Putin's Unconventional, well-organized espionage OPS for destabilizing neighbors

[MtnGoat]

Putin's Unconventional, well-organized espionage operations for destabilizing neighbors and undermining NATO

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs...dermining-nato

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s well-organized espionage operations from the Baltic Sea to the Caucasus are described as "soft power with a hard edge," but his efforts across the region have been more systematic than the unrest in Ukraine suggests

[Box]

So Putin is up to something?

Hats off to the folks at Atlantic Council for uncovering that little gem. I thought our concern was all just based on a hunch.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

All my bad humor and sarcasm aside it does look like he is trying to rebuild the old USSR if not the Warsaw Pact countries again.
Anyone want to guess how far he wants to push his borders? He is one intelligent SOB, IMHO not to be underestimated.

Brush Okie,

Agree that Putin is fomenting operations to destabilizing neighbors and undermining NATO

Don't think Putin is trying to increase his borders. He is trying to rebuild the "buffer zones" around the homeland that existed before the decline of the Republic. The Russians see their foes as encroaching on territory that would protect home and hearth. They have always been paranoid about that threat, and established the buffers as planned "areas of conflict" outside of home. EU / NATO (with U.S. encouragement) has been in their face with admission of these areas into the EU and NATO, Russia sees these as "the enemy".

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia accepted the reality that the former Eastern European satellite states would be absorbed into the Western economic and political systems. Moscow claims to have been assured that former Soviet republics would be left as a neutral buffer zone and not absorbed. Washington and others have disputed that this was promised. In any case, it was rendered meaningless when the Baltic states were admitted to NATO and the European Union. The result was that NATO, which had been almost 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from St. Petersburg, was now less than approximately 160 kilometers away

This left Belarus and Ukraine as buffers. Ukraine is about 480 kilometers from Moscow at its closest point. If Belarus and Ukraine were both admitted to NATO, the city of Smolensk, which had been deep inside the Soviet Union, would have become a border town. Russia has historically protected itself with its depth. It moved its borders as far west as possible, and that depth deterred adventurers.

The loss of Ukraine as a buffer to the West would leave Russia without that depth and hostage to the intentions and capabilities of Europe and the United States. If Russia loses Belarus or Ukraine, it loses its strategic depth, which accounts for much of its ability to defend the Russian heartland. If the intention of the West is not hostile, then why is it so eager to see the regime in Ukraine transformed? It may be a profound love of liberal democracy, but from Moscow's perspective, Russia might assume more sinister motives.

Additionally, Russia is concerned about the consequences of Ukraine's joining the West and the potential for contagion in parts of Russia itself. Putin worked to create regimes in Belarus and Ukraine that retained a great deal of domestic autonomy but operated within a foreign policy framework acceptable to Russia.

Additional Steps that Russia could / might take include invading mainland Ukraine (improbable), it can act along its borders to "warn" the Caucasus countries, Moldova and the Baltics (probable); it can offer incentives in Eastern and Central Europe to "hedge their bets" with Russia (definite); and finally, it can bring pressure to bear on the United States by creating problems in other critical areas (Iran, Syria, Venezuela) (Absolutely)

And finally the Muslim angle...... If Russia weakens, Turkey emerges as the dominant power in the region, including the eastern Mediterranean
SnT

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/....9wOD7lEW.dpuf

[Scimitar]

NATO / EU has been pushing economically towards actual Russian boarders since Soviet collapse in 91.

It was inevitable that at some point Russia's only warm water port, Crimea, was going to be threatened, and Russia was going to react predictably.

NATO has seen this coming, so has Russia. When both sides already know the chess moves, the conflict is never about the Chess game at all, but more about how much NATO can get Russia to pay for Crimean stability.

Crimea back in Russian hands was predictable, I'm more interested in understanding what it's costing Putin, and how it's going to help NATOs real goal.

Military....is driven by politics...is driven by economics. And the UNs goal is to have Russia and China becoming more a part of the international community, where the battle grounds are Free Trade negotiations not warfare.

