Shoney'sPonyBoy 351 Posted February 26, 2022 Share Posted February 26, 2022 Biden Ignoring Budapest Memorandum Commitments to Ukraine By Gordon G. Chang - Russia continues to build up its forces along the borders of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an emotional speech on the 21st of this month, made it clear that he believes Ukraine is a part of Russia. U.S. President Joe Biden must now demand that Moscow withdraw its forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and Donbas. The Kremlin has, among other things, violated the assurances it gave Kyiv in the Budapest Memorandum. Biden, however, has so far shown little inclination to hold Russia to its promises. In December 1994, the United States, Great Britain, Russia and Ukraine signed the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Budapest Memorandum. In that document, the three parties made six commitments to Ukraine. In the most important of the pledges, they stated that they “reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” “Some have argued that, since the United States did not invade Ukraine, it abided by its Budapest Memorandum commitments,” wrote Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution in 2019. “True, in a narrow sense. However, when negotiating the security assurances, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts that, were Russia to violate them, the United States would take a strong interest and respond.” To be clear, as Pifer notes, Washington did not extend a NATO-like guarantee, but the U.S. should nonetheless act vigorously, he argued, “because it said it would act if Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum.” “That was part of the price it paid in return for a drastic reduction in the nuclear threat to America,” Pifer wrote. “The United States should keep its word.” Yes, the U.S. should. To induce Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons inherited on the dissolution of the Soviet Union—Ukraine ended up with some 6,000 warheads, the world’s third-largest arsenal at the time—the U.S., Great Britain, and Russia agreed to provide assurances. If Washington were to allow Russia to gobble up the rest of Ukraine, it would tell non-nuclear states they must have nuclear arsenals because they cannot rely on the nuclear weapons powers for security. So far, the situation is not looking good for Ukraine. In 2014, Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea and effectively sawed off the Donbas region. Neither the U.S. nor Britain imposed crippling costs on Russia for naked aggression. “Boy, after this, nobody is going to give up nuclear weapons,” Arthur Waldron of the University of Pennsylvania told Gatestone. As Waldron suggests, American policy toward Ukraine provides a horrible example. This time, the situation is even worse for the former Soviet republic. Russia on February 21 recognized two breakaway regions—the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics—in Donbas and now looks set to take the rest of the country in one giant gulp. Biden immediately sanctioned the two regions but did not impose costs on the bad actor, Russia. He has promised further measures, but only after an invasion. Moreover, his sanctions are unlikely to be so severe as to force Putin to leave Ukraine. In fact, on the 15th of this month, Biden made it clear that sanctions would be less than regime-threatening. “We do not seek to destabilize Russia,” he said. Biden’s threats have been unpersuasive and so far Putin has not been persuaded. “The Biden administration has only belatedly—and half-heartedly—undertaken measures to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine,” says Waldron. “Long ago, the President should have given heavy weapons to Kyiv. And he has not substantially reinforced Europe.” Since the Cold War, American policy toward Russia has been premised on the notion that a weak Russia was more of a threat to the U.S. than a strong one. As a result of that assessment, Putin has not had to face an America willing to use power to enforce norms. Whatever the merits of Washington’s tolerant and indulgent approach may have been—I think it was horribly misguided—Putin used this latitude to break apart neighbors and redraw the map of Europe and the Caucasus region with force. It is now time for the United States, to remember the promises made—those in writing and those made informally. Putin, after all, will not stop at Ukraine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,475 Posted February 26, 2022 Share Posted February 26, 2022 Obama and Biden both realized that they could talk the talk but would never walk the walk. At the end of the day, going to war with the Red Army is about the dumbest thing you can do. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler how it went. While I support a Free Ukraine, going to war with the Red Army on what they believe to be Russian Soil would be the dumbest thing done so far in the 21st Century. And oh btw, Sanctions apparently dont mean s***. The Russians are still under: Crimean Sanctions Assassination Sanctions And now Ukraine Sanctions. If you think sanctions mean anything to them, YAASF. