Mediaboss Marketing

Introduction

Tensions between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have reached the point of crisis. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening a wider military incursion into Ukraine unless the U.S.-led alliance makes several major security concessions, including a commitment to cease expanding eastward.

More From Our Experts

Russia says that the United States and NATO have continually violated pledges allegedly made in the early 1990s that the alliance would not expand into the former Soviet bloc. Meanwhile, alliance leaders have said they are open to new diplomacy with Russia on arms control and other matters but that they are unwilling to discuss forever shutting NATOs doors to new members.

More on:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

Russia

Ukraine

Military Operations

Wars and Conflict

Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.Most weekdays.

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.Weekly.

For the Kremlin, the notion that Ukraine, a pillar of the Soviet Union with strong historic ties to Russia, would join NATO was a red line. No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia, Putin warned U.S. Undersecretary for Political Affairs William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, in the weeks leading up to NATOs 2008 Bucharest Summit.

Although NATO did not announce a formal membership plan for Ukraine and Georgia at the Bucharest Summit, the alliance did affirm that these countries will become members of NATO, and it extended formal invitations to accession talks to Albania and Croatia, which became members in 2009. NATO expanded again in 2017, admitting Montenegro, and in 2020, welcoming North Macedonia.

More From Our Experts

Russian officials say that the U.S. government made a pledge to Soviet leaders not to expand the alliances eastern borders, a commitment they say came during the flurry of diplomacy following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and surrounding the reunification of Germany in 1990. Proponents of this narrative often cite the words that U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker said to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in February 1990, that there would be no extension of NATOs jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east. They say the United States and NATO have repeatedly betrayed this verbal commitment in the decades since, taking advantage of Russias tumultuous post-Soviet period and expanding the Western alliance several times, all the way to Russias doorstep in the case of the Baltic states.

However, many Western analysts and former U.S. officials involved in these discussions dispute what they say is a selective view of history. They point out that, in early 1990, the focus of the diplomacy between the so-called Two Plus Four (East and West Germany plus the United States, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom) was the future of Germany and the question of whether the soon-to-be unified country would be part of NATO. (West Germany was already an alliance member, while East Germany was part of the Soviet-aligned Warsaw Pact.) They say that the discussions were not about NATOs long-term plans for eastward expansion, which would have made little sense at that time; the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed, and there was scant indication they would dissolve as quickly as they did, in a matter of months. In a 2014 interview, Gorbachev said as much: The topic of NATO expansion was never discussed. It was not raised in those years.

More on:

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

Russia

Ukraine

Military Operations

Wars and Conflict

The diplomacy between U.S. and Soviet leaders during this period focused on Germany and included discussions of various post-unification security options, including the potential for Germany to become part of both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, for Germany to be nonaligned, and even for the Soviet Union to join NATO. Early in the talks, Soviet leaders insisted that a unified Germany never become part of NATO, though they eventually accepted Germanys right to decide for itself. Similarly, the United States stepped back from Bakers initial language on not expanding NATOs jurisdiction, which he reportedly used only in the discussion about whether NATO troops would be based in what was then East Germany. In the end, the treaty recognizing German unification that the Two Plus Four powers signed in the summer of 1990 stipulated that only German territorial (non-NATO) forces could be based in East Germany while Soviet forces withdrew. After that, only German forces assigned to NATO could be based there, not foreign NATO forces. The treaty doesnt mention NATOs rights and commitments beyond Germany.

Some experts point to another pivotal moment to help explain the mistrust between Russia and NATO today: the 199394 discussions between the Bill Clinton administration and the Russian government led by Boris Yeltsin.

By this point, the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union had collapsed, and the Clinton administration was seeking to craft a new security architecture in Europe that would help foster and fortify the continents fledging, post-Soviet democracies, including Russia. Some in the Clinton government, as well as Central European countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, wanted to move quickly and start expanding NATOs membership eastward. However, most Clinton officials reportedly did not, being wary that expansion would rankle Russian leaders at a fragile, transitional moment and detract from other U.S. foreign policy objectives, such as nuclear arms control.

