“No matter how the U.S. and NATO talks with Russia end, Moscow will not abandon plans to return Ukraine to its orbit of influence or at least to impose restrictions on our sovereignty in domestic and foreign policy. Current Russian authorities have rather archaic vision of the balance of powers and zones of influence, so it will continue seeking to turn the former Soviet republics into its satellites and trying to increase its influence on the countries of the former socialist camp”, Maksym Khylko, Russian and Belarusian Studies Program Director at the Foreign Policy Council “Ukrainian Prism”, notes.
The analyst stressed that the West's position should be firm and consolidated, especially on the issue of the Western response to a potential Russian military attack.
"On the contrary, it is important to send a clear signal to Moscow that the U.S., EU and NATO response will be immediate, decisive and ruinous, and that losses from possible escalation will outweigh all possible gains for Russia. This would reduce the Kremlin's appetite for war, as Moscow is aware of its weaknesses in competing with the West, but is successfully exploiting the latter's indecision", the analyst noted.
Maksym Khyłko added that it is not sure what Moscow's real goal is - whether Kremlin makes impossible demands in order to raise the stakes, or whether Kremlin wants to use them as a pretext for a possible military aggression.
More in the interview:
PolskieRadio24.pl: Is there something optimistic – or maybe worrying or disturbing among the signals we have had after the US/Russian talks? What are the goals of Russia now? What does Kremlin want by playing this game with unacceptable demands on the table?
Maksym Khylko, Russian and Belarusian Studies Program Director at the Foreign Policy Council “Ukrainian Prism”:
The good news is that Washington is making it clear that it has no plans to make a deal with Russia behind its allies and partners. So far, there is no any sign to worry that the United States may agree to Russia's demand to return to the practice of dividing the world into spheres of influence as it took place during the Cold War.
However, I would not fully rule out the possibility that, under certain conditions, Washington may consider Moscow's demands to limit U.S. military assistance to Ukraine and activities on NATO's eastern flank and in the Black Sea. In any case, I hope that Washington will work in close consultations with all its European allies and Kyiv, and that a situation similar to the U.S.-Germany agreement on “Nord Stream 2” will not happen again.
The really disturbing question is about Moscow's real goal. After all, the Kremlin cannot help but realize that its humiliating demands on the West are obviously unacceptable. The question is why Russia is acting in this blatantly provocative way? Has Russia made such unrealistic demands just to raise the stakes in the negotiations? Or has it planned to provoke the U.S. into a sharp refusal in order to use the latter as a pretext for military escalation against Ukraine?
How could we interpret Russian deputy MFA Sergey Ryabkov aggressive statements?
Sergey Ryabkov 's ostentatious bravado can have both foreign and domestic political goals. On the one hand, with the help of bold statements and demonstration of readiness for military escalation Russian officials seek to compensate for the weakness of argumentation of Moscow's claims, which are not justified either from the point of view of international law or the real balance of potentials of the negotiating parties.
On the other hand, the harsh statements of Russian high-ranking officials serve as a spectacular picture for the Kremlin's propaganda, which with its help tries to shape an image of the Russian government that allegedly defends state interests in the face of the "external threat." At the same time, they prepare public opinion for a possible military escalation under the pretext of the Western disagreement to Russia's demands on the so-called "security guarantees."
Is the threat of invasion and other threats concerning Ukrainian, and as well European security situation, the risk of invasion or attacks including, reduced after US-Russian talks?
The experience of concluding the Minsk agreements in February 2015 indicates that negotiations do not necessarily deter Moscow from aggression. That time, Russian troops were attacking the Ukrainian town of Debaltseve in the Donbas exactly during the negotiations in the Normandy format. The escalation is currently being held back by the fact that Russia has not yet accumulated sufficient military forces for a larger attack on Ukraine, rather than by the fact of ongoing negotiations.
No matter how the U.S. and NATO talks with Russia end, Moscow will not abandon plans to return Ukraine to its orbit of influence or at least to impose restrictions on our sovereignty in domestic and foreign policy. Current Russian authorities have rather archaic vision of the balance of powers and zones of influence, so it will continue seeking to turn the former Soviet republics into its satellites and trying to increase its influence on the countries of the former socialist camp.
What should be the West behaviour, how could we react?
It is important that the West's response is consolidated and decisive. Current political debates on sanction in the United States and the European Union, such as whether to turn off SWIFT in Russia, make Moscow believe that the West is not ready for a decisive response, and this increases the risk of escalation. Statements by high-ranking NATO and European countries officials that Ukraine is not covered by NATO Article 5 are also harmful, because they shape the opinion in Moscow that West does not plan to actively help Ukraine in the event of military escalation.
On the contrary, it is important to send a clear signal to Moscow that the U.S., EU and NATO response will be immediate, decisive and ruinous, and that losses from possible escalation will outweigh all possible gains for Russia. This would reduce the Kremlin's appetite for war, as Moscow is aware of its weaknesses in competing with the West, but is successfully exploiting the latter's indecision.
Ed. Agnieszka Marcela Kamińska, PolskieRadio24.pl
***
Ed. Agnieszka Marcela Kamińska, PolskieRadio24.pl