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted February 26, 2022 Share Posted February 26, 2022 1 hour ago, DKW 86 said: And oh btw, Sanctions apparently dont mean s***. The Russians are still under: Crimean Sanctions Assassination Sanctions And now Ukraine Sanctions. The sanctions are a joke. Italy allegedly managed to secure a carve-out of one of its biggest industries in the sanctions the European Union levied on Russia, The Telegraph reported Friday. Italian prime minister Mario Draghi successfully secured a carve-out for Italian luxury goods from the EU’s package of economic sanctions against Nato,” Telegraph reporter Joe Barnes tweeted. He alleged that “multiple sources” reportedly confirmed luxury goods were excluded from the package after lobbying from Draghi. https://dailycaller.com/2022/02/25/report-italy-scored-gucci-loafers-carve-out-in-russian-sanctions/ But not some of its luxury goods companies. Italian diplomats reportedly called for the luxury goods sector to be left untouched, allowing Italian exports of clothing, jewelry, and other products to continue being sold in Russia. Belgium was also reportedly unhappy that sanctions were to be placed on the diamond trade, with officials saying that these would do more to harm the diamond trade than Russia itself. Both Italian luxury goods and diamonds were ultimately spared from the West’s sanctions on ultrawealthy oligarchs as of Friday, but questions remain as to how sanctions will handle the deep-seated ties Russia’s wealthiest people have with Europe. https://fortune.com/2022/02/25/putin-financial-power-in-western-europe-sanctions/ I guess the Russian elites are not too worried about these sanctions as we were led to believe. The man is standing up in front of the nations and not telling the whole truth. To the OP; Putin gave a speech proclaiming a revisionist history he hopes the world will believe. It is very similar to what the 1619 Project and CRT is trying to do here in America. Revisionist history by Marxist is not a good look. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoney'sPonyBoy 351 Posted February 27, 2022 Author Share Posted February 27, 2022 (edited) 20 hours ago, DKW 86 said: Obama and Biden both realized that they could talk the talk but would never walk the walk. At the end of the day, going to war with the Red Army is about the dumbest thing you can do. Just ask Napoleon and Hitler how it went. While I support a Free Ukraine, going to war with the Red Army on what they believe to be Russian Soil would be the dumbest thing done so far in the 21st Century. And oh btw, Sanctions apparently dont mean s***. The Russians are still under: Crimean Sanctions Assassination Sanctions And now Ukraine Sanctions. If you think sanctions mean anything to them, YAASF. If we weren't willing to actually defend them we never should have signed the agreement. If going to war with the Red Army would be the dumbest thing in the 21st century, then signing the agreement was the dumbest thing in the 20th century. Maybe we shouldn't go to war. Maybe we should just give them back the nukes we lied to get them to give up and stand aside. Edited February 27, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,475 Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said: If we weren't willing to actually defend them we never should have signed the agreement. If going to war with the Red Army would be the dumbest thing in the 21st century, then signing the agreement was the dumbest thing in the 20th century. Putin knows we are just bluff now, so do the Chinese. Maybe we shouldn't go to war. Maybe we should just give them back the nukes we lied to get them to give up and stand aside. And that is where we are today. Obama got exposed in the Crimea, while he was actually making the right decision. We placed some sanctions on Russia then. They basically murdered Magnitsky and got more sanctions. Those were the "sanctions to be removed at the Trump Tower meeting." Now, more sanctions for invading Ukraine. Seems like a person of normal intelligence would figure out that sanctions mean nothing to the Russians. Obama shot his mouth off about the Crimea, and then to his credit, shut up and made the right call about not going to war. Biden, again, shot his mouth off about the Ukraine, and then had no choice but to back down. Both of these situations made us look like chumps in full view of the world. Does anyone here think China aint watching? Taiwan will be the next one to go because AFTER 20 YEARS OF WAR FOR NOTHING (Thank you Bush43, Obama, Trump had set a date to leave at least) the American People do not want any more war for the MIC. Edited February 27, 2022 by DKW 86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,109 Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said: If we weren't willing to actually defend them we never should have signed the agreement. If going to war with the Red Army would be the dumbest thing in the 21st century, then signing the agreement was the dumbest thing in the 20th century. Maybe we shouldn't go to war. Maybe we should just give them back the nukes we lied to get them to give up and stand aside. It isn't as though the U.S. and EU have done nothing to help support Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to helping support their independence on top of loan guarantees and many other types of aide. Fighting Russia over Ukraine is not worth the life of my son, daughter, niece, or nephew. What about yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoney'sPonyBoy 351 Posted February 27, 2022 Author Share Posted February 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, AU9377 said: It isn't as though the U.S. and EU have done nothing to help support Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to helping support their