Tag: Russia And NATO

Ukraine – A Dangerous Military Rehearsal

By Jasdev Singh Rai

History has shown that liberal democracies tend to be the most dangerous in wars, using weapons that others hesitate from deploying. It was the United States that first used nuclear weapons in the Second World War in Hiroshima and, egged on by the British, a second one was lobbed at Nagasaki. There was no call for a second atrocity of that level.

The United States used napalm, Agent Orange, phosphorous and similar agents in Vietnam. It also used cluster bombs in Laos and some other countries. These are still being cleared. However, both Russia and Ukraine have used them. Cluster bombs are considered to kill more civilians than enemy soldiers.

That the USA is now sending these bombs to Ukraine may be a sign of the fatigue setting in United States or a realisation that Russia won’t be defeated. This war has essentially been a war for defending American global hegemony and, on the part of Russia-China, to push it back now and move on to a new world order.

That it is ultimately about the new world order rather than Ukraine, is evident from the constant usage of the words ‘challenge to world order’ or international rule based order. No one seems to be defining what this international rule based order is or what world order is being challenged. Words are used carefully to leave impressions without exposing what they are really meant to be.

The current world order is Pax Americana which seems to be weakening at the moment. Pax means peace. It is peace on America’s terms. The rule based order simply means that the rules of international relations, nation states etc are made by USA, UK and to some extent EU. They decide whose borders can change when and who can get independence etc.

There are other undercurrents that are at play in Ukraine. Eastern Europe and Russia were not involved in colonialism of the type the occidental world engaged in. These countries are less inclined to be evangelist about ideology.

EU and NATO on the other hand still have colonial mentality and seek to change the world into democracies of the kind they prefer. NATO has managed to recruit some of the Eastern European countries to this but is now pushing Ukraine to bring down Russia a peg or two to maintain belief in liberal democracy as a better system.

The difference between the Occident and Russia is that the Occident gains territory by converting rather than annexing it. It annexes it ideologically and makes it its foot soldier as it has done with Poland and much of Eastern Europe and now seeking to do with Ukraine. Russia and China gain territory by occupying and installing governments controlled by it. Ukraine thus is simply a pawn in this game. The average Ukrainian is a helpless victim in a global game of hegemony and being pushed by its own Ukrainian leaders to risk their lives in this. A lot of Ukrainian hierarchy have benefitted financially from this. The United States itself has admitted that corruption is widespread in Ukraine. The US can throw a lot of money at the opportunists in Ukraine who force their countrymen to join the war.

ALSO READ: Theatre of War Horrors in Ukraine

However, the USA seems to be getting a bit stretched by the resources on another yet wasteful war. It lost enough in Afghanistan and now is seeing Ukraine falling apart. In desperation, it is willing to use hideous weapons.

Moreover, there are a number of US and British personnel now stationed in command centres in Ukraine training and directing the war. They probably run into thousands; Russia has hinted to USA that it will attack the command centres in a clear message that it will kill American and British officers if F-16 aircraft are handed to Ukraine.

The war therefore is being run by USA with NATO, but with Ukrainians as the soldiers. It is not surprising then that Zelensky gets frustrated quite often. He is quite aware that he is but a pawn. He angrily asks for more weapons so that he can ‘finish’ the job for USA. Ukrainian politicians are habitually saying that they are fighting for the survival of the West. They don’t say survival of Ukraine.

Ukraine was never under threat. All it had to do was accept autonomy for the Donbass as UK has done for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It could have retained its territorial integrity. However, as a few American politicians and Generals have said, Ukraine cannot decide without the USA agreeing to it. In effect Ukraine has become a vassal State for NATO under USA, and Russia is now seeking to break it to control parts of it.

Russia too has been quite brutal in this war. It is considered to have blown the Nova Kakhovka dam to sabotage the Ukraine counteroffensive. However, Russia has also been a bit naïve in some ways. It could have gone in all guns blazing at the start and taken over Kiev. It chose to send in forces to scare Ukraine and gain its agreement to its terms.

