U.S. to Bolster Europe’s Fuel Supply to Blunt Threat of Russian Cutoff
Russia announced military drills near Ukraine, a day after U.S. troops were placed on “high alert.” President Biden held talks with European leaders as fears of a Russian invasion deepened.
Follow our latest coverage of the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The Biden administration announced on Tuesday that it was working with gas and crude oil suppliers from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia to bolster supplies to Europe in coming weeks, in an effort to blunt the threat that Russia could cut off fuel shipments in the escalating conflict over Ukraine.
European allies have been cautious in public about how far they would go in placing severe sanctions on Moscow if it invades Ukraine. Germany has been especially wary; it has shuttered many of its nuclear plants, increasing its dependence on natural gas imports to generate electricity.
Many European officials have said they suspect President Vladimir V. Putin instigated the current crisis in the depths of winter for a reason, calculating that his leverage is maximized if he can threaten to turn off Russian fuel sales to Europe.
Russia provides about one-third of the gas and crude oil imported by the European Union. Last year Russia provided about 128 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe, according to industry estimates, and about a third of that flowed through a pipeline that runs through Ukraine. Russia has reduced that flow this winter, and its effort to open the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, connecting Siberia to Germany, would route fuel around Ukraine, and increase European dependency on Russian supply.
The initiative to get fuel from alternative sources flowing to Europe now, before a true crisis erupts, was described by Biden administration officials as a key element in assuring allies that they will be able to weather any cutoff of supply by Russia.
The theory is that, once they are reassured about energy supplies, European allies will be far more willing to sever Russian financial institutions from the international banking system, and to join in new export controls that would bar Russian manufacturers from receiving semiconductors and other key parts that are based on American designs.
“We expect to be prepared to ensure alternative supplies covering a significant majority of the potential shortfall,’’ a senior administration official told reporters in a call on Tuesday morning.
“If Russia decides to weaponize its supply of natural gas or crude oil,’’ the official added, “it wouldn’t be without consequences to the Russian economy. Remember, this is a one-dimensional economy, and that means it needs oil and gas revenues at least as much as Europe needs its energy supply.”
The official declined to say which countries were cooperating in the effort, but some of the sources are obvious, including Saudi Arabia. But the official, who declined to be identified under briefing rules set by the administration, said the effort involves boosting “a few cargoes of different suppliers,’’ and could involve sending shipments of liquid natural gas from the United States and other producers.
In the briefing, officials declined to say how much of Europe’s needs could be met by diverting fuel from other sources. And some of the plans sounded preliminary, in what has turned into something of a contest of psychological warfare between Russia and the West, with the Kremlin warning European nations to stay out of the conflict over Ukraine.
President Biden met with a range of European leaders for 80 minutes on Monday, trying to keep the alliance together as it warns Mr. Putin of “massive consequences” if he invades.
At a news conference last week, the president talked about the divisions inside Europe on what actions to take against Russia, depending on the kind of action taken against Ukraine. After acknowledging that there are differences over how to react to what he termed a “minor incursion,’’ he and other administration officials have hardened the U.S. stance, warning that any aggressive action over Ukraine’s border would bring about a coordinated allied response.
With little sign of diplomatic progress, and rhetoric reminiscent of the Cold War, Russia on Tuesday announced a flurry of military drills across its vast territory, spanning from the Pacific Ocean to its western flank around Ukraine.
The announcement, which followed a series of military moves made by the United States and NATO aimed at deterring a Russian incursion into Ukraine, demonstrated the vast reach of the Russian forces and were carried out by units positioned to the north, south and east of Ukraine.
They involved tanks and drones, troops from regular infantry and elite paratroopers. They took place both near Ukraine and far from the region, with three navy ships taking part in joint drills with the Chinese fleet in the Arabian Sea, the Russian defense ministry said. The Russians limited access to independent journalists, instead releasing photos and video of the drills.
In the west of Russia, crews boarded the Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile systems, drove them to a training ground, and lifted their missiles up in their combat positions, according to a video released by the ministry.
Closer to Ukraine, Russian troops continued to disembark heavy-duty armored vehicles and other equipment from rail platforms in Belarus, ahead of joint drills with Belarusian forces.
Belarus shares a border with Ukraine, and NATO and U.S. officials have warned that the influx of Russian forces there could threaten the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, less than 50 miles from Belarusian territory.
Dmitri S. Peskov, the spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin, dismissed such fears on Tuesday, saying that tensions around Ukraine have been stirred up by the United States.
“We are observing such actions of the United States with profound concern,” Mr. Peskov said when asked about the American decision to put 8,500 troops on “high alert.”
On Monday, in more extensive comments, Mr. Peskov said the U.S. and NATO were orchestrating “information hysteria” around Ukraine by reporting “lies” and “fakes.”