Instead, Clinton chose to develop a new NATO initiative called the Partnership for Peace (PfP), which would be nonexclusive and open to all former Warsaw Pact members, as well as non-European countries. Seeing this non-membership framework as a compromise of sorts, in October 1993, U.S. diplomats proposed it to Yeltsin, who eagerly accepted. (Just days before, Yeltsin, with the Russian militarys support, forcefully put down an attempt by parliament to oust him.) NATO launched PfP at its annual summit in January 1994, and more than two dozen countries, including Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine, joined in the following months.

However, Clinton soon began speaking publicly [PDF] about expanding NATOs membership, saying in Prague just days after the launch of PfP that the question is no longer whether NATO will take on new members but when and how. Yeltsin warned Western leaders at a conference in December of that year that Europe, even before it has managed to shrug off the legacy of the Cold War, is risking encumbering itself with a cold peace.

Clinton subsequently made efforts to allay Yeltsins concerns: pushing off enlargement until after the Russian leader was reelected in 1996, inviting Russia to join the Group of Seven, and establishing a formal, non-adversarial forum for Russia-NATO diplomacy. But analysts say that NATOs expansion in the ensuing years would leave deep scars on the Russian psyche. For many Russians, most importantly Vladimir Putin, the 1990s were a decade of humiliation, as the United States imposed its vision of order on Europe (including in Kosovo in 1999) while the Russians could do nothing but stand by and watch, James Goldgeier, an expert on NATO-Russia relations, wrote for War on the Rocks.

The Russian government, led by Putin, continued to be wary of NATO expansion in the 2000s. Putin expressed doubts that the alliance, which grew its fastest in 2004, would be effective in tackling the security challenges of the day, including international terrorism and the conflict in Afghanistan. Many new members, particularly the Baltic countries, saw NATO membership as a shield against their former Soviet rulers.

In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATOs inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with themodernization ofthealliance itself orwith ensuring security inEurope. Onthecontrary, it represents aserious provocation that reduces thelevel ofmutual trust. In the summer following NATOs 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

Russia has put forth two draft agreements that seek explicit, legally binding security guarantees from the United States and NATO, respectively:

Treaty with the United States. The draft treaty contains eight articles, some of which call for tight restrictions on U.S. and NATO political and military activities.

Agreement with NATO. The draft agreement has nine articles, including several that call for dramatic military concessions from the transatlantic alliance.

Many Western analysts and officials have said that several of Russias demands, such the ban on future NATO enlargement, are effectively nonstarters and that the Kremlin has proposed them in bad faith. Some fear Moscows demands are deliberately excessive, intended to be dismissed by Western powers and serve as a pretext for Russia to escalate its military activity in Ukraine, potentially by a broad invasion.

The United States and NATOhave said they remain committedto restoring Ukraines territorial integrity and sovereignty. They do not recognize Russias claims to Crimea, and have encouraged Russia and Ukraine to resolve the conflict in the countrys eastern Donbas region viathe Minsk agreements[PDF]. Signed in 2014 and 2015 and brokered by France and Germany, these accords call for a cease-fire, a withdrawal of heavy weapons, Ukraines control over its border with Russia, and local elections and a special political status for certain areas of the region.

Meanwhile, Kyiv has affirmed its goal of eventually gaining NATO membership, and it holds yearly military exercises with the alliance, including the Sea Breeze and Rapid Trident drills. The U.S. military has provided Ukrainian forces with training and equipment, including sniper rifles, grenade launchers, night-vision gear, radars, Javelin anti-tank missiles, and patrol vessels. In 2020, Ukraine became one of just six so-called enhanced opportunity partners, a special status given to NATOs closet allies, such as Australia.

Read the rest here:
Why NATO Has Become a Flash Point With Russia in Ukraine - Council on Foreign Relations

Yiry Ulshin surveyed a scene of ruin. Before him were the remains of what was once a school. Desks were covered in debris. A photo of the class of 2011 lay in the wreckage. There were abandoned crayons and year 3 books in Ukrainian and Russian. Beyond a bullet-scarred wall was a view of pine trees and sea.

My heart is hurting. Why did Russia do this? Ulshin, a Ukrainian army commander, asked.

The abandoned primary school is situated in Shyrokyne, in eastern Ukraine, on the frontline between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russian forces. The village was once a resort. Tourists would stay in its guesthouses, walk along the sandy beach and paddle in the picturesque Sea of Azov.