independence on top of loan guarantees and many other types of aide. Fighting Russia over Ukraine is not worth the life of my son, daughter, niece, or nephew. What about yours? You might want to read the NYT article I posted on another thread regarding this. This isn't about Ukraine's independence, this is about a 100% strategic geo-defense shift regarding Eastern Europe. It's about making Poland, Romania, and Hungary vulnerable to the same threat, and leaving a very thin geographical area between Russia's nuclear and conventional weaponry and Eastern Europe. This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Putin making moves that could potentially start another World War...at least another Cold War. It would be in the best interest of NATO members to stop this. Read the article, then get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,475 Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 2 hours ago, DKW 86 said: And that is where we are today. Obama got exposed in the Crimea, while he was actually making the right decision. We placed some sanctions on Russia then. They basically murdered Magnitsky and got more sanctions. Those were the "sanctions to be removed at the Trump Tower meeting." Now, more sanctions for invading Ukraine. Seems like a person of normal intelligence would figure out that sanctions mean nothing to the Russians. Obama shot his mouth off about the Crimea, and then to his credit, shut up and made the right call about not going to war. Biden, again, shot his mouth off about the Ukraine, and then had no choice but to back down. Both of these situations made us look like chumps in full view of the world. Does anyone here think China aint watching? Taiwan will be the next one to go because AFTER 20 YEARS OF WAR FOR NOTHING (Thank you Bush43, Obama, Trump had set a date to leave at least) the American People do not want any more war for the MIC. I agree with most of this. You have an aversion to the MIC and I understand it as it has had a profound affect on some of our leaders. However, like you mentioned in the other thread you just started about *the 80’s called and want their foreign policy back* Reagan’s peace through strength message is the way to go and has always been that way throughout history. The only way to do this is to feed the MIC. You just have to have leaders that understand what strengths you have and when to use those strengths. Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, but didn’t have an exit strategy. He failed in wanting to establish a democracy in that country when that country was no where near being able to handle one. The U.S.’s ideals do not work for everyone and sometimes we don’t understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,475 Posted February 27, 2022 Share Posted February 27, 2022 23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: I agree with most of this. You have an aversion to the MIC and I understand it as it has had a profound affect on some of our leaders. However, like you mentioned in the other thread you just started about *the 80’s called and want their foreign policy back* Reagan’s peace through strength message is the way to go and has always been that way throughout history. The only way to do this is to feed the MIC. I submit, quit dropping bombs on brownskinned peoples. You just have to have leaders that understand what strengths you have and when to use those strengths. Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, but didn’t have an exit strategy. He failed in wanting to establish a democracy in that country when that country was nowhere near being able to handle one. The U.S.’s ideals do not work for everyone and sometimes we don’t understand that. Totally agree. Thank you, A+ 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,753 Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 You just have to have leaders that understand what strengths you have and when to use those strengths. Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, but didn’t have an exit strategy. He failed in wanting to establish a democracy in that country when that country was nowhere near being able to handle one. The U.S.’s ideals do not work for everyone and sometimes we don’t understand that. Iraq says hello as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted February 28, 2022 Share Posted February 28, 2022 1 hour ago, autigeremt said: You just have to have leaders that understand what strengths you have and when to use those strengths. Bush was right to invade Afghanistan, but didn’t have an exit strategy. He failed in wanting to establish a democracy in that country when that country was nowhere near being able to handle one. The U.S.’s ideals do not work for everyone and sometimes we don’t understand that. Iraq says hello as well! I think our stated ideals are pretty universal. I just don't think those ideals are the genuine reason for most of our foreign policy or, trade policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoAU 1,604 Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 (edited) On 2/27/2022 at 10:28 AM, DKW 86 said: We've escalated well beyond this we we went full out and a celeb penned "If I were your mother" - went straight for Putin himself.... Edited March 1, 2022 by GoAU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,109 Posted March 9, 2022 Share Posted March 9, 2022 On 2/27/2022 at 11:28 AM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said: You might want to read the