“I would like to note that this is happening not because of what Russia is doing,” he said. “It is happening because of what NATO and the U.S. do, because of the information that they spread,” he said.
On the other side of Ukraine, in Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, Russian tanks launched planned shooting exercises. The Russian contingent in Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldova, on Ukraine’s southwest, was put on combat alert as part of a planned exercise, the ministry said.
Other exercises were also reported in the North Caucasus, near Moscow, in the Baltic Sea. In the Ivanovo region near Moscow, the Yars mobile missile launcher vehicles, used for intercontinental missiles, began patrolling the area.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main storyKYIV, Ukraine — Despite Russia’s military buildup at the Ukrainian border, NATO forces on alert and the U.S. warning that an attack could come imminently, Ukraine’s leadership is playing down the Russian threat.
That has left analysts guessing about the leadership’s motivation. Some say it is to keep the Ukrainian markets stable, prevent panic and avoid provoking Moscow, while others attribute it to the country’s uneasy acceptance that conflict with Russia is part of Ukraine’s daily existence.
Already this week, Ukraine’s defense minister asserted that there had been no change in the Russian forces compared with a buildup in the spring; the head of the national security council accused some Western countries and news media outlets of overstating the danger for geopolitical purposes; and a Foreign Ministry spokesman took a swipe at the United States and Britain for pulling families of diplomats from embassies in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital.
This week’s proclamations came after an address to the nation last week by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in which he asked, “What’s new? Isn’t this the reality for eight years?”
How to interpret the threat from Russian troops and equipment massed at Ukraine’s border is a subject of intense debate. Ukraine’s own military intelligence service now says there are at least 127,000 troops on the border, significantly more than were deployed by Russia in the spring buildup.
That does not yet include the troops arriving in neighboring Belarus, a Russian ally, ahead of military exercises next month. The United States says those drills could be used as a pretext to place forces within striking distance of Kyiv.
Even so, in an interview on Monday with the Ukrainian television station ICTV, Ukraine’s defense minister, Oleksii Reznikov, seemed to wonder what all the fuss was about.
“Today, at this very moment, not a single strike group of the Russian armed forces has been established, which attests to the fact that tomorrow they are not going to invade,” Mr. Reznikov said. “That is why I ask you to not spread panic.”
There are different reasons for the disconnect in messaging between Ukrainian officials and their American counterparts, analysts say. Mr. Zelensky must be deft in crafting a message that keeps Western aid flowing, does not provoke Russia and reassures the Ukrainian people.
And after eight years of war with Russia, experts say, Ukrainians simply calculate the threat differently than their Western allies.
transcript
Western Allies United Against Russian Aggression, Johnson Says
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain said leaders in Europe and the United States were unified in their determination to prevent a Russian invasion of Ukraine and prepared to level severe, coordinated sanctions in response to any Russian attack.
Ukrainians have every moral and legal right to defend their country, and I believe their resistance would be dogged and tenacious, and the bloodshed comparable to the first war in Chechnya or Bosnia, Mr. Speaker, or any other conflict that Europe has endured since 1945. No one would gain from such a catastrophe. Last night, I held a virtual meeting with President Biden, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz, President Duda, Prime Minister Draghi General Secretary Stoltenberg, President Michel and President von der Leyen. We agreed that we would respond in unison to any Russian attack on Ukraine — in unison by imposing coordinated and severe economic sanctions heavier than anything we have done before against Russia. And we agreed on the necessity of finalizing these measures as swiftly as possible in order to maximize their deterrent effect.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain warned on Tuesday that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to perhaps the worst bloodshed in Europe since the end of World War II, and said that Western democracies were united in their determination to prevent such a tragedy.
“Ukrainians have every moral and legal right to defend their country, and I believe their resistance would be dogged and tenacious,” Mr. Johnson told Parliament. “No one would gain from such a catastrophe.”
“Russia would create a wasteland in a country which, as she constantly reminds us, is composed of fellow Slavs,” he warned. “And Russia would never be able to call it peace.”
After speaking with leaders from the United States and Europe on Monday night, he said there was agreement to “respond in unison to any Russian attack on Ukraine, in unison, by imposing coordinated and severe sanctions, heavier than anything we have done before against Russia.”
Mr. Johnson’s comments on Tuesday reflect his desire to position Britain as a player in world affairs, even as he wrestles with a political scandal at home that could force him from office.
Over the weekend, Britain accused President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia of plotting to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine, a dramatic announcement that roiled the already churning geopolitical waters surrounding Ukraine.
