Category Archives: Russia

Russia Spies on North Sea Infrastructure

Reuters has reported that Russian ships have been observed in the area of North Sea energy resources of The Netherlands. MIVD head General Jan Swillens stated that “Russia is mapping how our wind parks in the North Sea function. They are very interested in how they could sabotage the energy infrastructure.”

The Reuters article went on to say “Dutch intelligence agencies MIVD and AIVD, in a joint report published on Monday, said critical offshore infrastructure such as internet cables, gas pipes and windmill farms had become the target of Russian sabotage activities.”

Norway is in a state of heightened alert because of recent appearances of unidentified drones buzzing over North Sea oil platforms, airfields and other sensitive sites. Norway has replaced Russia as a major supplier of natural gas. Norwegians believe that espionage, sabotage and false messaging are a means of intimidation. Though not a member of the EU, Norway mirrors the EU in many ways.

According to AP, seven Russian citizens have been arrested recently for flying drones or taking photographs of sensitive areas. In Norway it is illegal for Russian citizens or companies to takeoff, fly over or land on Norwegian Territory.

The clear intent of Russia Putin is to map out North Sea infrastructure for purposes of sabotage. Doing it in the open gives them the added benefit of intimidation. The UK and EU have considerable dependence on oil and gas from the North Sea. Plenty of communication cables lie there as well. Obviously, interruption of these resources will cause great economic and political disruption in affected countries. It is hard to believe, however, that Russia doesn’t already have data on the North Sea infrastructure.

Russia is sending a message that they consider North Sea Infrastructure a critical target for attack at some point. They know that winning a war is about removing your opponent’s will to fight. Collapsing your opponent’s economy and industrial base by shutting down the flow of energy is probably most likely very early in hostilities with the West. This should be nothing new to Western war planners. But to politicians and business leaders it might be a wakeup call.

Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine has given the West motivation to assess its defensive resources and move to beef them up. Putin has also given the West a picture of how the future world order could look. The West has ignored or underestimated the threat that Russia poses at its own peril. We’ve already begun Cold War II.

Putin’s Russia excels at brinksmanship and psychological operations. The Putin/Ukraine war is stalled for the Russian land forces at present, but he still has assets for conventional air and sea operations. Building on his lies that the “western Nazi’s” pose an existential threat to Russia, he can deflect attention elsewhere at least for internal consumption.

It is my sense that Putin and others like the NPRK would like nothing more than to be sure the continental US takes battle damage in the next big war. Just like our nuclear submarines, Russia’s large fleet of nuclear submarines can navigate around the world quietly in stealth. They can park off the US coasts and deliver whatever they want.

The West must absolutely stand firm on resisting Putin’s threats and holding back the conquest of his neighbors. I believe that Putin will remain a serious threat to the West as long as he is alive. His crimes are so extensive now that he can never safely retire from office and live in a dacha somewhere. It seems doubtful that his successor will be much different.

An open question is, why would Russia think that the West would preemptively attack them? Because we yearn for their vast stretches of taiga? Maybe they fear for their hydrocarbon reserves? Let ’em have their oil and gas. It is theirs. An attack on the Russian homeland would go nuclear early in a conflict. There is no future for anyone in nuclear war. Once that genie gets out of the bottle, there is no stuffing him back in like we did post-WWII. Like anyone else, the Russian people are nice folks. Except for their government. Rancid leadership is something their people will have to overcome.

Attacking Russia. WTF?

I’m about to say some things that may seem (or are) hopelessly naive. But sometimes we should stop and reexamine our basic assumptions.

So, I have to ask the question. Why would anyone in their right mind contemplate an unprovoked attack on Russia? The present-day Russian and former Soviet leadership has always made a show of holding back what they call “western aggression”. They justify their military buildup by claiming that NATO is an immediate and existential threat to their security. But seriously, who the hell would want to control Russia? They fear the push back on their own behavior which is to threaten the west. It would be a total disaster for everyone.

Yes, NATO is a threat insofar as they hold the line against Russian expansionism. Should states succumb to Russian control just because the leadership of Russia says so? Obviously not. Russian control seems to come with the loss of freedoms, stultified economic progress and political oppression. Putin’s war was initially justified, at least by what is available in the western press, as a strike on incipient Nazism in Ukraine which Putin declared as a direct threat to the security of the Russian state.

