Are we heading back to the Cold War? Will Europe just cave in to Putin and allow him to continue to court popularity by being seen as the strong man by Russians?
Jeffrey Mankoff writing in Foreign Affairs makes the point that the intervention of Russia in the Crimea and east Ukraine is the latest in a series of similar episodes trying to pull back influence through exploiting ethnic division since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There had been Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Nagarno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.
Putin will not stop trying to grow the power and influence of Russia in this way. Realpolitik is certainly his modus operandi. But the success of the approach is dependent on the willingness of others, for the most part Europe, to give ground.
I think the downing of MH17 and his reaction to it has swung the momentum against him. Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 298 innocents to finally wake up governments and their people to the chaos Putin unleashed and supports in eastern Ukraine. I make the assumption that the rebels did it, albeit by accident, with a Russian weapon. Putin's response has been relatively weak for his standards, caught between supporting the rebels on the quiet but trying to be a responsible power on the world stage.
I think he has therefore realized some short term wins, but for a longer term reduction in influence and power, even if east Ukraine remains in a similar state to those other regions Mankoff lists. I believe Europe will work much harder to find energy alternatives to Russian gas. The US will be happy to help on this, enjoying their own shale boom. There will also be more serious talk around NATO and being more prepared militarily, even if that is a defensive play. The offensive line will be much more economic, and the Russian people may have a different view on Putin in the years to come.
Russia and the West: Vladimir Putin’s European adventures | The Economist
"The weakness in Mr Putin’s strategy is that, by allowing his visceral fears to drive his policy in Ukraine, he risks bringing about just what he hoped to avoid. He has lost Ukraine as an ally and a potential partner in the Eurasian union, while NATO is reasserting its military posture and bolstering its defences (see article). The spectre of increased NATO forces on Russia’s borders in Poland and the Baltic states has become a reality thanks to Mr Putin’s actions in Ukraine. And having fought to preserve its sovereignty and economic leverage in relation to Europe and the West, Russia risks replacing them with a new dependence on China."
Jeffrey Mankoff | How Crimea Compares to Russia’s Other Frozen Conflicts | Foreign Affairs
How Putin Won Crimea and Lost Ukraine, by Jeffrey Mankoff
"Russia may have won Crimea, but in the long run, it risks losing much more: its once close relationship with Ukraine, its international reputation, and its plan to draw the ex-Soviet states back together."
BBC News - Will MH17 air crash damage Russia's Putin?
Russian commentator Dmitri Trenin considers whether the downing of a Malaysian Airlines plane in eastern Ukraine could damage Russia's Vladimir Putin politically
Will MH17 air disaster damage Putin?
If the investigators' verdict does eventually fall against Russia it is not so much Vladimir Putin's integrity that will suffer, as respect for his strategic skill. He has, after all, never said that the rebels had nothing to do with the disaster; instead he blamed Ukraine for attacking them. Mr Putin will survive politically, but will have to work hard to restore faith in him, and his good fortune. Russia may, however, avoid the blame. And if it does, then the onus for the crime, and the responsibility, will be on others. And Vladimir Putin will have dodged that bullet, too.
Jeffrey Mankoff writing in Foreign Affairs makes the point that the intervention of Russia in the Crimea and east Ukraine is the latest in a series of similar episodes trying to pull back influence through exploiting ethnic division since the collapse of the Soviet Union. There had been Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and Nagarno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.
Putin will not stop trying to grow the power and influence of Russia in this way. Realpolitik is certainly his modus operandi. But the success of the approach is dependent on the willingness of others, for the most part Europe, to give ground.
I think the downing of MH17 and his reaction to it has swung the momentum against him. Unfortunately, it took the deaths of 298 innocents to finally wake up governments and their people to the chaos Putin unleashed and supports in eastern Ukraine. I make the assumption that the rebels did it, albeit by accident, with a Russian weapon. Putin's response has been relatively weak for his standards, caught between supporting the rebels on the quiet but trying to be a responsible power on the world stage.
I think he has therefore realized some short term wins, but for a longer term reduction in influence and power, even if east Ukraine remains in a similar state to those other regions Mankoff lists. I believe Europe will work much harder to find energy alternatives to Russian gas. The US will be happy to help on this, enjoying their own shale boom. There will also be more serious talk around NATO and being more prepared militarily, even if that is a defensive play. The offensive line will be much more economic, and the Russian people may have a different view on Putin in the years to come.
Russia and the West: Vladimir Putin’s European adventures | The Economist
"The weakness in Mr Putin’s strategy is that, by allowing his visceral fears to drive his policy in Ukraine, he risks bringing about just what he hoped to avoid. He has lost Ukraine as an ally and a potential partner in the Eurasian union, while NATO is reasserting its military posture and bolstering its defences (see article). The spectre of increased NATO forces on Russia’s borders in Poland and the Baltic states has become a reality thanks to Mr Putin’s actions in Ukraine. And having fought to preserve its sovereignty and economic leverage in relation to Europe and the West, Russia risks replacing them with a new dependence on China."
Jeffrey Mankoff | How Crimea Compares to Russia’s Other Frozen Conflicts | Foreign Affairs
How Putin Won Crimea and Lost Ukraine, by Jeffrey Mankoff
"Russia may have won Crimea, but in the long run, it risks losing much more: its once close relationship with Ukraine, its international reputation, and its plan to draw the ex-Soviet states back together."
BBC News - Will MH17 air crash damage Russia's Putin?
Russian commentator Dmitri Trenin considers whether the downing of a Malaysian Airlines plane in eastern Ukraine could damage Russia's Vladimir Putin politically
Will MH17 air disaster damage Putin?
If the investigators' verdict does eventually fall against Russia it is not so much Vladimir Putin's integrity that will suffer, as respect for his strategic skill. He has, after all, never said that the rebels had nothing to do with the disaster; instead he blamed Ukraine for attacking them. Mr Putin will survive politically, but will have to work hard to restore faith in him, and his good fortune. Russia may, however, avoid the blame. And if it does, then the onus for the crime, and the responsibility, will be on others. And Vladimir Putin will have dodged that bullet, too.
Comments