The accusation provided few details about how Russia might go about installing a new government in Ukraine, and the public communiqué did not say whether such plans were contingent on an invasion by Russian troops. British officials familiar with the situation said the intent was to head off any activation of such plans and to put Mr. Putin on notice that the plot had been exposed.
In Washington, officials said they believed the British intelligence was correct.
The British assertion was the second time in just over a week that a Western power had publicly accused Russia of secretly undermining Ukraine, part of a concerted effort to pressure Mr. Putin to de-escalate. On Jan. 14, the United States accused the Kremlin of sending saboteurs into eastern Ukraine to create a provocation that could serve as a pretext for invasion.
As fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine have grown in recent weeks, Britain has sought to take an assertive role — a demonstration of its desire to be a key player in global affairs after leaving the European Union.
The government is preparing legislation that would enable it to impose sanctions if Mr. Putin carried out an invasion, and it also said on Tuesday that it would send Foreign Minister Liz Truss to Ukraine next week in a show of solidarity.
But British troops, Ms. Truss told Parliament on Tuesday, are unlikely to be deployed in combat roles in Ukraine. She said the government was working to ensure that Ukraine has the weapons and training it needs.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
Amid military posturing on both sides, leaders of NATO nations sought to present a united front in the escalating crisis over Ukraine, while continuing to press for a diplomatic solution on Tuesday.
President Emmanuel Macron of France said on Tuesday that he would speak later this week by phone with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain said his foreign minister, Liz Truss, would travel to Kyiv. The United States and its allies were unanimous in saying Russia would face serious consequences for a new military incursion into Ukraine.
But behind that solidarity was considerable uncertainty over the stance of Germany, which has the world’s fourth-biggest economy and would be essential to any plans to penalize Russia.
Germany has significant economic ties to Russia, including heavy dependence on Russian fuel imports, and it is unclear what measures Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government would be willing to take. The Biden administration’s plan, unveiled on Tuesday, to ensure adequate fuel supplies to Europe in the event of a Russian embargo, is aimed in part at assuaging German fears.
Mr. Scholz on Tuesday reiterated Germany’s opposition to sending arms to Ukraine, a measure the United States, Britain and others have taken, and noted that his country’s position had been the same under his predecessor, Angela Merkel.
“The government always decided against delivering lethal weapons in recent years,” he said at a news conference with President Emmanuel Macron of France, after they met Tuesday in Berlin, with Ukraine high on the agenda. “There are reasons for this.”
The leader of the conservative opposition in Germany warned against excluding Russian banks from international financial networks, an option being considered in Washington, because it would harm German interests.
Mr. Macron spoke more forcefully about Moscow, warning that the cost of any aggression “will be very high.”
“Very clearly, today one can only observe that Russia is becoming a disruptive power” in Eastern Europe, he said.
The French president, like President Biden and Mr. Johnson of Britain, glossed over differences among NATO nations. “We are collectively very vigilant,” Mr. Macron said. “We are following in real time the situation and its evolution, and we are preparing all sorts of reaction.”
Mr. Biden held a video conference call with European leaders on Monday evening. The leaders discussed “preparations to impose massive consequences and severe economic costs on Russia for such actions as well as to reinforce security on NATO’s eastern flank,” according to a White House readout of the 80-minute call.
“I had a very, very, very good meeting — total unanimity with all the European leaders,” Mr. Biden told reporters afterward.
Mr. Johnson told Parliament on Tuesday that there was agreement among European leaders to “respond in unison to any attack on Ukraine.”
The crisis has prompted deep unease across Europe because of Moscow’s demands that NATO withdraw from much of Eastern Europe — essentially calling for a return to the Cold War order, before Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin agreed in 1997 that former Soviet states and Warsaw bloc nations could choose whether to seek membership in NATO.
Since then, NATO has roughly doubled in size.
Katrin Bennholdreported from Berlin and Marc Santorafrom London. Aurelien Breedencontributed reporting from Paris.
WASHINGTON — Russian troops are massed near Ukraine on three sides. In Washington and Brussels, there are warnings of crushing sanctions if Vladimir V. Putin orders an invasion. Embassy families — both American and Russian — are being evacuated from Kyiv.
Yet there are still diplomatic options — “offramps” in the lingo of the negotiators — and in the next several days the Biden administration and NATO are expected to respond, in writing, to Mr. Putin’s far-reaching demands.
The question is whether there is real potential for compromise in three distinct areas: Russia’s demand for ironclad assurances that Ukraine won’t enter NATO; that NATO won’t further expand; and that Russia can somehow reassert its power in Eastern Europe to approximate the influence it had in the region to before the strategic map of Europe was redrawn in the mid-1990s.
As in all conflicts with roots in the Cold War and its aftermath, the subtext of any negotiation includes how the world’s two largest nuclear-armed states manage their arsenals — and use them for leverage.