An agreement was reached with Ukraine to talk about mutually acceptable terms and Russia withdrew. But Ukraine under instructions from USA, then reneged on this. Russia has still been reluctant to use some of its most dangerous weapons. It is fighting an old-style territorial war with Ukraine. There may be many reasons for this.

As a senior NATO officer has said, Ukraine is also an experimental ground for both sides on how wars will be fought in future as well as real testing ground for some of the weapons. The USA has been handing out some experimental weapons and testing them in Ukraine. NATO and Israel have also tested their missile defence equipment against some of the most advanced Russian aircraft. Where they have been shown to be defective, lessons have been learnt.

Russia too has been doing that. Both have also increased the sale of their weapons worldwide. It is one thing to see missiles and fighter jets in an Arms show, but quite another when they are tested against sophisticated defence equipment. Britain’s Himars and American Patriot defence systems have both been show-cased here. Russia claims to have learnt a lot about sabotaging them while NATO is learning what needs to be re-engineered.

It has been surprising why Russia did not resort to the form of warfare that United States deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. In both, America went in with the hammer, conquered everything and destroyed the defences. Russia could have destroyed all Ukrainian infrastructure such as railway lines, roads, airports etc. This could have made it difficult for any equipment to come into Ukraine. Russia however chose to destroy a few as warning and permitted an endless supply of weapons to Ukraine. The possible reason must be that both Russia and USA now see the war as a training ground for a future war.

There is another lesson that Russia may have learnt from American excursions in the last five decades. The USA goes in heavy but then gets stuck in a quicksand taking years to extricate itself from the trap. It eventually lost in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan among other places. Russia has avoided that prospect and has perhaps been hoping for a shorter war lasting two to three years in which all will be decided.

The other dimension to this war may be the American establishment trying to take its revenge on Putin for having installed Trump in USA as President. It made the Pentagon and USA establishment a laughing stock. Putin was able to manipulate the American system and place a President at the highest office amenable to him. The American establishment want to send a clear message to Russia. Prigozhin revolt could have been an American stunt without the later knowing that he was a pawn. Putin has been more resilient.

The war will end sooner or later with Russia getting most of what it wants and rest of Ukraine becoming part of the ‘West’. There are however two other rogue elements. Poland is greedily eyeing parts of Ukraine and hopes the western part of Ukraine falls to it. So does Hungary which is looking at the Southwestern regions of Ukraine. Both countries are hoping that Ukraine will fall apart. Putin appears quite OK with this. In fact he hinted at this at the beginning of the attack on Ukraine.

One feels extremely sorry for Ukrainians. Ukraine has become the Afghanistan of the Balkan region. It is sought by great powers, not for resources but to entrench their own hegemony and power in the world. Afghanistan has been constantly on the menu of Pakistan and Iran who had hoped that it would disintegrate with each taking parts of it. Afghanistan has survived. Will Ukraine survive the great powers and their games and the opportunist designs of Uktraine’s neighbours?

Participation In Ukraine Grain Deal

A NATO Clash With Russia Will Be A Global Disaster: Putin

By LokMarg

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday said that any direct contact or direct clash of NATO troops with the Russian army would lead to a “global catastrophe”.

Addressing the news conference in Kazakhstan’s capital Astana, Putin said, “In any case, direct contact, direct clash of (NATO) troops with the Russian army is a very dangerous move which could lead to a global catastrophe. I hope that those who are saying this are smart enough not to take such a step.”

Earlier, Putin had warned that he would use nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory after annexing four regions of Ukraine last month, a move which the UN this week condemned.

On Tuesday, Group of Seven (G7) nations warned that the use of nuclear weapons on Ukraine will have severe consequences, according to a statement released by the White House.

Leaders of G7 states (the UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, the US, France, and Japan) said, “We deplore deliberate Russian escalator steps, including the partial mobilization of reservists and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, which is putting global peace and security at risk. We reaffirm that any use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by Russia would be met with severe consequences.”

