Photo taken by Arabnews
Our platform Globinsider has always tried to be as unbiased as possible in analysing the current international issues. In order to provide an in-depth analysis we attach great importance to the facts and the primary sources of information. By doing so we may provide our readers with an opportunity to look at the current developments from different angles as well as via systematic approach.
As we mentioned in the previous article there existed a high possibility that the Russian forces might in the foreseeable future fight against the Ukrainian forces, especially when the situation on Donbass escalates. (This article was published a week before the Russian invasion into Ukraine). During the Olympic Games the Western countries repeatedly warned that Russia is concentrating its military forces near the borders with Ukraine, but there were very few analysts who really believed that such a large-scale invasion might happen. The invasion of the Russian troops into Ukraine is a breach of international law which cannot be justified under no circumstances. At the same time, it seems that although the large-scale invasion was not predicted even by the hardliners in the Russian expert environment, a careful study of the publications made by the Russian experts (not the Kremlin circle) indicate that Russia in its latest studies and analyses has been at least considering also the option of military conflict in the bordering country.
The motives behind the invasion into Ukraine?
While the absolute majority of the Western journalists, politicians and experts consider the Russian president to be the main decision-maker when we talk about the invasion into Ukraine, there exist also an alternative opinion among Russian experts that the military conflict in Ukraine is the result of the deepest crisis in the Russia-US relations and that there are much more people not only in the “Kremlin circle”, but also within the expert circle who were talking literally about the boiling “pot” in the relations with the US which may in any moment provoke an uncontrolled crisis. Even before the 24th February the publications on the deepest crisis between US-Russia have arisen, but obviously nobody has paid any relevant attention to these analyses.
So apart from a narrative about an imperial plan of V. Putin to restore the former Soviet Union (which can be absolutely true and shall be analysed and carefully monitored further), there exists also an alternative opinion according to which the latest development is far more complex than it looks like. According to this opinion there is a relatively broad consensus among Russian experts or international specialists on the issue that Russia’s interests in the security environment in Europe (specifically as part of the world system of international relations) have been recently ignored by the so called “collective West” (the term was coined by the Russian politicians and often used by Russian diplomats when referring to the countries of the EU and NATO countries). As the negotiations on the fulfilment of the Minsk agreements practically stalled in Paris and the proposals of the Russian side on the reconstruction of the security system in Europe have been practically ignored (according to the Russian representatives), Moscow understood that diplomatic tools lost any effective power. The next stage in the escalation process when diplomacy ends is the real military strike. And it really happened. But when someone claims that Putin is responsible for the war in Ukraine, he shall not forget that the terms “denazification” or “demilitarization” were not prepared the night before the invasion and that the military operation was orchestrated by the relevant institution. Let’s not forget that Putin, before becoming president of Russia, was the head of the FSB (formerly the KGB), which still plays a very important role in Russia’s domestic and foreign policy.
The war in Ukraine has all the characteristics of a proxy war. Although there are two warring parties – Russians and Ukrainians, the Ukrainian side receives massive military support from the EU and NATO. At the same time, the US and NATO are not ready to directly get involved in the conflict, as this will automatically provoke a large-scale war with the possible use of nuclear weapons. The most important question is: what do the terms denazification and demilitarization mean, especially from an analytical point of view? These are very broad terms, and they are not fully explained to understand what the ultimate goal of the Kremlin in Ukraine is. The broad understanding of these terms may have been done deliberately in order to “calibrate” the Kremlin’s goals in Ukraine in accordance with the changing situation on the front, as we have already seen: the term denazification, mentioned during the first round of peace negotiations, was not mentioned further during the second round of negotiations in Belovezhskaya Pushcha.
The crucial moment
In our opinion, the decisive moment of the “crossing of the Rubicon” occurred at a meeting of the Security Council, convened by the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin, on the eve of Russia’s recognition of the independence of the LPR and DPR. During the meeting, the members of the Security Council were asked to express their own opinion on the current situation in Donbas and what needs to be done in this regard. Mr. Naryshkin, the head of SVR (Sluzba Vneshnei Rozvedky or Foreign Intelligence Service) – that is actually one of Russia’s intelligence services) was evidently blazed and unable to formulate his own position on the matter. If the head of Foreign Intelligence Service cannot articulate his position publicly, it may signal that his service has not been fully informed about the upcoming plans in Ukraine. After the meeting it was clear to everybody that something must happen, at least the military escalation in the Donbass region. Here we would like to point out that if Mr. Naryskin’s emotions demonstrated during the Security Council meeting were not simulated (and it looked like he was obviously shocked and had no clear opinion), that might indicate that the material on Ukraine prepared by his respective intelligence service did not consider the option of a large-scale invasion into Ukraine. There are also other intelligence services in Russia, but if the foreign intelligence service is not informed properly on the upcoming operations, that may at least signal that there is a big competition or even distrust between intelligence services in Russia, but it may also indicate that there has been not enough intelligence information prepared on the invasion in Ukraine as well as on the real attitude of Ukrainians to the “liberators” from Russia. The latest publications clearly demonstrate that the reports on Ukraine had been prepared mainly by another intelligence service in Russia (FSB) and the reports possibly did not reflect the real situation in Ukraine.
Sanctions and their implications for the Russian economy
There has been published a lot of materials on the current situation in Ukraine including detailed analysis on the military strikes, death toll on both sides, siege of some of the Ukrainian cities as well as on the broad operation situation in Ukraine. These materials are being constantly updated and will be further analysed in the future analytical materials. We are not going to delve into the current war situation in Ukraine as the fight is still going on, and the information provided is to a large degree blurred by the mechanisms of the hybrid warfare operations. That makes it practically impossible to provide an accurate assessment of the success or failure of so-called “military operation” in Ukraine.
Therefore we would like to pay more attention to the implications of the sanctions and exodus of the Western companies from Russia on the Russian economy. Since the imposition of sanctions, we have been monitoring the massive outflow of foreign companies from Russia almost daily. The exodus of companies is accompanied by the exodus of Russian brains (top managers, IT specialists, entrepreneurs) who flee to countries such as Armenia, Georgia, Finland, Turkey, Israel and China. Russia will take effective measures to nationalize all foreign enterprises that decide to leave the country. However, these are all temporary measures, and it will be difficult to manage enterprises without foreign spare parts. It is important to note that the economic situation in Russia is clearly not going to improve even in the event of a ceasefire and after a peace agreement on Ukraine is reached.
Very bad scenario
The situation on the front indicates that the goals of the Russian military forces within the so-called “Blitzkrieg” have not been accomplished. Against the background of the worsening situation in the Russian economy and with possible growing social unrest to come as well as with insufficient achievements in the negotiation process with Ukraine we shall definitely not rule out the possibility that Russia will use either a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine or will initiate another military operation provocation in other countries (Moldova, Baltic states or even Poland) or a mixture of such operations. As there obviously exists a distrust even between the Russian intelligence services and the heads of respective services are not informed about the planned operations, that might indicate that there is a high risk of uncertainty and chaos in the decision making process today in the Kremlin or Lubyanka. In this respect we shall be aware of the fact that the further escalation might have a very unpredictable impact on the other European countries.
Global News Insider 