And while there is still time to avoid the worst, even President Biden’s top aides say they have no idea if a diplomatic solution, rather than the conquest of Ukraine, is what Mr. Putin has in mind.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main storyThe Biden administration and NATO are increasingly wary that, in his pursuit of greater influence in Eastern Europe, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia may forgo an invasion of Ukraine in favor of far more disruptive options.
On the sidelines of negotiations in European capitals, Mr. Putin’s aides suggested that if he were frustrated in his aims of extending Russia’s sphere of influence and securing written commitments that NATO will never again enlarge, then he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt acutely in Europe and the United States.
There were hints, never quite spelled out, that nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
Moving missiles, however, is obvious to the world. And that is why, if the conflict escalates further, American officials believe that Mr. Putin could be drawn to cyberattacks — easy to deny, superbly tailored for disruption and amenable to being ramped up or down, depending on the political temperature. Russian hackers have been blamed for a number of attacks in other countries, including one a week ago that disabled a number of Ukrainian government agencies.
Europe relies heavily on natural gas from Russia, and analysts note that Moscow can retaliate by manipulating supplies and prices.
“Russia’s response will be asymmetrical, fast and tough,” Mr. Putin said last April, referring to the kinds of unconventional action that Russia could take if adversaries threatened “our fundamental security interests.”
President Biden acknowledged as much on Thursday when he told reporters that the United States and allies had to prepare for multiple scenarios. “Russia has a long history of using measures other than overt military action to carry out aggression,” he said.
KYIV, Ukraine — The large buildup of Russian troops near the Ukrainian border is as clear a sign as any that Moscow is considering using military force to achieve its aims if diplomacy fails. But how exactly hostilities might begin has been something of a guessing game, military analysts say.
One possibility came into sharper focus this week when the second-largest political party in Russia’s Parliament, the Communist Party, proposed that Russia recognize two self-declared separatist states in eastern Ukraine, the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics.
The Russian-backed separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian government for eight years but without formal recognition from Moscow. If Russia recognized the states, that could create an immediate rationale for Russian military intervention.
The proposal took a twisted path on Friday, however. First, the speaker of Russia’s lower house of Parliament said it was a “serious and responsible” one that ought to be considered. But soon afterward, the Kremlin signaled disapproval for such a move, saying that it was important to avoid any provocative steps at a moment that was “so tense and so sensitive.”
The two separatist states claim far more Ukrainian territory than they now occupy, asserting their borders to be not today’s de facto front line but the administrative borders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
So if Russia recognized them, they might invite Russia to base troops in their territory to assist in advancing to their claimed borders. This could cloak a Russian invasion as assistance for new allies.
The Communist Party proposal regarding the states suggested that Russia create “legal, interstate relations governing all aspects of cooperation and mutual assistance, including in questions of security.” It added that recognition of the separatist area would be justified to “support guaranteed security and defense for their people from foreign threats.”
Western diplomats say that Moscow has been striving to settle the eastern Ukraine war in exchange for political concessions from Kyiv, including a rejection of future NATO membership and a role for Russian-aligned political parties and politicians in the national government.
Analysts say that helps explain why Russia has long been reluctant to recognize the states; doing so would take away the leverage it has over Kyiv to accomplish these goals that the more ambiguous conflict has provided.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main storyMoves by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to mass about 100,000 troops near the borders with Ukraine have prompted urgent diplomacy aimed at staving off a potential new war in Europe. President Biden has said that he expected the Russian leader to send troops over the border, but added: “I think he will pay a serious and dear price for it.”
Here are some key questions surrounding the crisis:
Why is Putin threatening war with Ukraine?
Most diplomats and experts aren’t entirely sure. Even Mr. Putin’s top advisers may not know how seriously he is considering an invasion, a murkiness that allows the Russian leader to declare the confrontation a success in multiple scenarios.
“The expert opinion that I can authoritatively declare is: Who the heck knows?” Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian foreign-policy analyst who advises the Kremlin, said recently.
Why is the U.S. so alarmed?
A successful invasion would establish Russia as a dominant, expansionist power in Eastern Europe. It would make other democracies (like Taiwan) worry that they could be vulnerable to takeover by nearby authoritarian countries (like China).
What does Putin say his rationale is?
In the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was arguably the most painful loss for Moscow. It was the most populous former Soviet republic to form its own country apart from Russia. The two now share a 1,200-mile border, and Putin often cites their deep cultural ties.
But Ukraine has drifted toward the West in recent years. The United States and its allies have increased military aid to Ukraine and also said — albeit vaguely — that Ukraine will one day join NATO.