Earlier, US President Joe Biden spoke of nuclear “Armageddon” in a warning about the escalation in Russia’s war in Ukraine during a speech on Thursday.

Biden warned of the “assault” on American institutions and talked of the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin using nuclear weapons, at the New York home of James Murdoch, the son of media baron Rupert Murdoch.

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” Biden said in New York City.

At a fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Biden said Putin is “not joking when he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons.” This is because, Biden said, “his military is — you might say — significantly underperforming,”

“I’m trying to figure out, what is Putin’s off-ramp?” Biden said. “Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not only lose face but lose significant power within Russia?”

According to a pool report, Biden told attendees at the event, “I don’t think there is any such thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon.”

Putin has renewed his nuclear threats as he announced the annexation of Ukrainian territory, some of which Russia doesn’t control, and with the call-up of 300,000 reservists to reinforce his flagging invasion. (ANI)

Read More:http://13.232.95.176/

Where is Ukraine Going?

By Jasdev Singh Rai

It is not clear what the President of Ukraine expects the end of the war will look like. It is obvious what India’s options are. It is uncertain whether the West has clearly thought out the consequences of its involvement. However, what is clear is that the Ukraine war has started rearranging the order of power in the world, spelling a possible end to a globalised economy and testing world’s leading institutions. If 9/11 precipitated the age of the neurotic State fearful of its own citizens, the Ukraine war is starting the reshuffling of world order and possibly paving the way to reconfigurations of States in future. In this series, I explore each of this in turn.

That Russia is a very powerful country with some successful military campaigns behind it in recent decade cannot be disputed. That Ukraine is relatively a small power with a much smaller army and arsenal compared to Russia is also not contestable.

When Russia surrounded Ukraine in the East and North East, the general view was that if provoked, it would crush Ukraine in a short time. The United States war in Afghanistan lasted nearly 20 years while in Iraq it was about 15 years. The Syrian war is still going on after ten years. Comparatively, the Ukraine war is expected to last much shorter period, perhaps a year.

Ukraine’s choice was between compromising some of its sovereignty or risk war. It bravely chose to take on Russia. The odds are heavy when one compares the military strengths of the two.

With an army of around a million and reserves of around 2 million, Russia also has a phenomenal arsenal. It has 6,255 nuclear warheads, the largest in the world. Some of its hypersonic missile technology surpasses any in the West. It has so far only deployed about 10-15% of its fighting capabilities in Ukraine.

Ukraine is a smaller country with an army of some 200,000 and paramilitary forces consisting of National Guard and Border Guard etc of 60,000. Comparatively it has far fewer weapons, aircraft and missiles and most of them are from the Soviet era, although it has an arms manufacturing industry as well. But training its army, helping with strategy are officers from several western NATO countries, particularly United States and United Kingdom, although both deny any active participation in Ukraine itself having shifted training centres into Germany since February 2022.

ALSO READ: Theatre of Horror In Ukraine

It appears that Russia first surrounded Kyiv from two sides to intimidate Ukraine to give it an opportunity to accept its terms to avoid war. The Russian terms were: Ukraine declare neutrality and pass in law that it would not join NATO. Russia required it to decentralise and give autonomy to Donbas regions, second language status to Russian language and what it calls ‘denazification’ of Ukraine military. Russia considers the Azov forces to be Nazi like outfits. That Azov outfits were hard core right wing with Nazi regalia was also widely reported in most western media until the war started.

Kyiv refused Russian terms. Russia invaded. Having seen that Ukrainian army was intent to fight back ferociously, Russia withdrew and readjusted its tactics to ones it employed in Syria. Concentrating on Donbas as well as South of Ukraine, its approach is merciless destruction and onslaught of key strategic areas using a combination of ground troops and air borne fire. This is producing it results.