NYT article I posted on another thread regarding this. This isn't about Ukraine's independence, this is about a 100% strategic geo-defense shift regarding Eastern Europe. It's about making Poland, Romania, and Hungary vulnerable to the same threat, and leaving a very thin geographical area between Russia's nuclear and conventional weaponry and Eastern Europe. This isn't about Ukraine. This is about Putin making moves that could potentially start another World War...at least another Cold War. It would be in the best interest of NATO members to stop this. Read the article, then get back to me. So you want troops on the ground and armed conflict with Russia? If Biden did that, you would immediately accuse him of being unhinged and a million other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdefromtx 3,159 Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 2 hours ago, AU9377 said: So you want troops on the ground and armed conflict with Russia? If Biden did that, you would immediately accuse him of being unhinged and a million other things. I’m not for the US getting involved. But if Russia goes even crazier and attacks a NATO nation then all bets are off as far as I’m concerned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,109 Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 16 hours ago, wdefromtx said: I’m not for the US getting involved. But if Russia goes even crazier and attacks a NATO nation then all bets are off as far as I’m concerned. I believe we would and are obligated to respond if Russia was to attack a NATO country. I believe that Putin respects the strength of NATO and realizes that attacking a NATO country would result in a war that he cannot win. Then again, his actions have now turned a Ukraine that was once aligned with Russia into an enemy for generations to come, so his decision making is less than rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 24 minutes ago, AU9377 said: I believe we would and are obligated to respond if Russia was to attack a NATO country. I believe that Putin respects the strength of NATO and realizes that attacking a NATO country would result in a war that he cannot win. Then again, his actions have now turned a Ukraine that was once aligned with Russia into an enemy for generations to come, so his decision making is less than rational. To the bolded part: what evidence do you see that Putin respects NATO? What I see is Poland, a NATO country, agrees to provide Ukraine with MIG Jets that the Ukraine Air Force is familiar with and on Sunday Blinken gives the green light to the deal. Poland makes the stipulation that the US has to have some skin in the game by staging the aircraft from a NATO air base in Germany, but because America is now directly involved in delivering those jets, America backs off and says *we stand by the Ukrainian people in their conflict with Russia*, but this could escalate the conflict. WTH? NATO and Biden are so afraid they may set off Putin they are willing to do nothing and let this thing get out of control. Taiwan is watching and probably scared to death, literally. Putin is looking for a way to save face and come out to this with a win some how and it will probably happen. Biden will say *at least we didn’t get into a nuclear war*. Putin’s decision making is less than rational and that is what scares Biden and NATO. They don’t know how to handle a person that doesn’t think like they do except to appease the alligator. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,109 Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: To the bolded part: what evidence do you see that Putin respects NATO? What I see is Poland, a NATO country, agrees to provide Ukraine with MIG Jets that the Ukraine Air Force is familiar with and on Sunday Blinken gives the green light to the deal. Poland makes the stipulation that the US has to have some skin in the game by staging the aircraft from a NATO air base in Germany, but because America is now directly involved in delivering those jets, America backs off and says *we stand by the Ukrainian people in their conflict with Russia*, but this could escalate the conflict. WTH? NATO and Biden are so afraid they may set off Putin they are willing to do nothing and let this thing get out of control. Taiwan is watching and probably scared to death, literally. Putin is looking for a way to save face and come out to this with a win some how and it will probably happen. Biden will say *at least we didn’t get into a nuclear war*. Putin’s decision making is less than rational and that is what scares Biden and NATO. They don’t know how to handle a person that doesn’t think like they do except to appease the alligator. They are hardly appeasing him. The only way to have any impact short of ground troops is to present a unified front with our allies and NATO. The Stinger air defense weapons are much more effective at downing Russian aircraft than MIGs in the air. I know you want so badly to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine the fault of Joe Biden, but that simply isn't the case. Likewise, It is really easy to blame the EU for dependence on Russian natural gas etc, but Americans aren't paying to heat their homes with the stuff. This is a complicated situation that has to be handled carefully. The last thing we need is intentionally escalate the situation. If Putin had no respect or fear of the strength of NATO, he would not be so paranoid about countries gaining membership. Edited March 10, 