Concluding “strategic stability” talks with the United States on Monday, Russia inadvertently hinted at a strategy to divide the trans-Atlantic alliance.
Held at Russia’s behest, the talks in Geneva saw Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman meet with her Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov. Russia is demanding that the U.S. reduce its military footprint in Europe and commit not to expand NATO. President Vladimir Putin has also warned that Ukraine’s partnership with the West represents an existential threat to Russia. A massive combined Russian military force now encircles Ukraine.
Yet where Russia has spent recent weeks relentlessly condemning the U.S., Ryabkov was more positive on Monday. He praised Sherman’s delegation for treating the discussions “very seriously” and offered hope that progress might be made in some areas. Ryabkov also insisted Russia had no plans to invade Ukraine.
Some will take this rhetoric as a cause for hope. I hope they’re right, but I’m far less confident.
First off, if Russia has no intention of re-invading Ukraine, why did Putin just warn President Joe Biden of a full diplomatic break if the U.S imposes new sanctions following any invasion? Why, if not to provide a flexible casus belli, is Russia inventing purported Western plots to attack its interests in southeastern Ukraine? It is expensive and morale-draining (a significant concern in the Russian armed forces) to keep such a significant military force on Ukraine’s borders. The range of different capabilities that Russia has deployed against Ukraine also suggests that this deployment isn’t simply for show.
Second, Russian diplomatic rhetoric tends to be a servant of Russian deception.
Ryabkov, his boss Sergey Lavrov, and Putin are happy to make bald-faced lies if they believe it serves their interests. In turn, they also know that by praising the U.S., they can exploit the fears of Washington’s allies and partners in Europe — specifically, fears that the U.S. is making compromises with Russia at its allies’ expense. Such concerns are especially significant on the part of Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine.
More broadly, Russia is aware that the trans-Atlantic alliance is uncertain as to how to respond to its threats. Contrary to their communal rhetoric, France and Germany put their own interests before European interests at large. Putin wants to stir up discord within the trans-Atlantic alliance. It’s one reason why Putin is restricting energy supplies amid the cold European winter. Putin knows that his fostering of discord weakens the probability of a collective Western response to his re-invasion of Ukraine.
The Biden administration has at least some sense of this divide-and-conquer risk. Following her talks with Ryabkov, Sherman insisted to reporters that the U.S. “will not make decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Similarly, when it comes to discussing European security with Russia, Sherman said that the Biden administration has pledged a policy of “Nothing about you, without you” to European allies.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration has allowed Russia to degrade the credibility of these assertions.
As an example, Sherman noted that the U.S. had discussed the possibility of “reciprocal limits on the size and scope of military exercises” in Europe. Considering, however, that the overwhelming majority of such exercises are conducted in tandem with allies, it’s understandable to see why some European governments hear the “Nothing about you, without you” rhetoric ringing a little hollow.
That matters in the context of Ryabkov’s reference to meetings he will now hold with NATO members on Wednesday and the OSCE organization on Thursday. Ryabkov said that these meetings will make it “clearer whether there is a basis for suggesting to the leadership to take this or that political decision in favor of continuing this process…”
See the possible risk?
I suspect that Russia will end those meetings suggesting that Britain, Poland, and the Baltic states are sabotaging the prospects for compromise. The intent will be to divide the Western alliance. A re-invasion of Ukraine will then be justified on the basis of a fictional plot or false flag attack against Russian interests.
We will then see this week’s talks for a diplomatic mirage. Putin will tell his people that he attempted diplomacy but was obstructed by an intransigent West. He will then tell them that Russia’s security and sacred identity, if not his domestic popularity, demand military action in Ukraine.
