How should the West contain Russia?

[Winner]

Recent Russian actions have finally demonstrated what I've been sayin on this forum for years: that Russia follows an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy and that their aim is to re-estabilish Russian control in the declared "near abroad" as well as some other post-communist countries.

Today, Russia threatens Europe and thus the whole Western world in 3 ways:

a) Oil/gas supply. Europe is increasingly dependant on Russian oil/gas, and the supply from Russia is controlled by Kremlin through a network of state-owned companies led by Gazprom. Moscow has already used this "weapon" against Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, some Baltic countries and the Czech Republic (where it was unsuccessful because the country has a pipeline connecting it with Western European oil distribution network). Today, the Russians are planning to isolate their chief opponents in Central and Eastern Europe - Poland and the Baltic states - by building a new gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea, bypassing all these countries.

b) Russian investments. Russian money which is being invested into strategic sectors of the EU member states economies. Russian companies, usually more or less directly controlled from Kremlin, are trying to get significant shares in energy industry in order to increase the European vulnerability to Russian oil/gas weapon. At the same time, Russian companies are trying to buy media companies in Central and Eastern Europe, which is often cited as the greatest threat to the freedom of speech in these countries since the fall of communism in 1989. Judging from how media are treated in Russia, I must agree with this assesment.

c) Military. Russian military threat still exists, it's just not as big as it was during the Cold war and it is aimed at different countries. The threat does not have the form of massive invasion of Western Europe anymore, today the Russians use force only against smaller countries in their immediate neigbourhood, while they provoke the Western countries by re-activating their strategic bomber patrols and verbal threats of deploying ballistic missiles in other countries etc., which is all relatively harmless.


Now, for easier orientation, I've prepared a map:

Red - countries already attacked by Russia in all three ways
Orange - countries directly threatened by Russia, including the threat of military intervention
Yellow - countries threatened by Russia which are very vulnerable to the oil/gas weapon

Georgia - no comment necessary, Russia moved from economic blockade, verbal threats and bullying to open military aggression in just few years after the democratic revolution.

Ukraine - since the Orange revolution, Russia is trying to remove the new regime and help the undemocratic opposition to gain control of the country. Russia threatens Ukraine mainly because the Russian government doesn't want it to join NATO and the European Union. It has been proven that the membership in these two organizations severely limits the Russian options in dealing with such countries.
If a situation got bad in Ukraine, I don't rule out a Russian military action against Ukraine.

Belarus - though officially an ally of Russia, Belarus is a liability. Lukashenko regime is inherently unstable as all authoritarian regimes are, and it is possible that a revolution similar to the Ukrainian one will happen there in the future. If this happened, Russians might use military power to crush the revolution (I am sure they'd argue that they've been invited by the "legitimate government") before it takes roots. The possibility of Polish intervention in support of the democratic forces makes this a very dangerous potential flashpoint.

Moldova - same story as Georgia, a small unrecognized Russian separatist "Transdniestrian republic" is being protected by Russian "peacekeepers". If the official Moldovan government re-approched the West (possibly through Romania), Russian military might intervene.

Poland and the Baltic countries - not being directly threatened militarily, but very vulnerable to the oil/gas weapon. Russian leaders know that and they're trying to single these countries out of the "herd" (EU) and bully them. They use many pretexts, in Estonia and Latvia, it is the alleged discrimination against the Russian-speaking minority, in Poland it is their close ties with the US and the participation on the missile defence project. Russia is clearly trying to scare the governments in these countries into submission.

Remaining European countries are threatened too. The more dependant they are on Russian oil/gas and the more Russian investments they allow in strategic sectors of their economies, the more threatened they are.


The question here is simple:
how to contain the Russian threat? What should Europe and the West as a whole do?



------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a Georgia war thread, if you want to discuss it, do it in my other threads.

 

[Provolution]

The West should acknowledge the independence of Transdnestr, but Moldova and Ukraine should isolate it, until Transdnestr is forcibly merged with Ukraine due to economy constraints. Transdnestry sealed, so nothing gets in or out (Crime State, like Abkhasia).

Abkhasia and South Ossetia should be acknowledged as states (and later let Russia get these).