2022 by AU9377 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted March 10, 2022 Share Posted March 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, AU9377 said: This is a complicated situation that has to be handled carefully. The last thing we need is intentionally escalate the situation. We are letting Putin decide what escalating the situation is. We are already providing Stingers (which you say is better than aircraft) and Putin hasn’t said that is escalating. Why let Putin dictated terms of this war? I’m not blaming the war on Biden, but his handling of this is beyond bad. Who sends Kamala Harris over to Poland to speak for the US? She talks to the world like everybody is in the 3rd grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU9377 5,109 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: We are letting Putin decide what escalating the situation is. We are already providing Stingers (which you say is better than aircraft) and Putin hasn’t said that is escalating. Why let Putin dictated terms of this war? I’m not blaming the war on Biden, but his handling of this is beyond bad. Who sends Kamala Harris over to Poland to speak for the US? She talks to the world like everybody is in the 3rd grade. You send her because she is the VP of the United States. Sending the Sec of Defense would not be the right optics, even though he would be a commanding presence. Putin is the invading army and we are not a party to the conflict. The last thing we want to do is to validate Putin's concerns about the U.S. and NATO having some sort of desire to expand and threaten Russia in some way. The U.S. lost a lot of credibility during our occupation of Iraq. We knowingly misrepresented intelligence reports to our closest allies and engineered reasons to continue our occupation that were misguided, to put it nicely. Nobody wanted this crisis to happen, but it does give us the opportunity to remind the rest of the world why we are a country that shares their values and that can be trusted, as opposed to Putin's Russia and China. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: We are letting Putin decide what escalating the situation is. We are already providing Stingers (which you say is better than aircraft) and Putin hasn’t said that is escalating. Why let Putin dictated terms of this war? I’m not blaming the war on Biden, but his handling of this is beyond bad. Who sends Kamala Harris over to Poland to speak for the US? She talks to the world like everybody is in the 3rd grade. This is not a middle school fist fight. The man has a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the planet. Bravado and posturing mean very little. Realize, Putin has little to gain now and, everything to lose. His initial plan has not been successful. He has growing internal and external pressure. He is very dangerous. Our next move, is critical. I listened to a retired General on the entertainment news tonight who, I think, had the right idea. Flood the Ukrainians with missiles, instruct them to allow the convoys to approach the cities, create an obstacle and, destroy them. Give Putin something so that he can go home with a "win". He will not go away, any other way. The alternative is unthinkable. Sometimes, you have to buy time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 12 hours ago, AU9377 said: You send her because she is the VP of the United States. You know who would have sent a message that America was serious about Ukraine? The President even though he would not take questions from the press. Joe sends Harris is when the situation is lost already or at least that is the perception. 12 hours ago, AU9377 said: The U.S. lost a lot of credibility during our occupation of Iraq. We knowingly misrepresented intelligence reports to our closest allies and engineered reasons to continue our occupation that were misguided, to put it nicely. Nobody wanted this crisis to happen, but it does give us the opportunity to remind the rest of the world why we are a country that shares their values and that can be trusted, as opposed to Putin's Russia and China. Yes we did, but the way we’re handling this situation isn’t giving the Ukrainians a warm and fuzzy about trusting the US to even help the Ukrainians to defend themselves. The people of Taiwan are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,488 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,033 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 12 hours ago, icanthearyou said: This is not a middle school fist fight. The man has a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the planet. Bravado and posturing mean very little. Realize, Putin has little to gain now and, everything to lose. His initial plan has not been successful. He has growing internal and external pressure. He is very dangerous. Our next move, is critical. I listened to a retired General on the entertainment news tonight who, I think, had the right idea. Flood the Ukrainians with missiles, instruct them to allow the convoys to approach the cities, create an obstacle and, destroy them. Give Putin something so that he can go home with a "win". He will not go away, any other way. The alternative is unthinkable. Sometimes, you have to buy time. A middle school fist fight is a good analogy. The bully (Putin) has determined through observing his target (Ukraine) was vulnerable and more importantly, the targets biggest defender (NATO and the US) was even weaker than the target. Putin