Russia has demanded that NATO pledge never to admit Ukraine and to pull back its troops in Eastern Europe (effectively to where they were in the late 1990s). President Biden said this week that Ukraine was unlikely to join NATO “in the near term,” but ruled out the idea of removing NATO troops from Eastern Europe.
Listen to ‘The Daily’: Why Ukraine Matters to Vladimir Putin
Amid fears that Moscow is preparing for an invasion, one thing is clear: The Russian president has a singular fixation on the former Soviet republic.transcript
Listen to ‘The Daily’: Why Ukraine Matters to Vladimir Putin
Amid fears that Moscow is preparing for an invasion, one thing is clear: The Russian president has a singular fixation on the former Soviet republic.
- michael barbaro
From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily.
- [music]
Today: Russia is making preparations for what many fear may be a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, prompting warnings from the U.S. of serious consequences if it does. I spoke to my colleague, Moscow bureau chief Anton Troianovski, about what Vladimir Putin wants from Ukraine and just how far he may go to get it.
It’s Wednesday, December 8.
Anton, describe the scene right now on the border between Ukraine and Russia. What does it look like? What exactly is happening there?
- anton troianovski
Well, what you’re seeing on the Russian side of the border within 100 to 200 miles away is that thousands of Russian troops are on the move.
- archived recording 1
A top military official says intelligence shows nearly 100,000 Russian troops —
- archived recording 2
Russian troops have massed on the border of Ukraine.
- archived recording 3
— troops on the border with Ukraine. And that’s prompted fears of an invasion early next year.
- anton troianovski
We’re seeing a lot of social media footage of tanks and other military equipment on the move, on trains, in some cases, heading west toward the Ukraine border area from as far away as Siberia.
- archived recording
Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been building for some time in the wake of —
- anton troianovski
These satellite images that we’re seeing show deployment areas around Ukraine that were empty as recently as June that are now full of military equipment-like tanks and armored personnel carriers.
- archived recording
The U.S. called it unusual activity.
- anton troianovski
And obviously, Russia moves its forces all the time. It does big military exercises, snap military exercises all the time, but what we’re being told is that these military movements are very unusual. Some of them are happening at night and, in other ways, seemingly designed to obfuscate where various units are going. And experts are saying we’re also seeing things like logistics and medical equipment being moved around, stuff that you really would see if there were real preparations being made for large-scale military action.
- michael barbaro
So what’s happening in Russia is not just the movement of the troops that would perhaps carry out an invasion, but the kind of military personnel and equipment that would be required to deal with the repercussions of something like invading Ukraine?
- anton troianovski
Yes. So American intelligence officials are seeing intelligence that shows Russia preparing for a military offensive involving an estimated 175,000 troops —
- michael barbaro
Wow.
- anton troianovski
— as soon as early next year.
- michael barbaro
And Anton, is Ukraine preparing for what certainly looks, from what you just described, as a potential invasion?
- anton troianovski
They’re in a really tough spot because no matter how much they prepare, their military would be utterly outgunned and outmatched. Ukraine doesn’t have the missile defense and air defense systems that could prevent a huge shock-and-awe campaign at the beginning of Russian military action.
They also don’t know, if and when an attack comes, which direction it might come from, because Russia could attack from any of three directions. So we’re not seeing a big mobilization in Ukraine right now, but our reporting on the ground there does show a grim and determined mood among the military. The soldiers on the border have made it clear that if it comes to it, they will be prepared to do what they can to make this as costly as possible for the other side.
- michael barbaro
So I guess the question everyone has in this moment is why would Putin want to invade Ukraine right now and touch off what would no doubt be a major conflict, one in which, as you just said, Russia would have many advantages, but would nevertheless end up probably being a very deadly conflict?
- anton troianovski
So obviously, we don’t yet know whether Putin has made the decision to invade. He’s clearly signaling he’s prepared to use military force. What we do know is that he has been extraordinarily fixated on the issue of Ukraine for years. But I think to really understand it, you have to look at three dates over the last 30 years that really show us why Ukraine matters so much to Putin.
- michael barbaro
OK. So what’s the first date?
- anton troianovski
The first one, 1991, almost exactly 30 years ago, the Soviet Union breaks up, and Ukraine becomes an independent country. For people of Putin’s generation, this was an incredibly shocking and even traumatic moment. Not only did they see and experience the collapse of an empire, of the country that they grew up in, that they worked in, that, in Putin’s case, the former K.G.B. officer that they served. But there was also a specific trauma of Ukraine breaking away. Ukraine, of all the former Soviet republics, was probably the one most valuable to Moscow.
It was a matter of history and identity with, in many ways, Russian statehood originating out of the medieval Kiev Rus civilization. There’s the matter of culture with so many Russian language writers like Gogol and Bulgakov coming from Ukraine. There was the matter of economics with Ukraine being an industrial and agricultural powerhouse during the Soviet Union, with many of the planes and missiles that the Soviets were most proud of coming from Ukraine.