Now it is a ghostly wreck. In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea, down the coast, and kickstarted a violent conflict in the Donbas region. The following year Ukrainian militias clawed back some of the provinces seaside strip including Shyrokyne, 14 miles east of the port city of Mariupol. My friend was killed in fighting here, Ulshin said.

Today the villages holiday complex resembles a phantasmagoric film set. An alley of pulverised flats leads on to a glass-strewn summer terrace. There is a rusted childs bicycle, a washing machine and a savagely twisted bonnet from a GAZ-53 truck. The ground is pitted with shell holes. Swimming is not advised: the beach is mined. A seagull floated above it.

The separatists did not retreat far, ensconcing themselves just beyond the hillside village of Vodyane, a mile away and visible from the net-covered former sanatorium that serves as the soldiers frontline base. Washing was hanging on a line; logs were piled up for fuel. Two days ago they fired a rocket at one of our cars, out on patrol, Ulshin said. It missed.

Was anywhere in the village safe? No, Ulshin said. Death happens when you dont expect it. The Russians [separatists] work very professionally. A sniper shot me in 2018. I lost so much blood, people thought I wasnt going to make it. But here I am. Ten of my men have been wounded.

Since autumn, Russia has assembled a potential invasion force of 100,000 soldiers on Ukraines borders. The latest signals are ominous. The Kremlin says military exercises will take place next month in Belarus, 90 miles north of the capital, Kyiv. According to the Ukrainian government, Russian forces are covertly stationed in rebel mini-fiefdoms in the cities of Donetsk adjacent to Mariupol and Luhansk.

So far, Putin has kept the world guessing as to what he plans to do. The EU and US have condemned Russian aggression and threatened sanctions. This week the UK flew defensive anti-tank weapons to Kyiv. The Biden administration is reportedly considering military help. On Wednesday the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, visited Kyiv. None of this is likely to stop a Russian incursion should Putin order one.

Look at history. All conflicts have an active phase and a less active one, Ulshin said. The Kremlin would not seize the whole of Ukraine, an enormous and bloody undertaking, he thought; instead it would pursue hybrid war, with the goal of toppling Ukraines Nato-aspiring government and replacing it.

Ukraines soldiers are motivated, professional and ready to defend their homes. But it is obvious they are badly outgunned. Ulshin said he had received some help from Lithuania in the shape of four lightweight bulletproof plates. In the near distance shots rang out, followed by a percussive boom from an auto-grenade launcher.

Ukraine lost much of its navy in 2014, when Russian special forces seized Crimea. Moscow eventually returned the Donbas, an ageing Soviet warship that now sits in Mariupols port alongside two small armoured artillery boats, the Ludny and Kremenchuk. This meagre collection is no match for Russias mighty Black Sea fleet.

Its old but reliable, Cptn Oleksandr Hrigorevskiy said, pointing to the Donbass bow machine gun. Stamped on the side was a date, 1954. The Russians trashed the ships communication system before handing it back, he said, and many of his former officer colleagues defected. The boat subsequently caught fire. It is now used as a command and repair ship.

The deck offers a sweeping view of the Azov Sea bathed in a raspberry light. At 9am each day sailors raise and salute the Ukrainian flag. At night the Russian port of Yeysk twinkles in the distance. The Azov and Black seas are a key commercial route for Russia, linked to a network of rivers and canals.

According to Hrigorevskiy, the Kremlin has annexed the Azov Sea by stealth. Under a 2003 agreement, Russia and Ukraine are supposed to share access. But Moscow now controls Crimeas Kerch Strait, the only way in and out. In 2018 it started impounding Ukrainian civilian vessels, dealing a death blow to Mariupol as a cargo port.

Of late, Moscow has declared large chunks of the internal sea off limits to Ukrainian boats, citing the need to carry out naval exercises. When the Donbas set off towards Kerch in December, sailing in international waters, Putins FSB spy agency accused Kyiv of an act of aggression. We watched a report on Russian TV. They play psychological games, Hrigorevskiy said.

Mariupol stands in the way of any potential Russian advance from the east. In 2014, Kremlin-backed separatists controlled the city for two months. Since then pro-Kyiv volunteers have moved to the area.