There is also suggestions that Russian intelligence about lack of Ukraine resistance was wrong. It is possible that some western agencies may have identified pro-Russian agents and spoon fed them disinformation through Ukrainian officials.

Since the attack, the Ukraine President and other politicians have appealed passionately for the west to get involved directly, either by imposing no fly zones or boots on the ground. However even before the war, USA, UK and European powers had indicated that they would not physically come to Ukraine’s aid. Everyone fears a nuclear war. No one is keen to destroy the whole world yet. The west has nevertheless resorted to sanctions, supply of weapons and training of Ukrainian army. Characteristically Britain has been the most gung-ho, still attempting to play big. Moreover as admitted by US media, the United States has been engaged throughout the campaign in providing intelligence, guiding strategy and targets. Russian media insists that US personnel are on the ground advising tactics, manning equipment etc and some have been captured.

The west seems keen for this war to prolong. It hopes this weakens Russian capability through loss of personnel and armour. It also gives NATO enough intelligence to understand Russian tactics, strategies and the lethal effectiveness or functionalities of its armour. It helps NATO forces to prepare for a real confrontation with Russia.

The West is now suppling some advanced weapons. When used it will be an exhibition of their effectiveness. This increases sales as it already has. US arms producers are expected to gain $17 Billion from supply of these weapons and more in future world orders. Some of its decision makers will gain profits from the new package announced for Ukraine. Türkey has already seen manyfold increase in orders for its Bayraktar drones that have gained legendary status against Russian Tanks. Ukraine has been a proxy fighter for NATO, particularly USA and being used as an arms fair to show piece weapons.

For Russia too, the war is an opportunity to learn. It has been engaged in wars in developing countries and against non-State actors such as Syrian rebels. Ukraine is the first real European fighting machine that it is encountering. Armies can do all the simulation exercises in training, but they harden and mature in real battles. Russian arms saw a five-fold increase in sale after Syria. Although components are becoming difficult due to sanctions, Russia is testing some of its latest lethal weapons from time to time in Ukraine. Their sales will grow after the war.

War is an ugly affair and brings out the worst in humanity despite all the human rights treaties and conventions. It’s a merciless killing ground. Once it starts, few if any morals survive in war.

With all the odds stacked against it, realising that no western armies are flying in to help and possibly conscious that they are now fighting a proxy war at great expense to themselves, it is still not clear what the Ukrainian leadership is realistically hoping to achieve at the end. About a quarter of its population is now displaced and many have fled the country. Its cities have been devastated. It has lost territory.

Whether Russia is right or wrong to have gone into Ukraine is immaterial now. Despite the drama of war crimes courts, Putin isn’t going to face any trial any more than Bush or Blair will face trials for Iraq, unless there is capitulation by Russia and a coup hands him over.  Fortunes of wars are not decided by morality, laws or international conventions but by might. Currently, it does not look good for Ukraine. 

It is all very well to say, Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves. But the western world is indulging its own morals and strategic policies to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian families, children and elderly people, even when the situation looks hopeless.

Russia isn’t going anywhere and Donbas is lost. Russia’s army is still intact. It is weathering the sanctions and seems to have factored in the losses in men and arms. Putin’s ratings are higher domestically. Ukraine’s army has lost about 25% of its personnel. Its weapons are depleting. In some wars, the attacked victim has no choice but to fight or die. Ukraine had choices and still has some. Its choices are now limited as the veteran strategist Henry Kissinger has stated.  Is it time to accept the inevitable and avoid further bloodshed.

(This is the first part of a series on Russia-Ukraine war to appear in these columns)

Will Putin Dismember Ukraine?

By Jasdev Singh Rai

It seemed on the cards and has now happened. Russia has gone into Ukraine to ‘demilitarise’ for its own defence, as it says. As was speculated by some analysts, Russia has attacked from many sides, the east, the north, the south and possibly even into the western part of Ukraine. The invasion took place as the UN Security Council was in session talking about ‘diplomacy’.