knows, because President Biden has told him, that US Troops were not going to be deployed and that the the world is afraid of a nuclear conflict. So, Putin is threatening nuclear conflict and recently chemical weapons. This is a strategy that put Putin in control and doesn't allow the good guys to come up with any situation to change the tide. We are reacting to whatever Putin wants to through out. Putin is a desperate man and I agree that Putin has to save face to get out of this. Putin also has such an ego that he has to be perceived as a vicious leader to keep control of his political life. He really doesn’t care about his own people so how do you threaten him? We are in a wait and see game to see who breaks first, Ukraine or Putin. If Putin gets out of this with portions of Ukraine or promises that will put Ukraine as a close ally to Russia, Putin has won. I wonder who would be next? What would our strategy be to block his advances? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,488 Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 Putin doesn’t fear a coup by oligarchs. But he should fear his fellow spies. Russia’s security services have tried to topple its leaders before By Steven L. Hall Steven L. Hall retired from the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing Russian operations. Analysts and Russia watchers are batting about the idea that perhaps Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin has become mentally unstable. They point to ranting speeches where Putin seems to invent history out of whole cloth, or his public and cringeworthy dressing down of one of his intelligence chiefs. Then there are the meme-worthy photos of Putin sitting at the end of ridiculously long tables. Some observe that Putin simply doesn’t look well physically — puffy in the face and less steady on his feet. Speculation suggests that all of this is due to the Russian leader’s increased isolation, his surrounding himself with yes-men, or his angst over the bite of widespread economic sanctions the West and other allies have leveled against him since Russia invaded Ukraine. Others say he is afraid of covid-19 and taking draconian precautions. Putin is indeed afraid, but not of covid. He fears a coup. The oligarchs aren’t the ones who would turn on Putin. There is something of a power-sharing agreement between Putin and his oligarchical team, but it is one-sided and mostly economic: Putin allows them to run large moneymaking entities in Russia and abroad, and in return, they help him launder his own funds or assist him for whatever else he deems them useful. But the oligarchs have no direct access to hard power, such as police or other armed security forces in Russia. Nor will the mythical Russian “man on the street” rise up to dethrone Putin. There are Russians who support Putin’s policies, and others who have simply become politically apathetic. Many believe the state propaganda, which is the only news information most Russians can access. While on occasion Russian citizens do protest — sometime in the thousands and tens of thousands — these demonstrations are always forcefully broken up by police and security forces. The Kremlin allows protests (which they undoubtedly know about in advance due to intelligence work conducted among protest organizers) so that to Westerners, it appears there may be a bit of freedom of speech in Russia after all. This way, Putin can claim to his Western audience that Russians have a right to express their political views. After the riots are over, though, the protesters are often incarcerated or worse. The real threat to Putin comes from the siloviki, a Russian word used loosely to describe Russia’s security and military elite. These are people like Nikolai Patrushev, currently the secretary of the Russian security council, and Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), as well as other current and former senior security officials. Men like Patrushev and Bortnikov not only possess hard power, but they know how to use it and are inclined to do so. The FSB includes around 160,000 members of the Border Guard service, as well as thousands of armed personnel with law enforcement authorities. But the strength of the FSB comes not only from its ability to do violence; the organization is also highly secretive. FSB officers are skilled at working clandestinely, keeping their most sensitive operations strictly compartmented to small groups. Putin understands this better than most: He once ran the organization himself. The siloviki are willing to use this deadly mixture of hard power and secrecy when a serious threat to the Russian kleptocratic system emerges. That’s because the security elite derives their power from the system. The whole operation can flex when threatened; street protests are tolerated to a certain extent, and Russia has withstood lesser Western sanctions in the past. Like branches of an old tree, the kleptocratic autocracy in the Kremlin can withstand the occasional storm, but if the trunk is rotting, the siloviki will take action. The siloviki are formidable. These are the men who tried to poison opposition leader Alexei Navalny; when that failed, they had him imprisoned, seemingly indefinitely. The heads of the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, planned and executed the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal using a Russian military-grade nerve agent. Other siloviki planned the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, lacing