Anatoliy Lozar helped to liberate Mariupol, and subsequently married a local woman. He said Russian sentiment was still strong, especially among older residents. Television plays a big role, he said. You can get Russian state channels for free. You have to pay for Ukrainian ones. Lozar said most people in Mariupol vote for the opposition party of Viktor Medvedchuk, a pro-Moscow oligarch accused of treason and now under house arrest.

Over at Mariupols aerodrome, soldiers acknowledged that Moscow was likely to bomb the runway and other strategic military targets, should it attack. Yes, we cant defend physical infrastructure. But weve learned to spread our forces out, to minimise losses, Taras Eleyko said. He added: Putin is a card-sharp. He would need 600,000 troops to occupy Ukraine. He doesnt have that.

Eleyko was part of a travelling amateur theatre troupe from western Ukraine. The group had arrived at the military airport to entertain troops with a traditional mystery play known as a vertep. This one featured familiar characters such as an angel and devil, as well a crown-wearing Putin plus Joe Biden, who carried a stars and stripes flag.

The show took place in what was once the departure lounge, beneath a colourful communist-era mosaic. Someone had pasted Ukraines blue and yellow flag over the old hammer and sickle. The play ended with Death actually Olena Chebeliuk, a historian from Lviv chasing Putin off to hell. She wore a skeleton costume and carried a white scythe.

Were afraid Russia will invade and capture Ukraine. Our army is not very ready to fight, Chebeliuk said, speaking in fluent English. We dont really have Stingers or patriot missiles. We only have old Soviet rockets, many of them not in a good state. If there is a big war, I fear in the first weeks we will have many casualties.

Chebeliuk predicted that a Russian offensive would set off a partisan war. A lot of us are ready to fight. We will resist in every city, in every village. Ukrainians hate Putin, especially in the west of our country. I hope Putin is just pretending with his threats, to get something from the west and Biden.

Whenever Ukrainian rulers began acting like dictators the people rose up against them, she said, citing the 2014 revolution of dignity in Kyiv against the then president, Viktor Yanukovych. Chebeliuk rejected Putins recent claims that Ukraine and Russia were one people.

Russians have lived for 20 years in a dictatorship. They are happy, she said. We dont like dictators here. Putin is a bit of a dreamer. He wants to be the most powerful man in the world. If he tries to make a dictatorship in Ukraine he will fail.

Continue reading here:
Fear and defiance on Ukraines frontline: We dont like dictators here - The Guardian

Well be fully surrounded by equal forces, the senior Ukrainian security official said.

In Washington, U.S. officials say they still assess that Mr. Putin has not yet made a decision to invade. They describe him as more a tactician than a grand strategist, and they believe that he is constantly weighing a host of different factors. Among them is how well he could weather the threatened sanctions on his banks and industry, and whether his demands that Ukraine stop veering toward NATO and that NATO stop spreading toward Russia are receiving enough attention.

But the U.S. officials say Mr. Putin may also have concluded that with the United States and other countries arming Ukraine, his military advantage is at risk of slipping away. Britains defense secretary, Ben Wallace, announced in an address to Parliament on Monday that the country would begin providing Ukraine with light, anti-armor defensive weapons. Mr. Putin may become tempted to act sooner rather than later.

U.S. officials saw Russias embassy evacuations coming. We have information that indicates the Russian government was preparing to evacuate their family members from the Russian Embassy in Ukraine in late December and early January, a U.S. official said in a statement.

Ukrainian officials say they saw the Russians leave.

But that leaves open the question of what, if anything, the Russians were signaling.

It is possible they were trying to bolster the case that the United States and its Western allies should take seriously their demands that Ukraine can never join NATO, and that troops, nuclear weapons and other heavy weaponry must be removed from former Warsaw Pact states, like Poland, that were once allied with the Soviet Union.

It could also be that the Russians were trying to indicate that an attack was brewing, though there were no other signals. In fact, the buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border is not increasing at a rate that Pentagon officials expected a month ago.

The latest U.S. estimates are that about 60 battalion tactical groups, known as B.T.G.s and each with an average of 800 soldiers, are now in place at the border with Ukraine. Combined with other local forces, the Russians have about 77,000 troops at the border, with more on the way. Others put the figure at closer to 100,000 much depends on how different forces are counted but that is well short of the Pentagons estimate more than a month ago that the total number could rise to 175,000.