- michael barbaro
So there’s a sense that Ukraine is the cradle of Russian civilization, and to lose it is to lose a part of Russia itself.
- anton troianovski
Yeah. And it’s a country of tens of millions of people that is also sandwiched between modern-day Russia and Western Europe. So the other issue is geopolitical, that Ukraine in that sort of Cold War security, East-versus-West mindset, Ukraine was a buffer between Moscow and the West. So 1991 was the year when that all fell apart.
And then by the time that Putin comes to power 10 years later, he’s already clearly thinking about how to reestablish Russian influence in that former Soviet space in Eastern Europe and in Ukraine in particular. We saw a lot of resources go in economically to try to bind Ukraine to Russia, whether it’s discounts on natural gas or other efforts by Russian companies, efforts to build ties to politicians and oligarchs in Ukraine. Really, a multipronged effort by Putin and the Kremlin to really gain as much influence as possible in that former Soviet space that they saw as being so key to Russia’s economic and security interests.
- michael barbaro
Got it.
- anton troianovski
And then fast forward to the second key date, 2014, which is the year it became clear that that strategy had failed.
- archived recording
Now, to the growing unrest in Ukraine and the violent clashes between riot police and protesters.
- michael barbaro
And why did that strategy fail in 2014?
- anton troianovski
That was the year that Ukraine had its — what’s called its Maidan Revolution.
- archived recording 1
The situation in Kiev has been very tense.
- archived recording 2
Downtown Kiev has been turned into a charred battlefield following two straight nights of rioting.
- anton troianovski
It’s a pro-Western revolution —
- archived recording
They want nothing short of revolution, a new government and a new president.
- anton troianovski
— that drove out a Russia-friendly president, that ushered in a pro-Western government, that made it its mission to reduce Ukraine’s ties with Russia and build its ties with the West.
- archived recording
Ukrainians who want closer ties with the West are once again back in their thousands on Independence Square here in Kiev. They believe they —
- michael barbaro
Hmm. And what was Putin’s response to that?
- anton troianovski
Well, Putin didn’t even see it as a revolution. He saw it as a coup engineered by the C.I.A. and other Western intelligence agencies meant to drive Ukraine away from Russia. And —
- archived recording
With stealth and mystery, Vladimir Putin made his move in Ukraine.
- anton troianovski
— he used his military.
- archived recording
At dawn, bands of armed men appeared at the two main airports in Crimea and seized control.
- anton troianovski
He sent troops into Crimea, the Ukrainian Peninsula in the Black Sea that’s so dear to people across the former Soviet Union as kind of the warmest, most tropical place in a very cold part of the world.
- archived recording
Tonight, Russian troops — hundreds, perhaps as many as 2,000, ferried in transport planes — have landed at the airports.
- anton troianovski
He fomented a separatist war in Eastern Ukraine that by now has taken more than 10,000 lives and armed and backed pro-Russian separatists in that region. So that was the year 2014 when Russia’s earlier efforts to try to bind Ukraine to Moscow failed and when Russia started taking a much harder line.
- michael barbaro
And this feels like a very pivotal moment because it shows Putin’s willingness to deploy the Russian military to strengthen the ties between Russia and Ukraine.
- anton troianovski
Absolutely. Strengthened the ties or you can also say his efforts to enforce a Russian sphere of influence by military force. And it’s also the start of what we’ve been seeing ever since, which is Putin making it clear that he is willing to escalate, he is willing to raise the stakes and that he essentially cares more about the fate of Ukraine than the West does.
And that brings us to the third date I wanted to talk about, which is early this year, 2021, when we saw the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, really start taking a more aggressive anti-Russian and pro-Western tack. He cracked down on a pro-Russian oligarch and pro-Russian media. He continued with military exercises with American soldiers and with other Western forces.
He kept talking up the idea of Ukraine joining NATO. That’s the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Western military alliance. And in a sense, this is what Putin seems to fear the most, the idea of NATO becoming more entrenched in this region. So Putin made it clear that this was starting to cross what he describes as Russia’s red lines and that Russia was willing to take action to stop this.
- michael barbaro
So to put this all together and understand why Putin is doing what he’s doing when it comes to Ukraine, we have as a backdrop here this fixation with Ukraine for historic, political, economic and cultural reasons. And what’s new and urgent here for Putin is his belief that Ukraine is on the verge of a major break with Russia and toward the West — in particular, a military alliance, NATO — and that he cannot tolerate. And so that brings us up to now and this very imminent and scary threat of a Russian invasion.