Uncharacteristically, the UN Secretary General seemed to have taken side when he told Russia that its incursions into Donbas and recognition of the region as independent entities was against international law. In response to Secretary General’s offer of extending his good offices for dialogue, the Russian diplomat sarcastically responded, ‘what good offices?’ clearly implying that the Secretary General was not being neutral. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is technically right but may have allowed his emotions to compromise a neutral stand in this fight between two giants, Russia and USA.

As country after country criticised Russia and the office of UN Secretary General having expressed an opinion, it was obvious that Russia was going to get angry. There was little of diplomatic negotiation but a lot of advice that all sides should negotiate. No suggestion of any concessions was put forward for discussion by any country. China reiterated its position that placing NATO weapons next door to Russia was a provocation. It was also clear that the vast majority of countries were on the American side of the argument. Not seeing any diplomacy moving forward, Russia has attacked.

What will Russia do? Putin has said he doesn’t want to take over Ukraine. He merely wants to remove the threat to his country, in what he calls an act for ‘demilitarisation and denazification’ of Ukraine. But the speech he made on 21st indicates a different plan if Ukraine’s leadership does not walk away from confrontation.

The long speech as been dismissed as an incoherent ramble about Putin’s version of history before he recognised the two breakaway Ukraine provinces jointly call Donbas, as independent entities called Donetsk and Luhansk.

The hour long speech also appears to give a clear indication of Putin’s intentions and road plan. What is being missed by analysts is that Putin was addressing several audiences at the same time. He was explaining the background and his rationale for intended invasion to fellow Russians who have probably not heard much apart from United States wanting to put bases next door. By appealing to their sense of history, their ownership of the birth of Ukraine as he sees it, he was trying to convince Russians of the legitimacy of invading Russia from the Russian historic perspective. He was painting Ukraine as an ungrateful traitor. The long speech may have got most Russians around to his decisions.

He was also giving Ukraine a clear but chilling message. He has effectively told Ukraine that it does not have a historical hinterland as a nation and that it was essentially a beneficiary of Soviet Union’s administrative and geopolitical strategies. Through that statement he has sent a message that Russia can also undo Ukraine’s existence.

In fact he made that clear, ‘You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunization would mean for Ukraine.’

What exactly does he mean by that? Is Putin going to radically disrupt the terms of the current international order and totally dismember a State, running it out of existence?

Under Putin, Russia has shown that it can even go into other countries and assassinate with impunity those it perceives to have committed treason against Russia. It does not tolerate what it calls ‘traitors’ who defect. From Putin’s speech, it appears that he sees Ukraine as a partner that has turned rogue and walked into the opposition camp. He is likely to mete out the same punishment as he does to Russians who take refuge from him in other countries.

Will Russia swallow all of Ukraine or hand it over to a compliant regime? His speech does not suggest that. He also said, ‘Stalin incorporated in the USSR and transferred to Ukraine some lands that previously belonged to Poland, Romania and Hungary.’ It seems he is suggesting to these European countries that they too have a claim on parts of Ukraine that is western Ukraine.

Western Ukraine is a mixed bag of nationalist Ukrainians, Polish Ukrainians, Hungarian Ukrainians and a lot of anti-Russia people. If Ukraine is incorporated into Russia, this is the region that will offer not only most resistance but will continue with insurgency.

While the Russian army will indulge Ukraine for a while, in the longer term, it is likely to dismember Ukraine. It appears Putin is inviting the three European countries to reclaim their lands. If any of them falls for it, he will achieve two purposes. He will divide NATO resolve and at the same time rid himself of areas that are likely to create most problems. Of the three countries Putin has named, Hungary is most likely to welcome taking bits of a dismembered Ukraine.

Putin’s speech may appear to be a rambling diatribe. But looked at closely, it reveals a broad plan if he can get away with it. After Yugoslavia, Ukraine will be the second major country in Europe that will be removed from the map involuntarily.