Baltics and Poland should be further integrated into the NATO umbrella, except for Russian officers in these countries, which should be considered fifth columnists.

Georgia hurt Western interests in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan with their stupid attack, and deserves to lose Ossetia and Abkhasia, but Georgia should be allowed into NATO with a series of preconditions for utter Westernization (and thus make Ossetians and Abkhasians look like the poor scum like they really are, with only the Russians to help them economically). West and East Germany was such a contest, North and South Korea another. Norway and Kola Peninsula a third. The West needs such a contrasted measure of wealth and civilization shown by a narrow border. Its good for the west to demonstrate its cultural, ethical and organizational preeminence over the Russian darkness.

 

[Caeili.Draziw]

Not really answering you question "How should the West contain Russia?" but does anyone think that Russia would use access to the ISS as further leverage against the West?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_alt_afp/usrussiaspaceisspolitics_080825123150

 

[Mise]

Recent Russian actions have finally demonstrated what I've been sayin on this forum for years

Lol, I like the way you've been saying it for years, but the actions have only been demonstrated recently.

In other words, you form an opinion based on prejudice, and then wait a few years to find some evidence to back up those prejudices.



Anyway, as for the topic, I think the first thing to do would be for Europe to stop being so dependent on Russian energy. Once that happens, we can take a firmer line diplomatically. It will weaken Russia's position on the negotiating table, and make them feel a lot poorer, and less powerful.

 

[toda]

a) Go nuclear or other energy sources.
b) Limit foreign investment, perhaps?
c) A ring of allied countries surrounding Russia.

 

[Arwon]

Why is Belarus a country again?

 

[Provolution]

Let Belarus go to Russia, to make things clearer.

 

[Tee Kay]

c) A ring of allied countries surrounding Russia.

Wait, isn't that already done?

 

[RedRalph]

Wait, isn't that already done?

Most of the central Asian former SSRs are actually allied to, or at least friendly to Russia.

 

[Bast]

Absorb it into EU.

 

[Provolution]

Absorbing Russia into the EU would be like forcing a pretty lady to eat the cadaver of a Grizzly.

 

[Bast]

Absorbing Russia into the EU would be like forcing a pretty lady to eat the cadaver of a Grizzly.

All in good time I guess. Remember Catherine the Great, Tsarina of all Russias, once said that "Russia is a European country", and we shouldn't forget that.

 

[Gelion]

Absorb it into EU.

Where do I sign?

 

[RedRalph]

All in good time I guess. Remember Catherine the Great, Tsarina of all Russias, once said that "Russia is a European country", and we shouldn't forget that.

Well I still find it bizarre when anyone ever considers it anything but a european country. What with the vast majority of Russians being ethinically European, European Russia being the biggest country in Russia and Russian being the most widely spoken first langhuage in Russia, and the most common religion among Russians being a form of Christianity. but some people on the boartds think they arent European because of the shape of some roofs.

 

[Provolution]

Russia is European, like Turkey and Albania, as well as Serbia are European. But they do not belong in the European Union as it stands. They need some internal housecleaning to even qualify.

 

[Gelion]

I will give a very concise answer. I will not respond with arguments to anyone who uses emotions as their primary tool.

Russia only used it military in response to a provocation and a direct attack. Stop provocations and attack and there will be no use of military by Russia.

Russia is free to negotiate the expired oil/gas agreements with its neighbors. If they do not like new prices they can respond in kind or go somewhere else. This is not war, this is business. It is the same in the entire world.

Russian investment is no more threatening than US, Chinese or Arabic investment. Either be protective about your business and forget about free market or stop whining about it. It is normal it happens everywhere.

Baltic states. Baltic states used Russian population while the vote on their independence from USSR was taking place. Ethnic Russian citizens there were counted as eligible to vote. After the independence they were DENIED citizenship and basic human rights (like having to change their names to make them sound Baltic) Russian citizens became hostile to the government. To cure the situation there the Baltic governments should allow some privileges to Russians as a national minority and reactivate economic cooperation with Russia. Russia will respond if kind even though Baltic states have more to profit from this. Problem will be solved through reconciliation, not by revenge of one group to another/ Revenge only causes more blood.