So, the west's goal surely is to loss Putin, soften anti EU / west rhetoric n Russia and help Russia continue on the path to greater democracy and capitalism, with China to follow.

Could this explain, weak US sanctions.
"Here Putin, have Crimea, we don't need it, but you do. In exchange we get"....one step closer to geopolitical strategic...a fully westernized Russia.

If I'm looking at this right, then what are we getting / what is it costing Putin?

S

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Scimitar

NATO / EU has been pushing economically towards actual Russian boarders since Soviet collapse in 91.

It was inevitable that at some point Russia's only warm water port, Crimea, was going to be threatened, and Russia was going to react predictably.

NATO has seen this coming, so has Russia. When both sides already know the chess moves, the conflict is never about the Chess game at all, but more about how much NATO can get Russia to pay for Crimean stability.

Crimea back in Russian hands was predictable, I'm more interested in understanding what it's costing Putin, and how it's going to help NATOs real goal.

Military....is driven by politics...is driven by economics. And the UNs goal is to have Russia and China becoming more a part of the international community, where the battle grounds are Free Trade negotiations not warfare.

So, the west's goal surely is to loss Putin, soften anti EU / west rhetoric n Russia and help Russia continue on the path to greater democracy and capitalism, with China to follow.

Could this explain, weak US sanctions.
"Here Putin, have Crimea, we don't need it, but you do. In exchange we get"....one step closer to geopolitical strategic...a fully westernized Russia.

If I'm looking at this right, then what are we getting / what is it costing Putin?

S

Interesting analysis. The fallacy is the assumption that both chess players are competent. It is pretty clear to me that Mr. Putin is. As to the other players...

[Flagg]

To me this whole thing read like a very serious disconnect between opposing sides on the definition of the Cold War.

The way I see it, the US led West/NATO largely view the Cold War as being decisively won and "game over" since some time around 1991-1993.

Although, I reckon the Western/NATO view on this becomes less decisive and more pessimistic/realistic the closer one gets to Russia. With one example being Estonia and Talinn as the home of the new NATO CCD COE (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence).

I reckon Russia views the Cold War as the last 20 years something akin to a half time game break, with Russia executing their revised 2nd half strategy on the field while the West/NATO(bar the players closest to Russia) are still largely celebrating in the locker room.

One piece of the puzzle that I haven't heard much about is the 35-ish year battle over supplying Western Europe with energy.

I vaguely recall one of the hardest battles the early Reagan Administration had to fight with its NATO allies was the idea of the Soviet Union supplying Western Europe/NATO with energy.

The idea of enriching your entrenched political/economic/military rival to supply you with energy was the epitome of "left wing enlightenment" madness and could have seen the life of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact extended.

But was that another example of the US/West/NATO thinking they've "won", but in reality merely delayed in the "first half of the game" using a longer time horizon?

This Youtube clip below seems a bit relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgq4w4dqKsU

They've used this crude tactic in on Ukraine.

I wonder when they start using far more subtle tactics in terms of energy reliance on the bigger European players?

Personally, I thought the push for Libya by the bigger European players was a response to their fear of increasing reliance on Russia.

And with how much the EU seemed to dislike Turkey, you would think with Turkey's strategic position as a kingmaker for Russia, NATO and EU would be trying harder to keep the Turks onside.

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Interesting analysis. I read an study where they say in the future potable water will be fought over and will be more important than oil. I can see this in places like the middle east and Africa, does this possibly play into this scenario down the road ie many of the Russian rivers etc becoming water right issues in aired lands?

I honestly don't know ANYTHING about Russian water/agriculture....other than Ukraine/Russia have some fantastic agricultural land, some of the best in the world.

I do recall reading about some American(and likely Canadian/Aussie) agricultural families/companies looking to invest in that now chaotic region....just as they've done in the last decade or so in Brazil/parts of South America.

I wonder how they will fair now?

As far as water issues go....look no further than from Egypt upstream through the Nile systems.

Uganda buying SU27 Flankers? Sounded silly......maybe not so silly in the future if Egypt tries to act like the Big Swinging Richard of the region to project power upstream.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by MR2

Interesting analysis. The fallacy is the assumption that both chess players are competent. It is pretty clear to me that Mr. Putin is. As to the other players...

