Despite the talks that resumed on Friday in Geneva between Russia and the United States on the Ukrainian crisis, Moscow is still standing on the threshold of an invasion of Ukraine and especially in front of several scenarios, including incursions and minor attacks. , which could complicate the response of Westerners.
But no matter which path the Kremlin is about to take, none should allow it to achieve its goals of weakening NATO and alienating the United States from security issues affecting Europe, says political scientist Seth Jones and ex-CIA agent Philip Wasielewski in an analysis published in the pages of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“The threat from Russia is particularly alarming”, they write, since Moscow could in the coming weeks “quickly move its prepositioned forces” to the Ukrainian border, in a balance of power to the advantage of the Kremlin. “The Russian army is significantly stronger and better trained than the Ukrainian army, and the United States and other NATO countries have made it clear that they will not deploy their forces in Ukraine to repel a Russian invasion. “, they add.
A probable attack
On Friday, the Ukrainian military intelligence service accused Moscow of continuing to “strengthen the combat capabilities” of pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, including sending tanks, artillery systems and ammunition. Nearly 100,000 Russian soldiers have been massed in recent weeks on the border with Ukraine in anticipation of an attack which, every day, in the face of the deadlock in diplomatic discussions, becomes more and more likely.
For Seth Jones and Philip Wasielewski, Moscow could, among the possible troop movements, opt for sending soldiers to the secessionist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in order to act unilaterally as a “peacekeeper” and “refuse to withdraw them until the talks are successfully completed”. Russia is demanding, among other things, that the United States and its allies commit in writing not to extend NATO to the east by bringing Ukraine into the Alliance.
This operation “for peace”, they say, would be the “least likely to result in significant international sanctions”, but would also be less likely to achieve a breakthrough on the NATO issue “due to its coercive nature”. , they explain.
Still according to the two authors, the Kremlin must also assess at this time the possibility of seizing Ukrainian territory to the west by appropriating the southern part of the Dnepr river, which crosses Kiev and continues its course towards the sea. Black, to use as a bargaining chip in the talks. Moscow could also continue its invasion of the Crimean peninsula, westward to southern Moldova, in order to weaken Ukraine by appropriating its access to the Black Sea.
A new “Iron Curtain”
Although these invasions herald a significant change in international politics, seeking to create a new “iron curtain” that stretches from the Russian-Finnish border to the southern flank of China through Eastern Europe , the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, “all of these military options would result in major international sanctions and economic hardship” for Russia, the analysts write in their report. They also point out that these attacks would be “counterproductive” in terms of halting NATO expansion and reducing European and American influence in this region of Europe.
On Friday in Geneva, the head of American diplomacy, Antony Blinken, asked his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, for proof that Russia had no intention of invading Ukraine, at the end of a meeting of two hours described by both sides as “frank and substantial”. “A good way to do this is to withdraw its troops to the Ukrainian border,” said the American secretary of state, while emphasizing a certain relaxation after several weeks of tension and verbal escalation.
For his part, Sergei Lavrov noted that he and his American counterpart had agreed on the need for a “reasonable dialogue” so that “the emotion falls”.
While refusing to accept a warmongering attitude, the Kremlin maintained its line of negotiation by subjecting a de-escalation to treaties guaranteeing the non-enlargement of NATO, in particular to Ukraine, and a withdrawal from the Alliance from ‘Eastern Europe. Requests deemed unacceptable by Westerners, who threaten Russia with severe sanctions in the event of an attack on Ukraine.
On Friday, Russia made its demands more complex by also calling for “a withdrawal of foreign forces, equipment and armaments” in several countries formerly under its influence, including Romania and Bulgaria, which joined NATO in 2004.
“Such a demand is unacceptable and cannot be part of the subjects of negotiation,” the Romanian foreign ministry said in a statement.
Meeting next week
At the end of their meeting, the heads of Russian and American diplomacy agreed to meet next week, Antony Blinken agreeing to the passage of putting “ideas” on paper for the attention of Moscow. However, he did not specify whether it was a question of responding point by point to the very detailed requirements of the Russians.
The Secretary of State also reiterated that responses were to be expected, including in the event of “non-military” aggression by Russia against Ukraine.
On Friday, on the sidelines of the two diplomats’ meeting, Kiev accused Russia of being behind hundreds of false bomb threats intended to “sow panic” in Ukraine, on the eve of a possible invasion.
“The objective of the special services of the aggressor country is obvious: to increase pressure on Ukraine, to sow anxiety and panic in society”, assured in a press release the Ukrainian security services, the SBU.
Since the beginning of the year, more than 300 bomb threats, all false, have already been recorded in Ukraine, against nearly 1,100 for the whole of the previous year, according to this source. According to the SBU, this kind of operation is part of a “modern hybrid warfare” strategy against Ukraine.