Page 35 - bne magazine February 2022_20220208

bne February 2022 Cover Story I 35
The Ukraine Crisis is approaching These messages are beginning to invented Russian “plot” to set up an
penetrate to the desks of the leaders of Germany, France and Italy. Chancellor Scholz has prevented Germany from supplying weapons or ammunition to Ukraine, has effectively vetoed a plan
to isolate Russia from the SWIFT secure bank transfer messaging system, and has sent emollient noises east.
President Macron, meanwhile, is publicly pushing Kyiv to start delivering on the legal obligations it took on under the Minsk agreement, pressing the use of the Normandy Four format as a forum in which to move these forward. Execution of the Minsk Agreement will inevitably lead
its first birthday – the 1st Guards
Tank Army first “came to rest” 250 km north of Ukraine’s border in April 2021, sparking what has been a long and strident chorus of invasion alarums. Back in April I wrote an analysis of Russia’s options and likely course of action, which measured the probability of an invasion at “nil”. So far, it has been nice to be right, if rather lonely.
The mainstream media have consistently cried that invasion is imminent, and have firmly anchored that trope in
the mass mind that Russia’s troop formations are lined up on Ukraine’s border just awaiting the “go” signal.
In contrast, the facts are that Russia’s troops are stationed some 450 km by rail from the border, are in “camp” formation, with equipment parked in regular lines like cars outside
a supermarket, and with personnel rotating to and from their normal bases.
Moscow has repeatedly and firmly asserted that it will not invade Ukraine. Russian public opinion (reported extensively in bne IntelliNews and elsewhere) is firmly against an invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian public opinion
is also largely of the view that an invasion will not happen. Even President Zelenskiy himself has gone on record
as saying “there is no reason for panic”, and describing an invasion as “not imminent at all”.
Ukraine’s Security Council Secretary Danilov echoed his President, saying he could see no evidence of an impending Russian invasion, and he told the BBC’s Ukraine service that he believes that the crisis is a product of domestic political pressure in the West.
Finally, Ukraine’s Defence Secretary said he had no intelligence at all implying an invasion. He went on to reject explicitly
a UK report that Russian forces had formed up into 60 “strike groups” for an attack on Ukraine – a report that appears to have flowed from Boris Johnson’s inability to distinguish between a Strike Group and a normal Battalion Tactical Group – the cool modern name for
a good old infantry battalion.
unknown Ukrainian politician as a puppet President after a successful invasion – a plot described by Sir Tony Brenton, former UK Ambassador to Moscow, as “...ill sourced, internally contradictory and frankly implausible”.
In sum, we have a picture in which one arm of Nato’s members – the Continental Europeans – are heading one way, while the other – the Anglophones – are heading in the opposite direction. Setting apart the feeling of satisfaction which must be prevalent in President Putin’s office at this (intended) result, the interesting
“We have a picture in which one arm of Nato’s members – the Continental Europeans –
are heading one way, while the other –
the Anglophones – are heading in the opposite direction”
to legalised autonomy for the Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts of Ukraine, which is why Kyiv has so far refused to act on it.
And as if those dove-ish actions were
not enough, Prime Minister Draghi
last month told a press conference that there was little Europe could do to help Ukraine, either militarily or economically, and that it should just maintain “a state of engagement” with Moscow.
In contrast to these relaxed and non- confrontational stances, the Anglophone club has increased both the volume and quantity of its alarm calls; from the recall of embassy staff and families from Kyiv, through the supply of large quantities of Javelin missiles and launchers to Ukraine by the United Kingdom, to the forward deployment of a handful of front-line aircraft and warships, and (yesterday) to a notification from the Pentagon shortening the deployment notice of two brigades of US troops from ten days to five.
These symbolic Anglophone moves have been accompanied by a stream of hysterical rhetoric, spiced with an
question here is “Why”? Why are the Anglophone members of Nato working so hard to persuade the populations of Europe and the United States that Russia plans to invade Ukraine?
We are forced to speculate, but some evidential data points can be seen.
In Washington, President Biden’s administration is suffering a critical loss of credibility and popular support, in part due to the humiliation of the Afghan withdrawal (and in small part due to his evident cognitive decline).
Mr Biden badly needs (a) to look tough, and (b) to get a firm win for team USA against either Russia or China. One
way of looking tough against Russia is to lead the American people to believe that Russia is indeed planning to invade Ukraine, and then to stop that plan in its tracks by the exercise of US power.
If the White House has come to the same conclusion that I have – that Mr Putin has no intention of invading – then
it becomes quite rational to pump up
the threat to hysterical levels, to allow
www.bne.eu