Russia has no problems with Belarus, neither on personal nor on governmental levels.

Ukraine should follow the same steps as the Baltic states and reform itself into a two-language Republic like it is "de facto". Ukraine should not seek closer ties with NATO that would scare Russia. Reconciliation of two "halves" of Ukrainian leadership and peoples is the key here.

Georgia needs a cooling off period. It is hard to see how the problem can be resolved there, but from where I stand, Georgia needs to have a government equally friendly to US and Russia and pursue a policy that would guarantee the absence of NATO presence in its territory. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are either lost forever or could region Georgia in some date in the future (decades).

From a personal point of view, it is only SOME of the stupid youngsters have problems with Russia and vice-versa. Most adult people do not concern themselves with the new borders and retain their cultural and economic ties no matter what the fools in high chairs do. In this I see a great hope for EE.

Dixi

 

[Provolution]

All right then, I got no emotions. I am stone cold. Or I can at least act like I am cold by writing in a cold manner inspired by the historic dialectic and totalitarian newspeak.

Russians do expropriate or illegally acquire Western investments, not the other way around. This is why even Russians place their money in Switzerland, US, London, Caribbean and so onm, not Russia, or Byelorus. Many Western businessmen are killed in Russia, as well as journalists, politicians, aid workers and so on, not the other way around.

South Ossetian and Abkhasian borders should be redrawn, like Bosnia was redrawn, so neither side would benefit from ethnic cleansing. 250 000 were scared out of Abkhasia and 20 000 out of Ossetia. Western Europe is not a party to the Russian tradition of transplanting populations back and forth (Maybe the Germans have been there before).

Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union, populations were relocated and Russians moved in. This should also reflect in national constitutions. Kaliningrad was conquerered in its entirety, by the worlds largest nation. Russia can never get enough land, even if it has less population than Japan, it cannot get enough European land.

I agree Georgia should go through some degree of Finlandization, as they are not capable soldiers or do have a strong national leadership (come on, Israeli born 1978 generation with no military skills as defense minister calling in Israeli military advisors, where is the sound judgement?). Georgia would thus be of little use to NATO. Abkhasia and South Ossetia should be new countries, yet, with borders corrected for the ethnic cleansing of 250 000 from Abkhasia (Abkhasians may keep 30 %, as they were the victorious aggressors, like the minority Serb population got Republika Srpska) and 20 000 in South Ossetia (Ossetians may keep 75 %, reflecting the pre-war population), all following new natural and national borders.

Russia can demand what they want for oil and gas, the market should dictate that market, not Russians, Arabs, Americans or Europeans. Things would work out some way.

I think Russian investments in the West is not a risk. Maybe a loss for the poor Russians not taking part in the blossoming of the major Russian cities, but these investments are still subject to Western regulations. Winner, the OP, should know that the EU likes to regulate everything to death, even Russian investments (especially).

Ethnic Russians unhappy with the West are free to build up the Russian miracle, or bring abuses of European rights to Hague or Strasbourg, like the Irish, Basques and other minorities do. EU will not accept Russian military intimidation to protect these rights. Do we see that EU tries to leverage German descendants in Russia against Moscow?

 

[Winner]

Lol, I like the way you've been saying it for years, but the actions have only been demonstrated recently.

In other words, you form an opinion based on prejudice, and then wait a few years to find some evidence to back up those prejudices.

No. I've been warning about the Russian aims and intentions, which have always been present. What the Russians did recently is that they showed the ugly face of their foreign policy in the open. And suddenly all the people who've been downplaying the the Russian threat act surprised...

 

[Winner]

Wait, isn't that already done?[/IMG]

No, very obviously it isn't already done. Did you read the opening post?

Russian leaders still want to subjugate the neigbouring countries. That's not acceptable. They see democracy and pro-Western governments on their border as a threat to their regime. Their goal is to eliminate this threat.

Our goal should be to stop them. I am asking how, what should the Western world do. Its current appeasement policiy is clearly not working very well.

 

[Gelion]

All right then, I got no emotions. I am stone cold. Or I can at least act like I am cold by writing in a cold manner inspired by the historic dialectic and totalitarian newspeak.