his tea with polonium in a London hotel. Putin, who reportedly approved these operations personally, is only too familiar with the capabilities of the security elite. Putin and the siloviki are all Chekists at heart. The Cheka was the first modern iteration of an organization that eventually evolved into the KGB. But the organization’s name or structure is less important than the Chekist mentality, which traces its roots back to Vladimir Lenin and later, Joseph Stalin. Both Soviet leaders were fond of leaning into terror as a methodology for controlling Russia, and this tradition has been passed down from one generation of Chekists to the next. On what used to be called “Chekist Day” in Russia (now called with greater political correctness Security Agency Workers Day), Putin would routinely make celebratory phone calls to the senior leaders in what Russians still refer to as their “special services.” But what likely has the Russian autocrat losing the most sleep these days (and perhaps acting a bit erratically) is that Putin, who takes the time to study history so as to better distort it, cannot have overlooked the coup attempt against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. At the time, the Soviet Union was unraveling. Factories were failing because employees simply stopped showing up for work — because their employers had stopped paying them. More troubling to the security and military elite, the Soviet republics around the perimeter of the state were beginning to break away, declaring autonomy and even independence. The siloviki were witnessing a massive disruption that they feared would lead to the dissolution of the country — and the power they had amassed — as they had known it for decades. Rather than let the system from which they derived power and riches devolve further, they intervened, detaining Gorbachev while he was vacationing at one of his dachas. In the end, the attempted coup was unsuccessful, but it marked the beginning of the end of Gorbachev’s regime — and the entire Soviet Union. Putin, with his KGB background, must see the obvious parallels. The West, with great unanimity of effort, has imposed crushing sanctions on Russia, and the kleptocratic system is beginning to feel the pressure. The first to feel the sanctions will be the oligarchs, who have become accustomed over the years to wringing wealth out of Russia by virtue of the sweetheart deals Putin allows for their businesses. Sanctions on these businesses will gut the oligarchs’ wealth. They’ll have a harder time laundering ill-gotten gains, which means it will be harder for oligarchs and their families to enjoy the money they have stolen from the Russian people. They won’t be able to use their personal jets and yachts (several of which have already been seized by Western governments). Europe, the United States, Canada and several Asian democracies will not grant oligarchs visas. The oligarch class will begin to complain — and then to panic. Ordinary Russians are already beginning to feel the pinch, with reports of credit cards and electronic payment systems not working. Western goods in stores will be harder to come by, and even harder to buy as the ruble loses value. And due to sanctions on Russian airlines, Russian citizens will be severely limited as to where they can travel outside the country (and maybe even inside the huge landmass, as planes will not receive needed parts and maintenance). Normal Russian citizens will begin to complain. Many will take to the streets, as several thousand already have. Putin will see little threat from either oligarchs or common Russians. He has mechanisms to repress both, and he has done so effectively in the past. No oligarch will forget the fate of Mikhael Khodorskovskiy, who spent 10 years in prison for challenging Putin politically and is now exiled in London. And all Russian citizens understand, almost at the genetic level, Putin’s ability to inflict terror and death on demonstrators. Russian opposition figures and journalists don’t want to end up like Boris Nemtsov (shot within shouting distance of the Kremlin) or Ana Politikovskaya (shot in the head in her apartment building). But the siloviki pose a much more serious danger for Putin. If the security elite perceives the system is rotting, they will do what’s necessary to protect their interests. They have weapons and the personnel to threaten Putin. They know how to operate under Putin’s radar, because they are the ones in charge of the radar itself. And while it is reasonable to assume Putin has some means to monitor the siloviki, he will not be able to follow their actions constantly and with great precision, given all the other issues on his plate. The invasion of Ukraine has triggered a withering response that threatens the viability of the Russian state. As in 1991, the country is at grave risk. The siloviki, watching the slow-motion dissolution of the kleptocratic autocracy that has kept them in power for the past three decades, have the ability to end Putin’s regime. They may decide to act. Putin would do well to remember the words Felix Dzerzinskiy, the brutal head of the Cheka, uttered over 100 years ago: “We stand for organized terror — this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution.” The only question remaining is whether the siloviki consider this to be such a time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/10/putin-coup-russia-siloviki/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now