Read this article:
Russia Thins Out Its Embassy in Ukraine, a Possible Clue to Putins Next Move - The New York Times

Putins response to this economic stagnation and the political peril it represented was to shift the basis of his regimes legitimacy from economic progress, which made Putin so popular in his first two terms in office, to Putin as the defender of a motherland besieged by the West, Aron told me. Putin concluded that if he was going to be a president for life, he had to be a wartime president for life.

Writing in The Hill, Aron quoted Russian opposition columnist Sergei Medvedev as recently observing: Putin has forged a nation of war that has battened the hatches and looks at the world through a lookout slit of a tank. The degree of military-patriotic hysteria [in] Russia today brings to mind the U.S.S.R. of the 1930s, the era of athletes parades, tank mock-ups and dirigibles.

This is classic wag-the-dog politics. Putin is a thug, but hes a thug with an authentic Russian cultural soul that resonates with his people. His obsession with the Soviet Union and his nostalgia for the power, glory and dignity it gave him and his generation of Russians run deep. He was not exaggerating when he declared in 2005 that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.

And because Ukraine, and its capital, Kyiv, played a central role long ago in Russian history, and because Ukraine was a bulwark and breadbasket of the Soviet Union in its heyday, and because perhaps eight million ethnic Russians still live in Ukraine (out of 43 million), Putin claims that it is his duty to reunite Russia and Ukraine. He blithely ignores the fact that Ukraine has its own language, history and post-Soviet generation that believes its duty is to be independent.

For Putin, losing Ukraine is like an amputation, remarked political scientist Ivan Krastev, chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria. Putin looks at Ukraine and Belarus as part of Russias civilizational and cultural space. He thinks the Ukrainian state is totally artificial and that Ukrainian nationalism is not authentic.

The reason Putin has accelerated his Ukraine threat which I would call marry me or I will kill you is that he knows that under Ukraines current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, the process of Ukrainization has accelerated and the Russian language is being pushed out of schools and Russian television out of the media space.

Said Krastev: Putin knows that in 10 years the young generation in Ukraine will not be speaking Russian at all, and it will have no identification with Russian culture. Maybe best to act now, thinks Putin, before the Ukrainian Army gets bigger, better trained and better armed and while Europe and America are in disarray over Covid and in no mood for war.

View post:
Opinion | Putin to Ukraine: Marry Me or Ill Kill You - The New York Times

Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops, with tanks and other heavy weapons, on itsborder with Ukraine in recent weeks, sparking fears that Europe is teetering on the brink of its first war in decades.

The threatening display has the West worried that Moscow is trying to overturn one of the outcomes of the Cold War, when Ukraine broke away from its political sphere and became an independent state.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has frequently said that the collapse of the former Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in the 20thcentury.

After a series of diplomatic talks last week between Russia, the US, the EU and theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) failed, tensions have further escalated.

The White House has said that Russia could attack Ukraine at "any point", while NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg this week said that "there is a real risk for new armed conflict in Europe".

In Brussels, the mood is alsojumpy, with a top EU diplomat telling the BBC that"Europe is now closer to war than it has been since the break-up of former Yugoslavia".

Ukrainian President VolodymyrZelenskyreleased a video address to the nation on Wednesday, urging Ukrainian citizensnot to panic over fears of a possible invasion.

However, he said, the country hadbeen living with the Russian threat for many years and should always be prepared for war.

Poland's Foreign Minister,Zbigniew Rau, saidthe risk of war in Europe was greater than at any timein the past 30 years.

The United Kingdomhas responded by delivering a batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine this week, while Sweden and Denmark have both strengthened their presence near the region.

Russia hasdenied planning a new military offensive, but has made several demands, with the warning that it will take unspecified "military-technical measures" if they are stonewalled.

Moscow said it began its military build-up along the Ukrainian border because it could no longer "tolerate" NATO's eastward expansion and "gradual invasion" of Ukraine.

It has requested thatNATO commits to a binding promisenever to admit Kyiv to the alliance, and wants a formal assurance from the West to cease military co-operation with Ukraine.

So far, those demands have been met with a firm 'No'.