I am glad you are doing it all soldierly, but as you surely suspect my line was directed at a few posters I have a habit of debating with (like the OP).

Russians do expropriate or illegally acquire Western investments, not the other way around.

Yukos comes to mind. What else?
I remember the hysteria that happened around that Baltic sea pipeline.
The other way around is hard to see because Russian money is not as involved in the West as vice-versa.

This is why even Russians place their money in Switzerland, US, London, Caribbean and so onm, not Russia, or Byelorus. Many Western businessmen are killed in Russia, as well as journalists, politicians, aid workers and so on, not the other way around.

Russia is simply an unsafe place to live, a lot of Russians die young there too. I am sad that Russian elite runs with their money, but again it is logical for them to do so. This kind of proves that they do not act in the best interests of a nation do they?

South Ossetian and Abkhasian borders should be redrawn, like Bosnia was redrawn, so neither side would benefit from ethnic cleansing.

Great! Lets start with Kosovo. If that is done I am sure other areas would follow.

250 000 were scared out of Abkhasia and 20 000 out of Ossetia. Western Europe is not a party to the Russian tradition of transplanting populations back and forth (Maybe the Germans have been there before).

NATO has done a great share of that in Yugoslavia acting though local militias. You just mentioned Bosnia. Russian force were not involved in ethnic cleansing of Abkhazia and Ossetia, Georgians and other locals were.
Whats the point of this to the thread OP?

Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union, populations were relocated and Russians moved in.

Not exactly. "Color revolutions" happened in those countries after elections and newly formed government asked the Soviets in. Like in Georgia. Populations came later to build infrastructure, to live and to work. Just like Americans to America.

This should also reflect in national constitutions.

What should?

Kaliningrad was conquerered in its entirety, by the worlds largest nation. Russia can never get enough land, even if it has less population than Japan, it cannot get enough European land.

Kaliningrad is the spoils of war paid for with the blood of 20m people, half killed in concentration camps ran by the Germans aided by Baltians, Ukrainians and others. Why US is planning to give back the islands in the Pacific? Or Puerto Rico? China giving back Tibet? Albanians Kosovo?

I agree Georgia should go through some degree of Finlandization, as they are not capable soldiers or do have a strong national leadership (come on, Israeli born 1978 generation with no military skills as defense minister calling in Israeli military advisors, where is the sound judgement?). Georgia would thus be of little use to NATO.

Good, me too.

Abkhasia and South Ossetia should be new countries, yet, with borders corrected for the ethnic cleansing of 250 000 from Abkhasia (Abkhasians may keep 30 %, as they were the victorious aggressors, like the minority Serb population got Republika Srpska) and 20 000 in South Ossetia (Ossetians may keep 75 %, reflecting the pre-war population), all following new natural and national borders.

While I agree with you there in principle, the West has a perfect ground to apply this principle: former Yugoslavia. Lets start the work together!

Russia can demand what they want for oil and gas, the market should dictate that market, not Russians, Arabs, Americans or Europeans. Things would work out some way.

Despite what Western media was saying, it is exactly what happened. Things worked according to the market.

I am glad you agree on my plan for Ukraine and lack of it for Belarus as well as other statements.

I think Russian investments in the West is not a risk. Maybe a loss for the poor Russians not taking part in the blossoming of the major Russian cities, but these investments are still subject to Western regulations. Winner, the OP, should know that the EU likes to regulate everything to death, even Russian investments (especially).

I agree that at least some money should stay at home.

Ethnic Russians unhappy with the West are free to build up the Russian miracle, or bring abuses of European rights to Hague or Strasbourg, like the Irish, Basques and other minorities do. EU will not accept Russian military intimidation to protect these rights. Do we see that EU tries to leverage German descendants in Russia against Moscow?

Abuses are being brought (despite bureaucracy and attitudes) and are being won. For this I thank the EU. Baltic states could take the initiative themselves, but I guess it is up the people and I hope this will be done. EU cant leverage any EU citizen against Moscow because they do not make a significant proportion of the population anywhere to be counted. Russians in ex-USSR do.