Great work, again - thanks Tomas. A lot of the logic of nations and strength seems to revolve around owning land - either for agriculture (in previous articles) or as a buffer in case of Russia. Empires needed land to produce food which was the primary source of energy. However in today's industrial & information technology world is this view still right? Why would a country want to "conquer" another territory with infantry taking over land? Is there a new logic for warfare?
Really excellent summary of an impossibibly broad subject. Kudos.
Now then, does Russia have a legitimate right to live with threat from its closest neighbours? Although NATO was initiated as a defense treaty, has it not become a provocative, offensive agreement when missiles are stationed at boundaries of Russia? Is the situation fundamentally different than missiles in Cuba? or Canada? Your geographic-climatic-historical summary is a foundation for an answer to those questions.
The core of the theory is that Russians are afraid Moscow will be invaded. However, since and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has never been a threat to Moscow, from any country. No one wants to invade Moscow. Plus, Russian now have nuclear weapons. I do not believe that Putin is afraid of Moscow being invaded or of an aggression from NATO. Putin thinks he is powerful and intelligent, and is playing games with what he believes to be his property. He really needs to go or things will just get worse.
Can’t help but wonder if the US response is partially driven by AIPAC, as there’s talk of Israel supplying Europe with gas by way of Turkey. I mean it’s nice to have that leverage, but climate change…
Nobody wants anything that Russia has that Russia isn't happy to sell. Get over it, Putin, Russia is boring to the world unless it picks on its little neighbors. Stop acting like a juvenile delinquent.
I never understood why the EU did not take advantage of the 90s situation to negotiate the end of military dependence on the USA and seek a rapprochement with Russia (which is more European than the USA) and whose natural resources are more necessary than foreign military bases on its territory. ¿Do you think it was possible?
How do you not mention LNG? US is interested in selling it to Europe, too. Using dirty shipping instead of letting Russia supply it via pipelines as directly as the can.
Mention Burisma.
In any case, US doesn't want to get into Ukraine and THEN have limited options for Taiwan. So they re-raise Russia with Kazakhstan...but Kazakhstan is even less dense... And a whole 51% Russian speaking, so that speaks volumes.
Now US foreign policy is suffering for Hillary's old school NFL thinking.
I believe Putin has clearly understood what are the new battlefields to keep his (country) interest high.
One of them is the internet and Russians are playing an active role in trying to pull the course of history through their own interests. Brexit and US elections among other recent « battles » are good examples.
The other face of this same thing is playing an active polarization against western countries through geopolitics. Syria and Afghanistan are some of those fronts.
Summarizing, I believe that for Russia to exist in today’s world’s top players list it does not need to be big (as it was the case in former centuries) it needs to have an awful power of influence and « creating troubles » is one way to achieve it. Invading Ukraine (or just the prospect of it) is one of them.
Aside from the geographic/historic predicament of Russia outlined in this post, how much weight do you put on Putin as a (main) source of its revitalized expansionary and aggressive stance towards the former USSR states and the build up of forces around eg Ukraine? (Asopposed to some sort of inevitable trend of history and geography)
"...starting with the farthest from Moscow, Germany."
No, it started with the 'Solidarnost' movement (Solidarity — Lech Walesa) in Poland.
Great work, again - thanks Tomas. A lot of the logic of nations and strength seems to revolve around owning land - either for agriculture (in previous articles) or as a buffer in case of Russia. Empires needed land to produce food which was the primary source of energy. However in today's industrial & information technology world is this view still right? Why would a country want to "conquer" another territory with infantry taking over land? Is there a new logic for warfare?
In 1867, Russia sold Alaska to the US. Was it due to
(1) lack of geopolitical value in defending Moscow (the main thesis of this article)?
(2) inability to administer a remote land?
(3) pure shortsightedness?
(4) something else?
Do you really need land as a buffer against invasions, when you have nuclear weapons ?
Really excellent summary of an impossibibly broad subject. Kudos.
Now then, does Russia have a legitimate right to live with threat from its closest neighbours? Although NATO was initiated as a defense treaty, has it not become a provocative, offensive agreement when missiles are stationed at boundaries of Russia? Is the situation fundamentally different than missiles in Cuba? or Canada? Your geographic-climatic-historical summary is a foundation for an answer to those questions.
Russia could always be sensible and join the EU.
The core of the theory is that Russians are afraid Moscow will be invaded. However, since and after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there has never been a threat to Moscow, from any country. No one wants to invade Moscow. Plus, Russian now have nuclear weapons. I do not believe that Putin is afraid of Moscow being invaded or of an aggression from NATO. Putin thinks he is powerful and intelligent, and is playing games with what he believes to be his property. He really needs to go or things will just get worse.
Russia's national sport is Chess; ours is the NFL.
What about the Vikings' role in establishing the early core of Russia?
Can’t help but wonder if the US response is partially driven by AIPAC, as there’s talk of Israel supplying Europe with gas by way of Turkey. I mean it’s nice to have that leverage, but climate change…
Nobody wants anything that Russia has that Russia isn't happy to sell. Get over it, Putin, Russia is boring to the world unless it picks on its little neighbors. Stop acting like a juvenile delinquent.
I never understood why the EU did not take advantage of the 90s situation to negotiate the end of military dependence on the USA and seek a rapprochement with Russia (which is more European than the USA) and whose natural resources are more necessary than foreign military bases on its territory. ¿Do you think it was possible?
How do you not mention LNG? US is interested in selling it to Europe, too. Using dirty shipping instead of letting Russia supply it via pipelines as directly as the can.
Mention Burisma.
In any case, US doesn't want to get into Ukraine and THEN have limited options for Taiwan. So they re-raise Russia with Kazakhstan...but Kazakhstan is even less dense... And a whole 51% Russian speaking, so that speaks volumes.
Now US foreign policy is suffering for Hillary's old school NFL thinking.
I believe Putin has clearly understood what are the new battlefields to keep his (country) interest high.
One of them is the internet and Russians are playing an active role in trying to pull the course of history through their own interests. Brexit and US elections among other recent « battles » are good examples.
The other face of this same thing is playing an active polarization against western countries through geopolitics. Syria and Afghanistan are some of those fronts.
Summarizing, I believe that for Russia to exist in today’s world’s top players list it does not need to be big (as it was the case in former centuries) it needs to have an awful power of influence and « creating troubles » is one way to achieve it. Invading Ukraine (or just the prospect of it) is one of them.
Aside from the geographic/historic predicament of Russia outlined in this post, how much weight do you put on Putin as a (main) source of its revitalized expansionary and aggressive stance towards the former USSR states and the build up of forces around eg Ukraine? (Asopposed to some sort of inevitable trend of history and geography)
And you haven’t mentioned US agri-business. Russia will never allow its breadbasket to fall into US corporate hegemony. For good reason.