So how close is the situation to war?

Paul Dibb, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, said the situation hadbecome dangerous, but that he did notbelieve there was a threat of major military action.

"Let's get one thing straight, [Mr Putin's] not going to try [to]invade and occupy the whole of the Ukraine Ukraine has 44 million people," he told the ABC.

Analysts suggest a more likely scenario is that of a limited Russian invasion along the separatist-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine that it seized in 2014.

Mr Putin might also launch a limited incursion into south-eastern Ukraine to join the country's industrial heartland, Donbas, with Russian-occupied Crimea.

"As we speak, there's evidence that further Russian troops are being brought in from the Russian far-east around Vladivostok into the area just north of Ukraine," Professor Dibb said.

"My view is [that], if Putin intended to have an a military attack, even a partial one, we'dsee those troops being built up further in the next few days and weeks."

This week, Russia has been further beefing up its presence near Ukraine with the arrival of troops in Belarus for planned military exercises between the two countries next month.

Belarus is a Russian ally and having troops on its territory would enable Moscow to invade Ukraine from the north.

Professor Dibb, a former deputy secretary of the Department of Defence, said the most likely initial scenario is thatRussia will mount more crippling cyber attacks.

Just last week, Ukraine was struck with a cyber attack that defaced its government websites.

The Ukranian government pinned the blame on Russia.

"My personal view is he may well start, as it did in Crimea, with a cyber attack And let's acknowledge that the Russians are very good at cyber, one of the best in the world," Professor Dibb said.

Cyber attacks could potentiallycut off electricity and energy supplies at the peak of winter, and allow Russia to spread disinformation and propaganda to Ukraine's 8.3 million Russian populationinto insurgency operations, he said.

Alexey Muraviev, a national security and strategic expert at Curtin University, also says Russia's priority is not the occupation of Ukraine, but instead to have its agreements met tostopNATO's expansion any further to the east.

"For Russia, occupation of Ukraine is not the number one or number two priority the Russians are more interested in reaching some consensus with Washington and Brussels," he told the ABC.

"I don't think they will make a move right now."

With Ukraine outside NATO and not benefiting from the alliance's security guarantees, the USand its European allies have made it clear that they are unlikely to directly intervene militarily if Russia strikes.

Instead, some have been sending military aid to Ukraine and haveraised the prospect of new sanctions on Russia, possibly the severest yet, in the event of an attack.

Germany's Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock whose talks with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, also ended with no breakthrough last week said Moscow wouldpay the price if it movedon Ukraine but thatdiplomacy was "the only way".

"Each further aggressive act will have a high price for Russia, economically, strategically, politically," she said.

US President Joe Biden predicts thatRussia will "move in" on Ukraine.

He said Moscowwould pay dearly for a full-scale invasion,with its businesses possibly losing access to the US dollar, but suggested there could be a lower cost for a "minor incursion".

The Biden administration has prepared a broad set of sanctions and other economic penalties to impose on Russia in the event of an invasion.

However, Mr Biden said NATO allies are not united on how to respond, depending on what exactly Mr Putin does, saying "there are differences" among them and that he was trying to make sure that "everybody's on the same page".

He added that a third summit with Mr Putin was "still a possibility" after the two leaders met twice last year.

Professor Dibb does not think new sanctions will have any impact "whatsoever" in deterring Mr Putin from making moves on his neighbour.

"Russians are hard people. Their history tells us that they used to absorbing hard measures," he said.

Russia has been subject to curbs since its annexation of Crimea, a conflict thathas seenmore than 14,000 people killed in nearly eight years of fighting between the Russia-backed rebels and Ukrainian forces inDonbas.

Further punitive measures were added after a former Russian spy was poisoned in Britain in 2018 and following an investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election won by Donald Trump.

Professor Dibb warned thatMr Putin knows America and European countries are not willing to confront him with war, and that China will be watching closely.

"China and Russia are increasingly showing signs of being very, very close strategic partners, and not just politically and economically, but militarily," he said.

"If Russia uses military force and gets away with it, then China may be further encouraged to push ahead with its military threats to unify Taiwan."

ABC/wires

See the article here:
Russia's menacing forces near Ukraine spark fears of an invasion. How close is Europe to its first war in decades? - ABC News