Everyone outside of Russia realizes that this is a bald-faced lie cynically devised to justify Putin’s dream of empire.

For arguments sake let’s say NATO attacks Russia for whatever reason and let’s say NATO wins. What have they won? A giant collapsed country full of permafrost and mosquitos populated with angry citizens living in economic collapse. The US and coalition forces couldn’t even control Afghanistan with its population of neolithic religious maniacs and their opium poppy fields. And we left the poppy fields intact too!!What chance would there be for western forces controlling a defeated Russia? It would be like the dog who caught the car. What next?

The same question applies to Putin. If he conquers and occupies Ukraine and then the other former Warsaw Pact countries, what will he have gained? Apparently, Putin guessed that they would roll over and comply. That was the state of affairs during the days of the Soviet Union. The USSR had a powerful and penetrating police apparatus with a network of remote prison labor camps and little presumption of innocence.

Unfortunately for Putin, Ukraine didn’t just roll over and concede. They are fighting back against certain authoritarian control and loss of their Ukrainian heritage. In doing so, it is revealed to the world that Putin’s conventional military is a paper tiger. Military planners the world over are taking notes on the modern conduct of war. Resources that might have modernized the Russian military have been funneled elsewhere for a long time.

Russia’s nuclear forces, however, are something to worry about. However, Putin and his cronies know about Mutual Assured Destruction. This principle has prevented nuclear war since Russia got the bomb. Putin knows that if he releases nuclear war shots, the resulting nuclear exchange will not only devastate all participants, but will bounce the rubble a few times as well. Even if land-based missiles are destroyed, the respective submarine fleets can continue to unleash nuclear hellfire at leisure. The meaning of victory becomes very hazy here.

As always, the Russian model of conquest seems to impose brutal authoritarian control to suppress opposition. Not because there is something wrong with the Russian people. But Russian leadership has been so oppressive for so long that there is no institutional template for alternative leadership.

This is very simplistic, but does Russia know that nobody wants control of their country? Imagine the folly of it. Since the days of Stalin they have worked themselves into a lather about the west. The cold war was a game of weapon/countermeasure cycles that has quietly developed into Cold War II. It is all so unnecessary.

I think it is fair to say that everyone wants a peaceful Russia that can participate in world trade, tourism, science and cultural affairs. A reclusive and paranoid Russia that is angrily stamping its feet and issuing threats to its neighbors is a Russia that will remain unhappy and dangerous. Decent people and rich culture are abundant in Russia. Their leadership doesn’t let that shine through.

Yes, we understand that Russia was viciously invaded by the Nazis some years back but they prevailed. At some point everyone has to look to a prosperous future. Yes Russia, this includes you. There is no similar threat to Russia in the world today. Just because the west responds to Russian provocations doesn’t mean that there is an intent to attack. Just because the economic engines of the west outperform them at present doesn’t imply imminent attack either.

I would love to visit Russia as a tourist. Russian hospitality is first rate and the countryside is beautiful. Many people around the world would love to visit. But until the people can break free of oppressive leadership, it will remain a hermit kingdom in the manner of NPRK.

We Don’t Understand Russia

I believe that we in the US must understand that Russia has a history and perspectives that are very different from our own. We have very different languages, alphabets, traditions, folklore and lessons from history. Russia’s land was invaded in WWII by a very capable and violent enemy. Russians suffered and died in great numbers under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. Russian civilian and military losses during WWII have been estimated to be as high as 40 million dead. Russians continued to suffer in the suffocating grip of Soviet socialism until the collapse of the USSR. These dreadful experiences are layered over a long history that has never been exposed to the liberal democracy or free market capitalism that Americans have benefitted from immensely and take for granted.

It has been my habit to be circumspect about Russia. I studied a bit of Russian language in college, have a handful of Russian colleagues and have been to Russia on business. I enjoy 18th and 19th century Russian literature. I’m certainly no Russia scholar but I am sympathetic towards ordinary Russians who suffer under government repression and subsistence living, especially outside of Moscow or Saint Petersburg. Repression and poverty have been with Russia throughout history. Russia was an absolute monarchy up to the Bolshevik revolution in 1905-1917. It was a feudal society operating under a manorial system. Serfdom was common in Tsarist Russia from as early as the 12th century until 1861 when it was abolished. The Bolshevik revolution put an end to Tsarist rule with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917 and murder of the Tsar and his family in 1918.