ALSO READ: Putin Has Already Won, Any War Will Be A Bonus

If Putin does carry through the threats he has made in his speech, it will be the most dramatic challenge to the international order built upon the charter of the United Nations in 1945. Not only sovereignty, but the very existence of a State can no longer be guaranteed.

As the Russians go further into Ukraine, it is unlikely they will meet much resistance. There is a lot of corruption in Ukraine. It is 122 on the Transparency International’s corruption index. Most of the senior leadership is likely to escape to safer places if not caught when the heat really turns on.

The Ukraine army will put up a fight but it is unlikely to be as determined as most people in the west have been led to believe. Most likely a number of Ukraine Army units will surrender and some run away, just as the western backed Afghan forces did. Many of the Ukraine forces probably have relatives in Russia and might see no advantage in fighting Russia over some geopolitical adventures of America.

This leaves China as the side show in this conflict. There has been much forecast on China taking advantage and absorbing Taiwan. However, China is unlikely to do that. Taiwan is still a big risk for it. China is likely to attack parts of India’s borders instead.

In these columns I did predict that Russia will attack after 20th February, the end of Beijing Winter Olympics. Despite America’s daily warnings of an imminent attack since around 8th February, it appears, Putin did patiently wait to let Xi have the glory of winter Olympics. Putin played with the diplomatic game until 21st February. On 21st Putin started the war game by recognising the breakaway republics and sending forces into Donbask.

China is going to wait for the UP election season to pass. Attacking a country when elections are being held is a folly as it will transfer nationalist emotions into votes for the Indian leadership. A week or so after the elections will be another environment.

A lot of change is going to happen in the world after the Russian and possible Chinese incursions, regardless of whether Russia wins or loses. Will it for better or for worse isn’t an issue that history and events grapple with at the time. History creates shifts every few decades.

Putin Has Already Won, Any War Will Be A Bonus

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Even if Russia does not go into Ukraine, President Putin has already won at home with his narrative of ‘only Putin can save Russia’. Any further action, such as annexation of Donbas and exclusion of Ukraine from NATO will be a bonus on the international stage. With his gradual drip-drip action and by putting Ukraine’s future NATO membership at the centre of the standoff, he has managed to convince most Russians that the whole of ‘western world’ is united in its ambition to put nuclear weapons next door on Russian borders and destroy Russia.

Modern democracies survive on creating a narrative of an opposition threatening one’s lifestyle or prospects for a better life. There is less of what ‘our side’ can do and more of what damage the opposition can do. The Brexit tale was all about how Europe is a constraint on Britain’s rise to global glory again. Trump played to the perceived threat to ‘white supremacy’ and individual liberty. Putin similarly plays on the threat the west poses to Russian integrity, pride and power. Indian politicians play the threat by Pakistan, ‘Islamic terrorism’ and secessionists to India’s unity.

Putin is an ex-KGB man. His forte is the dynamics and intrigues between international powers. In the Ukraine standoff, he has played that with remarkable sophistication and reinforced the narrative that the whole of the west is intent to breaking up Russia and reduce its power.

The post Gorbachev and Yeltsin eras are still fresh in the minds of many Russians of the Soviet period. Soviet power on the world stage fizzled away in front of their eyes. The promise of better life with reforms and closer engagement with the west not only didn’t materialise, many Russians went into deep poverty. Thuggery and Oligarch warlords emerged ushering a dangerous period of lawlessness, murders and Mafiosi type gangsterism stripping away State assets.

From that post Soviet ruin arose Putin. His narrative has been that the west or rather America has no love for Russia. Rather it wants to drive Russia to the ground and exploit its natural resources.  The narrative has worked well.

In the last few years, the narrative was wearing down a bit. Russia sells and thrives on selling gas, oil and other natural minerals to most of Europe. There are many Russians engaged in constructive business, academic and even social relations with many Europeans. In fact there is a healthy trade between Russia and USA as well. Many western Multinationals, such as BP in Rosneft, have shares in Russian companies. Even some western NGOs operate in Russia. Russians travel to the west and see no hostility.

