Recently (after US President Joe Biden answered in the affirmative to ABC journalist George Stephanopoulos's question about whether he considered Putin a killer), alarming news came from Russia that made even very serious analysts consider the chance for a widespread military conflict.
What were these alarming news, and has anything happened now that allows us to breathe a sigh of relief? There was/is: 1) an unprecedented concentration of Russian troops at the borders of Ukraine and in the Crimea; 2) the redeployment of more than 20 warships of the Baltic Navy and the Caspian Fleet to the Black Sea waters; 3) the sudden resumption of a massive propaganda campaign against Ukraine on the federal channels of Russian TV with unprecedented intensity; 4) the announcement to reconvene the Russian Federal Assembly the day after the annual message of the President of Russia (the Federal Assembly can authorize the deployment of troops outside the country, as was done on 1 March 2014); 5) an insistence for the US Ambassador to Russia to temporarily return home; 6) diplomatic scandals surrounding the explosions in the Czech Republic and Bulgaria; 7) the slow killing in prison and the demonstrative restriction of medical care for the Kremlin's main opposition, Alexei Navalny; 8) the visit of the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko to Moscow the day after Putin's message to the Federal Assembly against the background of closer integration talks between the two countries; 9) the operation of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), during which Pushkin researcher, philologist Alexander Feduta and lawyer Yuri Zenkovich were arrested in Moscow who, on behalf of the US State Department, CIA, FBI and other services, had planned a coup d'état in Belarus, the killing of Lukashenko and his children, the disconnection of the whole country from the mains and other acts of terror in a Moscow shashlik joint.
Each of these messages separately could seem like elements of Russia's information war, when obvious fake news is mixed in an inseparable cocktail with real ones. However, this whole set of facts led observers who are closely following the events in Russia to be seriously alarmed, as the sharpness of the confrontation crossed long-unprecedented boundaries.
Obviously, the likelihood of a large-scale military conflict is always less than the likelihood that nothing extraordinary will happen.
From this point of view, sneering that it is immediately clear that there would be no war and that it would end with another rattling of weapons sounds like the best choice, but if this time everything is resolved peacefully, it does not mean that it will be done so be the next time. After all, no one has canceled the so-called Chekhov principle - if a gun hangs on the wall, then at some point it will be fired.
But let's get back to those facts. After Putin's conspicuously non-aggressive message to the Federal Assembly and the announcement by Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu that troops on the Ukrainian border are returning to their bases, one could think that the danger has passed. Unfortunately, Russia's top officials have long gained a reputation that their peaceful rhetoric can be translated both ways.
The uncertainty that one cannot know whether what is being said is truth, bluff or deliberate misinformation is one of the key tools in Putin's strategy. According to Vladimir Pastukhov, a political scientist at the University College of London, "the wateriness and sleep-inducing boredom of [Putin's] message is alarming rather than reassuring." Putin's and Shoygu's "reassuring" words do not undo what has happened in recent months. At any time, the tone may change and the escalation of military threats may resume.
There was another worrying point in Putin's message. I am talking about Putin's version of the "conspiracy" against Belarus. Putin spoke of this "conspiracy" so convincingly, as if the basis of the evidence obtained did not raise the slightest doubt, although no one outside Russia and Belarus sphere of influence perceived the "conspiracy" as even partially credible. The "facts" are so absurd and obviously fabricated that it is clear that the main purpose of this "conspiracy" is to get an excuse for closer "integration" of Belarus.
There is a version that under the pretext of "securing Belarus' sovereignty against aggressive NATO networks", Russia could force the permanent deployment of military bases in Belarus. Lukashenko's words shortly before his visit to Moscow that he would "make the most fundamental decision in his quarter-century presidency" support this version. What the decision was about, he did not specify.
Although Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied on Friday that the establishment of such bases was discussed, this does not mean that this opportunity has disappeared and that Lukashenko would no longer think about making his "most fundamental decision." As Lukashenko's power has become almost entirely dependent on the Kremlin's favor since last year's unrest, the emergence of such bases is quite real. If this really happens (especially near the Ukrainian border, which is only 120 kilometers from Kyiv), it is unlikely to contribute to security in Europe and the world.
Unfortunately, tensions between Russia and the West are constantly growing, and it is difficult to even imagine what would have to happen for this vector to change direction significantly. However, it is well known what happens in the end if the direction remains the same.
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.