What's Obama being blind and Putin being crazy got to do with it?

My understanding is that both nation's "State Departments" have significant influence over what / how decisions are made, hence in the US it's geopolitical professionals heavily influencing the decision, balancing West Wing tacking and jibing, and in the USSR, um I mean Russia, it's the old guard....this inhere may lay the problem. Putin's smart...but perhaps too heavily influenced by old soviet thinking. You're only as good as the G2 you're getting

Here's another way to look at it...Why wouldn't Putin want to be part of the international community re: economically....negotiating for economy is a cheaper alternative than fighting for it...therefore maybe both sides want the same thing, but they're just jocking for position before the game settles in...to continue the sailing analogy, think running start of the America's cup = geopolitical maneuvering vs the actual race = FTA negotiations.

The other possible issue, is the concern that Putin IS nuts / heavily misinformed about real geopolitics, and honestly sees the old cold war model as the only option...if so, that's scary s**t.

Anyone here go to school with Putin...anyone.

S

[mojaveman]

So with a small scale civil war now going on in the Ukraine does Putin have a reason to send his 40,000 troops over the border to help keep the peace? The Russians are and have always been some excellent strategists. Don't like Putin and never have, he's ice cold and ruthless. You can see it in is eyes. He was hated by the East Germans when he was the director of the KGB in Dresden.

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

Brush Okie,

Agree that Putin is fomenting operations to destabilizing neighbors and undermining NATO

Don't think Putin is trying to increase his borders. He is trying to rebuild the "buffer zones" around the homeland that existed before the decline of the Republic. The Russians see their foes as encroaching on territory that would protect home and hearth. They have always been paranoid about that threat, and established the buffers as planned "areas of conflict" outside of home. EU / NATO (with U.S. encouragement) has been in their face with admission of these areas into the EU and NATO, Russia sees these as "the enemy".

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia accepted the reality that the former Eastern European satellite states would be absorbed into the Western economic and political systems. Moscow claims to have been assured that former Soviet republics would be left as a neutral buffer zone and not absorbed. Washington and others have disputed that this was promised. In any case, it was rendered meaningless when the Baltic states were admitted to NATO and the European Union. The result was that NATO, which had been almost 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) from St. Petersburg, was now less than approximately 160 kilometers away

This left Belarus and Ukraine as buffers. Ukraine is about 480 kilometers from Moscow at its closest point. If Belarus and Ukraine were both admitted to NATO, the city of Smolensk, which had been deep inside the Soviet Union, would have become a border town. Russia has historically protected itself with its depth. It moved its borders as far west as possible, and that depth deterred adventurers.

The loss of Ukraine as a buffer to the West would leave Russia without that depth and hostage to the intentions and capabilities of Europe and the United States. If Russia loses Belarus or Ukraine, it loses its strategic depth, which accounts for much of its ability to defend the Russian heartland. If the intention of the West is not hostile, then why is it so eager to see the regime in Ukraine transformed? It may be a profound love of liberal democracy, but from Moscow's perspective, Russia might assume more sinister motives.

Additionally, Russia is concerned about the consequences of Ukraine's joining the West and the potential for contagion in parts of Russia itself. Putin worked to create regimes in Belarus and Ukraine that retained a great deal of domestic autonomy but operated within a foreign policy framework acceptable to Russia.

Additional Steps that Russia could / might take include invading mainland Ukraine (improbable), it can act along its borders to "warn" the Caucasus countries, Moldova and the Baltics (probable); it can offer incentives in Eastern and Central Europe to "hedge their bets" with Russia (definite); and finally, it can bring pressure to bear on the United States by creating problems in other critical areas (Iran, Syria, Venezuela) (Absolutely)

And finally the Muslim angle...... If Russia weakens, Turkey emerges as the dominant power in the region, including the eastern Mediterranean
SnT

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/....9wOD7lEW.dpuf

This covers much of the reasons outside a warm water port. Some really good points that I haven't heard.