadienį per ilgai lauktą vizitą, skirtą numalšinti abejones dėl Vokietijos, kaip sąjungininkės, patikimumo, M. Scholzas buvo ne kartą klausiamas apie Nord Stream 2, bet atsisakė net pasakyti dujotiekio pavadinimą.

 

    „Labai ačiū už jūsų klausimą. Noriu būti labai aiškus“, – sakė jis, o paskui ėmė kalbėti ką kitą.

 

    „Mes intensyviai ruošėmės, kad galėtume konkrečiai įvesti reikiamas sankcijas, jei bus vykdomi kariniai veiksmai prieš Ukrainą.

 

    Ar jis galėtų aiškiai įsipareigoti uždaryti „Nord Stream 2“ invazijos atveju?

 

    „Mes veiksime kartu ir esame vieningi“, – sakė M. Scholzas.

 

    J. Bidenas bandė patikslinti. „Jei Rusija įsiverš, tai reiškia, jei tankai ir kariai vėl kirs Ukrainos sieną, tada „Nord Stream 2“ nebebus“, – sakė Bidenas. „Mes padarysime tam galą“.

 

    Tai buvo dar vienas momentas atsilaikyti prieš spaudimą naujajai socialdemokratų vadovaujamai Vokietijos vyriausybei, kuri stengėsi pabrėžti savo įsipareigojimą Vakarų vienybei Rusijos agresijos akivaizdoje, tačiau nesutiko dėl ekonominių sankcijų, kurios pakenktų ir Vokietijai, specifikos.

 

    Daugiau, nei pusę savo dujų importo Vokietija priklauso nuo Rusijos. Ateinančiais metais laipsniškai nutraukus branduolinės ir anglies energijos gamybą, ši priklausomybė išliks ir galbūt net didės, bent jau trumpuoju laikotarpiu.

 

    Vokietijoje naujienų žiniasklaida šėlo nuo kanclerio žodinės akrobatikos. Dar prieš dabartinę krizę dujotiekis sukėlė ginčų dėl Ukrainos aplenkimo ir tranzito mokesčių iš Ukrainos atėmimo. „Dujotiekis, kurio vardo sakyti negalima“, – rašo laikraštis Süddeutsche Zeitung.

 

    Vokietijos pareigūnai nesureikšmina dujotiekio paminėjimo svarbą, tačiau tvirtina, kad ponas Scholzas nenori, kad būtų vertinamas, kaip veikiantis dėl Amerikos spaudimo."

 

Ar galima pasiųsti Lietuvos prezidentą ir užsienio reikalų ministrą mokytis į Berlyną, kaip reikia kalbėti diplomatiniuose susitikimuose? Prašau...


Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany was asked repeatedly about a lucrative for Germany gas pipeline project


"President Biden said it. His secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, said it and so did his national security adviser, Jake Sullivan.

But Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany could not bring himself to state what to his allies is obvious: That in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Germany and Russia under the Baltic Sea will die.

Standing next to Mr. Biden at the White House on Monday during a long-awaited visit — intended to assuage doubts over Germany’s reliability as an ally — Mr. Scholz was asked repeatedly about Nord Stream 2, but declined even to say the pipeline’s name.

“Many thanks for your question. I want to be very clear,” he said, and then proceeded to be anything but.

“We have intensively prepared so we can concretely impose the necessary sanctions if there is military action against Ukraine.”

Could he explicitly commit to shuttering Nord Stream 2 in case of an invasion?

“We will act together, and we are united,” Mr. Scholz said.

Mr. Biden tried to clarify. “If Russia invades, that means tanks and troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” Mr. Biden said. “We will bring an end to it.”

It was the latest moment for Germany’s new Social Democrat-led government, which has been at pains to stress its commitment to Western unity in the face of Russian aggression, but has wavered on the specifics of economic sanctions that would hurt Germany, too. 

Germany relies on Russia for more than half of its gas imports. As it phases out nuclear and coal power in the coming years, that dependency is set to persist and maybe even rise, at least in the short term.

In Germany, the news media were abuzz with the chancellor’s verbal acrobatics. Even before the current crisis, the pipeline had stirred controversy for bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of transit fees. “The pipeline whose name mustn’t be spoken,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper said.

German officials play down the importance of mentioning the pipeline by name, but argue that Mr. Scholz does not want to be seen as acting on American pressure.

 

Is it possible to send Lithuanian President  and minister of foreign affairs to study in Berlin how to talk in diplomatic meetings? Please... 



Ukrainos „suominimas“ yra diplomatinio diskurso dalis. Bet ką tai reiškia?

  „Nuo 1948 m., kai pasirašė sutartį su Maskva, Suomija turėjo išmokti išgyventi, kaip maža tauta globalios galios šešėlyje.

 

    Prancūzijos prezidentas Emmanuelis Macronas pirmadienį priminė Šaltojo karo laikų kadenciją, skrendant į Maskvą žurnalistams sakydamas, kad Ukrainos „suominimas“ yra „vienas iš modelių ant stalo“, kaip sumažinti įtampą su Rusija.