- anton troianovski
That’s right, Michael. I spoke to a former advisor of Putin’s recently who described Ukraine as a trauma within a trauma for the Kremlin — so the trauma of the breakup of the Soviet Union plus the trauma of losing Ukraine specifically for all those reasons you mentioned. And the thing is it’s true.
Russia is losing Ukraine. I think objectively, though, you have to say it’s losing Ukraine in large part because of Putin’s policies, because of the aggressive actions he’s taken. And if you look at the polls before 2014, something like 12 percent of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. Now, it’s more than half.
- michael barbaro
Wow.
- anton troianovski
So you put all that together, Ukraine is indeed drifting toward the West. It does seem like Putin feels like he’s running out of time to stop this and that he’s willing to escalate, he’s willing to raise the stakes, to keep Ukraine out of the West. And what we’re seeing right now on the border is all that playing out.
- [music]
- michael barbaro
We’ll be right back.
So Anton, the question right now is will President Putin actually carry out an invasion of Ukraine? And how should we be thinking about that?
- anton troianovski
Well, it’s quite perilous, of course, to try to get inside Putin’s head, but here’s the case for invading now. Number one: NATO and the United States have made it clear that they are not going to come to Ukraine’s defense, because Ukraine is not a member of the NATO alliance, and NATO’s mutual defense pact only extends to full-fledged members. And of course, I think, politically, Putin believes that neither in the U.S., nor in Western Europe, is there the will to see soldiers from those countries die fighting for Ukraine.
- michael barbaro
Right. And President Biden has just very publicly pulled the United States out of the war in Afghanistan and more or less communicated that unless American national security interests are at play, he will not be dispatching troops anywhere.
- anton troianovski
Exactly. So Putin saw that, and he sees that potentially things could change. If the West does have more of a military presence in Ukraine in the future, let alone if Ukraine were to become a member of NATO at some point — it’s not going to happen in the next few years, but perhaps at some point — then attacking Ukraine becomes a much more costly proposition. So it’s a matter of war now could be less costly to Russia than war later.
- michael barbaro
Right. The geopolitics of this moment may work in favor of him doing it in a way that it might not in a year or two or three.
- anton troianovski
Absolutely. And then there’s a couple of other reasons. There’s the fact that if we look at everything Putin has said and written over the last year, he really seems convinced that the West is pulling Ukraine away from Russia against the will of much of the Ukrainian people. Polling doesn’t really bear that out, but Putin really seems to be convinced of that. And so it seems like he may also be thinking that Ukrainians would welcome Russian forces as liberators from some kind of Western occupation.
And then third, there’s the economy. The West has already threatened severe sanctions against Russia were it to go ahead with military action, but Russia has been essentially sanctions-proofing its economy since at least 2014, which is when it took control of Crimea and was hit by all these sanctions from the U.S. and from the E.U. So Russia’s economy is still tied to the West.
It imports a lot of stuff from the West. But in many key areas, whether it’s technology or energy extraction or agriculture, Russia is becoming more self-sufficient. And it is building ties to other parts of the world — like China, India, et cetera — that could allow it to diversify and have basically an economic base even if an invasion leads to a major crisis in its financial and economic relationship with the West.
- michael barbaro
Right. So this is the argument that Putin can live with the costs of the world reacting very negatively to this invasion?
- anton troianovski
Exactly.
- michael barbaro
OK. And what are the reasons why an invasion of Ukraine might not happen? What would be the case against it, if you were Vladimir Putin?
- anton troianovski
Well, I mean, I have to say, talking to analysts, especially here in Russia, people are very skeptical that Putin would go ahead with an invasion. They point out that he is a careful tactician and that he doesn’t like making moves that are irreversible or that could have unpredictable consequences.
So if we even look at the military action he’s taken recently, the annexation of Crimea, there wasn’t a single shot fired in that. That was a very quick special-forces-type operation. What we’re talking about here, an invasion of Ukraine, would be just a massive escalation from anything Putin has done so far. We are talking about the biggest land war in Europe since World War II, most likely. And it would have all kinds of unpredictable consequences.
There’s also the domestic situation to keep in mind. Putin does still have approval ratings above 60 percent, but things are a bit shaky here, especially with Covid. And some analysts say that Putin wouldn’t want to usher in the kind of domestic unpredictability that could start with a major war with young men coming back in body bags.
And then finally, looking at Putin’s strategy and everything that he’s said, for all we know, he doesn’t really want to annex Ukraine. He wants influence over Ukraine. And the way he thinks he can do that is through negotiations with the United States.
And that’s where the last key point here comes in, which is Putin’s real conviction that it’s the U.S. pulling the strings here and that he can accomplish his goals by getting President Biden to sit down with him and hammering out a deal about the structure of security in Eastern Europe.