It was in this atmosphere of improving relationships that Putin’s ‘the West is the threat’ narrative was becoming less convincing to his voters. The Nordstream 2 project appears one of the great triumphs of cordiality and improved relations between the ‘west’ and Russia.

It was not surprising that in this apparent thaw, politicians like Alexei Navalny were becoming popular. He and others like him politically attack Putin of exploiting ‘national threat’ to stifle legitimate opposition, remain in power and enrich himself and his ‘friends’. Putin’s friends allegedly keep their money conveniently in the offshore financial centres that Britain owns, so it remains safe. There are said to be a number of investments in western countries including USA through these off shore companies. Navalny campaigns for a better relationship with the west, a more transparent Russian polity and end to an ‘artificial cold war’.

ALSO READ: Ukraine, Uncertain Fallouts

Despite Navalny being jailed, it was gradually going well for the opposition as it eroded into the Putin narrative. Until Ukraine.

By stationing his army on the doorsteps of Ukraine in what appears to be an ‘imminent’ invasion, he has united the west to echo his narrative. He has put NATO expansion at the centre of the conflict. He has demanded that western weapons not be deployed next to the borders of Russia.

Western countries had differential relationships with Russia. Some like Germany and France had closer relations than United Kingdom. Suddenly the west has started to unite behind the NATO narrative and played into the security neurosis that Putin feeds his own country on.

Almost every NATO member is singing form the same hymn sheet. ‘It is the sovereign right of Ukraine to join NATO’. From Russian public perspective, if Ukraine were ever to join NATO, it would also have the right to have NATO bases, meaning American, next door to Russia as has happened in some other neighbouring countries.

The narrative is game set and match for Putin. He can turn to his people and say. ‘See the threat hasn’t gone. Why do they want to put weapons next door to us if our relations have improved? They still want to disintegrate Russia and destroy its power’. It doesn’t matter how many Russians travel to the west, in their minds will be the question, why does America want to station missiles next door to mother Russia.

The NATO narrative is a difficult one for the west. It is illogical but one that cannot be denied in public. It needed highly competent, creative statesmanship and diplomacy not to fall in the trap set by Putin. Angela Merkel probably would have handled it better. British statesmanship and diplomacy no longer awes the world. And Joe Biden seems out of his depth against a seasoned master strategist. Putin has proven to his people that when it comes to survival of Russia, the whole of the west is united and plays to Washington’s tune.

The reality is that the west is not united on the NATO issue. Countries like Germany and France do not see any strategic gain if Ukraine joins NATO but leads to breakdown in relations with Russia. However no one can publicly declare that and no NATO country can openly say that ‘Ukraine should give up its sovereign right to join NATO’.

Putin has got what he wants and consolidated his position at home. Even if he withdraws all his forces from Ukraine now without a single concession, he can be assured of popularity at home for nearly a decade. The narrative of the ever remaining threat’ and ‘only Putin can save Russia’ will survive and thrive. The Ukraine-NATO narrative will continue to dominate Russian-West dialogues. Putin will make sure it remains in the public discourse. Politicians like Navalny unfortunately will continue to be exploited as ‘traitors’ by Putin.

Nevertheless Putin is also fully aware of the underlying disunity in the west even if on the surface it appears united and falsely bound in its own rhetoric of principles. He will probably stay put with his army on Ukraine’s borders, playing like a ‘cat plays with a mouse’, wrenching up the threat of invasion bit by bit and then getting a few concessions. But he won’t take over Ukraine completely unless provoked.

It is not in Putin’s benefit to invade Ukraine and take it over completely. He needs the threat of NATO next door to be alive to maintain his popularity at home.

When the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz mocked Putin and said, ‘I don’t know how long the president intends to stay in office?’ One wonders whether Putin thought, ‘As long as you keep me in power.’.