 

    Antradienį Kijeve stovėdamas šalia Ukrainos prezidento Volodymyro Zelenskio, E. Macronas neigė pareiškęs tokią pastabą. Tačiau ši idėja vėl svarstoma diplomatiniuose sluoksniuose.

 

    Šis terminas reiškia griežtą Suomijos neutralumą Šaltojo karo metu, įtvirtintą 1948 m. sutartyje su Maskva, kai įtampa tarp Sovietų Sąjungos ir Vakarų buvo didžiulė. Sutartis užtikrino, kad Suomija, skirtingai, nei kitos Rytų Europos šalys, nesusidurs su sovietų invazija, tačiau mainais sutiko likti nuošalyje nuo NATO ir leido šalia esančiai milžinei daryti didelę įtaką jos vidaus ir užsienio politikai.

 

    Ukraina, buvusi Sovietų Sąjungos dalis, ekonominiu ir politiniu požiūriu vis labiau pakrypo į Vakarus, priešindamasi Rusijos įtakai. 2008 m. NATO pareiškė, kad galiausiai Ukraina ketina prisijungti prie aljanso – tai populiari idėja šalyje, nors ji niekada nepateikė paraiškos dėl narystės, o NATO pareigūnai teigia, kad tai neįvyks artimiausiu metu.

 

    Panašu, kad „suominimas“ atmeta tokią galimybę ir leidžia Maskvai turėti ranką Ukrainos reikaluose.

 

    „Visa tai prieštarauja tam, ko siekė Ukrainos nacionalistai“, – sakė Atlanto tarybos Šiaurės Europos direktorė Anna Wieslander. „Tai būtų didelis poslinkis nuo ilgalaikio politinio tikslo įstoti į NATO ir įstoti į ES, ko jie ir norėjo“.

 

    Rusijos prezidentas Vladimiras V. Putinas jau seniai tvirtino, kad Ukraina ir Rusija iš esmės yra viena šalis, kurią sieja neišardomi istoriniai ir kultūriniai ryšiai. 2014 m., kai masiniai protestai išstūmė prorusišką Ukrainos prezidentą, Rusija atgavo Krymą bei palaikė separatistų karą Rytų Ukrainoje, kuris tebesitęsia.

 

    V. Putinui pasiryžus išplėsti savo įtakos sferą ir pakeisti nacionalistinę Ukrainos vyriausybę, o Vakarams aiškiai pareiškus, kad nekariaus prieš Rusiją, kad apgintų Ukrainą, kai kurie ekspertai įrodinėjo, kad „suominimas“ yra geriausias būdas, kurį Ukraina gali padaryti.“

 

  Lietuvos „suomininimas“ taip pat rusų dėka yra ant stalo, kad būtų skatinama taika ir gerinama ekonominė plėtra mūsų regione.

 


 

‘Finlandization’ of Ukraine is part of the diplomatic discourse. But what does that mean?


 "Since signing a treaty with Moscow in 1948, Finland has had to learn how to survive as a small nation in the shadow of a global power.

President Emmanuel Macron of France invoked a Cold War-era term on Monday, telling reporters on his flight to Moscow that “Finlandization” of Ukraine was “one of the models on the table” for defusing tensions with Russia.

On Tuesday, standing alongside President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in Kyiv, Macron denied making the remark, which appeared to put him at odds with not only the Ukrainians but also the United States. But the idea is once again being discussed in diplomatic circles.

The term refers to Finland’s strict neutrality during the Cold War, enshrined in a 1948 treaty with Moscow when tensions between the Soviet Union and the West were at a high. The treaty ensured Finland that unlike other countries in Eastern Europe, it would not face a Soviet invasion, but in return, it agreed to stay out of NATO and allowed the giant next door to exercise significant influence over its domestic and foreign policy.

Ukraine, formerly a part of the Soviet Union, has increasingly tilted toward the West, economically and politically, while resisting Russian influence. In 2008, NATO said it planned eventually for Ukraine to join the alliance, a popular idea within the country, though it has never actually applied for membership and NATO officials say it would not happen any time soon.

“Finlandization” would appear to rule out that possibility, and allow Moscow a heavy hand in Ukrainian affairs.

“All of this goes against what Ukraine has been striving for,” said Anna Wieslander, director for Northern Europe at the Atlantic Council. “It would be a big shift from a long-term political aim of joining NATO and joining the E.U., which is what they have wanted.”

The arrangement Mr. Macron appeared to suggest is “a way of solving a problem by making a decision over the head of the Ukrainians,” said Richard Whitman, an associate fellow at the policy analysis group Chatham House.

President Biden has said that nations must be free to choose their own alliances.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has long maintained that Ukraine and Russia are effectively one country, with insoluble historic and cultural ties. In 2014, after mass protests forced out a pro-Russian Ukrainian president, Russia reintegrated Crimea, and supported a separatist war in eastern Ukraine that is still dragging on.

With Mr. Putin determined to expand his sphere of influence and undermine a nationalist Ukrainian government, and the West making it clear it would not go to war against Russia to defend Ukraine, some experts have argued that “Finlandization” is the best course Ukraine can take.

  ‘Finlandization’ of Lithuania is also on the table thanks to Russia seeking to advance peace and improve economic development in our region.