Today, President Vladimir Putin and his political machine have fabricated reasons to justify a violent military invasion in order to fulfill his dream of the unification of a greater Russian empire. Putin knows he won’t be stopped by a political uprising in his country. He seems quite confident that he can unleash brutal violence on the Ukrainian people without worry of a significant backlash at home. The people who fled Russia during the recent conscription are not present to protest against the war effort.

It is easy to believe that if anyone is the first to release a nuclear weapon, it is likely to be Putin or a successor. Release of a nuclear weapon will only be a difficult decision the first time. Once unleashed somewhere, reluctance for use will drop across the world.

The mountain of sanctions on Russia has had the side effect of bolstering Putin’s case that Russia is suffering from oppression from its western enemies. Putin’s response has only been to ratchet up the shelling of Ukraine. He will weaponize everything within his grasp and bring his hammer down as powerfully as he can.

My point today is that the EU, USA, and NATO must be extremely cautious with Russia in the present period of conflict yet maintain vigorous support for Ukraine and other border countries. Ukraine must be supplied with as much firepower as possible without direct conflict between NATO and Russia. Fortunately, that seems to be what is happening so far. While there are two opposing uniformed armies, Putin is using civilian collateral damage in Ukraine as a strategy to terrorize the population into submission.

My concern is the uncertainty of long-term political stability in US policy towards Russia, Ukraine and support for NATO. The US must maintain a firm opposition to Putin’s expansionism. Putin (and Xi for that matter) is clearly aiming to topple US hegemony in the world and would like nothing more than to see the US recede in influence. If you are not from the US, maybe this doesn’t sound so bad. But someone will aim for global hegemony and get it. Who is the least unfortunate choice?

Unfortunately, the disastrous presidency of Trump in the US gave the world in general, and Russia and China in particular, the impression that the US was in cultural decline due to moral corruption. We were perceived as a tired superpower rotting from within. A power vacuum will always be filled by some nation either abruptly or a centimeter at a time.

The political situation for Lukashenko in Belarus seems very precarious. It is hard to believe that he is a complete patsy for Putin. Knuckling under to Russia has to chafe at least a little bit. Russia has amassed firepower along the border joining Belarus and Ukraine and seems poised for action. Putin is also threatening Moldova over the safety of Russian troops in Transnistria. Any European state sharing a border with Russia has much cause for alarm. I’m guessing that Poland is worried about Russia capturing land to join the Kaliningrad Oblast to the rest of the country.

Putin will stop his aggression only when he is dead. Even then, a successor like Medvedev would likely continue the autocratic trend begun by Putin. Autocracies are notably difficult to take down. This war can play out in any number of ways.

Russian World

An interesting question and answer piece has come out signed by Mykhailo Zahorodnii, Ukrainska Pravda. Zhyttia, titled (by Yahoo) “The atrocities committed by the Russians are their reaction to the fact they are nobody in their own country“. It is not a dispassionate bit of analysis by a senior historian, but rather by an experienced reporter from Ukraine. Yes, it is anti-Russian. It does not attempt to convey sympathy or fairness towards the Russian people. But, as one-sided as it is, I think that many valuable insights are made into the consequences of Russian history and also its politics over the last 30 years.

“And it [the Russian army] is doing the same thing to Ukraine as to Syria. That is, it is  technically possible to turn every Ukrainian city into Aleppo. There are orders, there is no honour, there is no dignity, there are no human values.”

If Ukraine is to lose the war, then Russia should be made to pay dearly for it. However, Putin has stated Russian nuclear doctrine- they will only use nuclear weapons if the survival of the state is threatened. This is widely held to be true. The big question is, who decides what the existential threat to the state looks like? Putin decides, of course. This is why the US and Europe must avoid a ham-fisted foreign policy with Russia. The Russian president is a belligerent madman in charge of a nuclear state and whose fantasies about Russian manifest destiny are his guide. Tensions with Russia are here to stay for many years. Putin supported Trump for a reason. Trump “respected” Putin for unknown reasons. We need to keep American madman and rogue narcissist Trump and his ilk far away from foreign policy.