So in that sense, this whole troop build-up might not be about an impending invasion at all. It might just be about coercive diplomacy, getting the U.S. to the table, and getting them to hammer out an agreement that would somehow pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO and pledge to keep Western military infrastructure out of Ukraine and parts of the Black Sea.
- michael barbaro
Well in that sense, Anton, Putin may be getting what he wants, right? Because as we speak, President Putin and President Biden have just wrapped up a very closely watched phone call about all of this. So is it possible that that call produces a breakthrough and perhaps a breakthrough that goes Putin’s way?
- anton troianovski
Well, that’s very hard to imagine. And that’s really what makes this situation so volatile and so dangerous, which is that what Putin wants, the West and President Biden can’t really give.
- michael barbaro
Why not?
- anton troianovski
Well, for instance, pledging to keep Ukraine out of NATO would violate the Western concept that every country should have the right to decide for itself what its alliances are. President Biden obviously has spent years, going back to when he was vice president, really speaking in favor of Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination and trying to help Ukraine take a more Western path. So Biden suddenly turning on all of that and giving Putin what he wants here is hard to imagine.
- michael barbaro
Right, because that would create a very slippery slope when it comes to any country that Russia wants to have influence over. It would then know that the right playbook would be to mass troops on the border and wait for negotiation with the U.S. and hope that the U.S. would basically sell those countries out. That’s probably not something you’re saying that President Biden would willingly do.
- anton troianovski
Right. And then, of course, the other question is, well, if Russia doesn’t get what it wants, if Putin doesn’t get what he wants, then what does he do?
- michael barbaro
So Anton, it’s tempting to think that this could all be what you just described as a coercive diplomatic bluff by Putin to extract what he wants from President Biden and from the West. But it feels like history has taught us that Putin is willing to invade Ukraine. He did it in 2014.
History has also taught us that he’s obsessed with Ukraine, dating back to 1991 and the end of the Soviet Union. And it feels like one of the ultimate lessons of history is that we have to judge leaders based on their actions. And his actions right now are putting 175,000 troops near the border with Ukraine. And so shouldn’t we conclude that it very much looks like Putin might carry out this invasion?
- anton troianovski
Yes, that’s right. And of course, there are steps that Putin could take that would be short of a full-fledged invasion that could still be really destabilizing and damaging. Here in Moscow, I’ve heard analysts speculate about maybe pinpoint airstrikes against the Ukrainian targets, or a limited invasion perhaps just specifically in that area where Russian-backed separatists are fighting.
But even such steps could have really grave consequences. And that’s why if you combine what we’re seeing on the ground in Russia, near the border, and what we’ve been hearing from President Putin and other officials here in Moscow, that all tells us that the stakes here are really high.
- michael barbaro
Well, Anton, thank you very much. We appreciate your time.
- anton troianovski
Thanks for having me.
- michael barbaro
On Tuesday afternoon, both the White House and the Kremlin released details about the call between Putin and Biden. The White House said that Biden warned Putin of severe economic sanctions if Russia invaded Ukraine. The Kremlin said that Putin repeated his demands that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO and that Western weapons systems not be placed inside Ukraine. But Putin made no promises to remove Russian forces from the border.
- [music]
We’ll be right back.
Here’s what else you need to know today. On Tuesday night, top Democrats and Republicans said they had reached a deal to raise the country’s debt ceiling and avert the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time. The deal relies on a complicated one-time legislative maneuver that allows Democrats in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling without support from Republicans, since Republicans oppose raising the debt ceiling under President Biden. Without congressional action, the Treasury Department says it can no longer pay its bills after December 15.
Today’s episode was produced by Eric Krupke, Rachelle Bonja and Luke Vander Ploeg. It was edited by Michael Benoist, contains original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.
That’s it for The Daily. I’m Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.
What isn’t Putin saying?
Some observers believe that the troop buildup is a mixture of bluff and distraction, arguing that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine could be bloody and expensive, potentially damaging Russia’s economy and Putin’s political standing.
So far, Putin does not appear to be preparing Russians to go to war. Russia’s deputy foreign minister continued this pattern, saying on Wednesday, “We will not attack, strike, invade, quote unquote, whatever, Ukraine.”
But by making an invasion seem possible, experts argue that Putin can try to win other concessions, such as a freer hand in Eastern Europe.
So the risk of war is low?
Not necessarily. Even skeptics acknowledge that it is possible, given the lack of transparency about Mr. Putin’s thinking.
A few analysts, like Melinda Haring of the Atlantic Council, believe that war is likely: Putin has lost patience with Ukraine, she has written, and believes the United States would not go to war over it. President Biden said this week that a “minor incursion” would not necessarily pull the United States into the fight.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment