July 21, 2021 — No Comments

How are the U.S. Administrations dealing with Cybersecurity

By: István Hagyó and Bianca Ferrazza 

Introduction

Witnessing government agencies, corporations and the military's recent shift of administration of activities to the internet, one cannot ignore the pressing concern of cybersecurity to world security. It is pertinent to discuss cybersecurity, as the contemporary world is increasingly immersed in the use of new IT technologies; humans seem to be living in cyberspace rather than in the physical one. Cybersecurity’s relevance to national security is obvious: in the era of digitalization, we are observing a lot of new threats coming from the internet and countries must act before having their weak spot detected. 

What is a cyber attack?

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a cyber attack is an act aimed at the damage or the destruction of a computer network or system. More precisely, a cyber attack consists of an attempt to perform any action that might hurt a database’s security. These actions may include disabling computers, stealing data or leakage of any sensible information. 

What happens when a country or company is the victim of this attack?

The cyber domain also refers to the term “cyberspace”. According to the definition of the U.S. Department of Defense, cyberspace is “A global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems and embedded processors and controllers”. 

Cybersecurity’s role in the contemporary world emerges as a consequence of the internet revolution of the past decades. It is considered a practice aimed at the protection of systems (alongside that of programs and networks) from the threats of digital attacks. 

Cybersecurity aims to foil attacks at gaining access, leak or destroy sensitive information and to interfere with the normal administration of companies, government agencies and other subjects. The implementation of cybersecurity has improved in recent years, due to the growing business of high tech companies, but so have hackers. In general, one can consider a successful cybersecurity approach one that presents several layers of protection against hackers. 

The Evolution of US Cyberpower

In analysing the approach of the Biden administration in regards to cybersecurity threats, it would be interesting to look back in time and to understand what the past US administrations have done.

In 2003, the Bush Administration commissioned a document, National Strategy for Security Cyberspace, which pinned down three tactical approaches aiming to prevent cyber attacks on the country’s most important infrastructures, reduce its fragility and, in case the attack actually happens, implement efficient strategies to minimize damage. The National Strategy issued by George W. Bush also posed itself as a target to invigorate companies’ care to their cyberspace, by routinely empowering their security systems. The Bush administration also presented a huge contribution by issuing the National Infrastructure Protection Plan in 2006, which identified 17 infrastructure sectors and advanced the idea that cybersecurity’s importance derives from the fact that it can be declined in any sector and therefore does not represent a separate topic. 

The Obama Administration took a radically different approach, organizing cybersecurity with a top-down strategy by assigning the command of cybersecurity policies to the White House rather than to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). During his mandate, new legislations were passed, alongside the issuance of new policies. Chinese hackers were involved in cyber theft regarding intellectual property and trade strategies, occupying US intelligence in many inquiries. In 2015, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement aimed at the cessation of commercial hacking, which resulted in a drop in the number of instances of Chinese hacking into the American commercial cyberspace. Additionally, the state department worked with international institutions and with other countries in an attempt to apply international law to the new cyber threats. The Department of Home Security enhanced its “Einstein” cyber threat prevention system; the software now is used by more than 90% of federal agencies. 

The Trump Administration, experts say, seems to have taken the country a step back on cybersecurity management. The former President fired Christopher Krebs who was the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (C.I.S.A.) since 2018 for not having supported Trump’s claims on the 2020 election fraud, a decision that was contested by most cybersecurity experts. Trump’s legacy on cybersecurity is made up of several different measurements. During his mandate he managed to confront China on cyber issues, to recognize the importance of the cyber domain in regards to the next decades in warfare. It also implemented a “Defending Forward Strategy”. This strategy enforces operations aimed at intercepting attacks before they reach the U.S. and has several implications in regards to some sectors of the economy considered vital to the country’s normal administration. The new strategy also claims to be “preparing for war”. It seems that the cyber operations will be joined with warfighters, to try and combine the two aspects of security. 

Newly-elected President Joe Biden has come up with a new executive order regarding the matter of cybersecurity, making it a priority to improve the Government’s strategy tied to the new threads proposed by the “cyber switch”.  In order to better sum up the new policies regarding the cybersecurity approach, the White House has released a fact sheet focused on the highlighting of some key aims of the executive order, some of these being the improvement of software supply chain security, the establishment of a cybersecurity safety review board and the removal of barriers to threat information sharing between borders.

U.S. Administrations vs Major adversaries

The American approach toward potential Russian cyber threats became a major debate after the accusation of Russian meddling in the 2016 American General Elections. The GRU (Russian military intelligence agency) carried out several attacks on Ukraine including two power grids and the 2017 NotPetya virus causing $10 billion worth of damage. The Baltic states are the most vulnerable and affected, while direct cyber-attacks against US international companies, governments and critical services are also very common. In 2020 alone, almost 300 million ransomware attacks were launched causing a $1 billion loss. Such an occasion was the ransomware attacks on Colonial Pipeline resulting in gas outrage of the East Coast for days.

The different interpretation of the nature of cyber conflict by both states makes the situation more complicated. The Russian government and embassy strictly denied the existence of such operations. However, several attempts were initiated by the Russian part to form a common group to counter cyber-attacks. The American part each time rejected the offer, especially during the Trump Administration, due to mistrust and fear from domestic scepticism in case of an agreement by President Trump. The Biden Administration realized, both the necessity and the lack of progress in the case. A significant result and probably the only one during the recent Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, Switzerland, was to form a bilateral committee on cybersecurity issues and potential cyber-attacks. The American part highlighted 16 entities, infrastructures that are off-limits from attacks.

China is also raising concerns in Washington. The United States’ cyberspace relations with China are different as compared to Russia. China has greater economic potential, therefore, more resources to fund its cyberspace strategy. When considered from a global perspective, it reaches any industry and all the sectors involving any entity. Like in other arenas, China is pursuing to take the frontrunner role in cyberspace as well. The characteristics of Chinese cyber-attacks are heavily intelligence oriented and spying for the ultimate western technology. A great suspicion is toward Chinese advanced telecommunication equipment like the Huawei 5G. In order to avoid the escalation of such allegations, the two states in 2015 signed the U.S. - China Security Agreement. However, it focuses only on economically motivated cyber-attacks. It is widened by the escalated trade war between the two countries resulting in no breakthrough during the Trump administration and the recent Sino-American summit in March 2021. 

Conclusion

Given the increasing importance and danger of cyberspace, only in 2020 alone, almost 30.000 companies, corporations, institutions and banks were targeted and a total of 300 million cyber-attacks were launched causing over $1 billion loss. The concept of cyberspace and its potential threats became a national security topic during the presidency of George W. Bush. The Obama Administration was the first to institutionalize it, while President Trump was the first who publicly accused China of cyberspace warfare. Now, it is President Biden’s turn to take an approach and engage major powers to internationally institutionalize cyberspace to prevent uncontrolled cyber-attacks. There is a need for barriers and deterrence for those who conduct uncontrolled cyber-attacks. Although this was initiated with Russia during the Biden-Putin summit, only time will tell the extent to which it is successfully implemented. 

July 12, 2021 — No Comments

If Russia attacks the Baltics

By: Igor Shchebetun

NATO exercise Defenders of Europe 20 was to be the largest U.S. troop deployment to Europe in more than 25 years. The main purpose of the exercise was to demonstrate the Alliance's ability to come to the aid of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which joined NATO in 2004. Despite the strongly pronounced pro-Western course of these countries, energy ties, trade flows and geographical realities make the three former Soviet republics the arena of an unspoken struggle for influence between Washington and Moscow.  What will happen to the Baltic states if tensions rise sharply and relations between Russia and NATO reach the phase of armed conflict? For centuries, the three small countries around the Baltic Sea have been the battleground for influence between the great powers. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of the Baltic region strengthened their economic integration with the West, resulting in the economic prosperity of all three states, but the success of the Baltics also exposes the vulnerability of NATO in this region. 

Latvia and Estonia share a border with Russia, and the presence of large Russian-speaking communities in both countries inevitably leads to disagreements and conflicts over linguistic citizenship rights and historical memory. The focus here is on hybrid threats, where technically savvy Estonians seek to repel cyberattacks while Latvia focuses on strategic communications for information warfare. The two Baltic states are more susceptible to direct military pressure from Russia than their neighbour to the south Lithuania has the largest population among the three countries and is located in the most strategically important territory in the Baltic. It is here in the southernmost Baltic state that the tactical confrontation between Russia and NATO will take place. The Baltic states have no chance to withstand the onslaught of the Russian army. The question is whether it will be able to strengthen its allies before the Russian invasion.

Exercise Defender of Europe 20, scheduled for late March 2020, was supposed to be an attempt to answer this question. It was supposed to mobilize more than 20,000 U.S. soldiers and move more than 13,000 pieces of military equipment across the continent to demonstrate the Alliance's ability to defend the southern Baltic region, but was canceled due to movement restrictions due to COVID-19 pandemic. Although the exercises were not carried out as planned, the current military situation in the Baltic is worth exploring. The key to understanding the specifics of the region is its geography. Most importantly the presence of Russia here and the Kaliningrad region is a Russian enclave about the size of Northern Ireland located on the Baltic Sea coast southwest of Lithuania. 

Because of the stationing of the Russian-Baltic Fleet headquarters, the small subject of the Federation is well protected and considered the most militarized region in Europe. In February 2018, Kaliningrad became home to Iskander operational-tactical missile systems with nuclear capabilities and a range that covered all of the Baltic states and beyond. In addition, the province has the resources to limit and deny access and maneuvers at sea through long-range missiles, anti-ship missiles, missile defense systems, air, land and naval forces. 

Needless to say, Kaliningrad will play a decisive role in any confrontation with Russia. Today, the U.S. military leadership believes that the firepower present in Kaliningrad is enough to block U.S. naval forces from entering the Baltic Sea. This means that military action in the Baltics will take place on land, which completely changes the picture. After the events of 2014, NATO deployed a significantly deterrent force to its Eastern European countries. Expanded Forward Presence. This is a program to deploy troops consisting of combat units from the armies of various NATO members, equipped with relatively light weapons and ready to resist aggression under allied command. According to NATO statements, four multinational battlegroups deployed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States. Canada and Germany and the United States, respectively, would increase Russian losses in the event of Russian intervention in the Baltics. The Kremlin argues that this increased presence raises security concerns and will only increase tensions in the future. Such escalation has already begun over the past few years, Russia has strengthened its air and anti-aircraft missile capabilities with equipment such as the Kalibr ship-based missile system with a range of up to 2,000 km, the S-400 Triumf long-range air defense system and the advanced Su-30cm fighter-bombers. 

In 2017, the Kremlin tested this equipment in a large-scale exercise by the West envisioning a worsening of relations with the West and highlighting the conflict on the territory of the Baltic states. During the exercise, Coastal Defense systems in Kaliningrad hit surface targets and Russian strategic targets near the Lithuanian border. Bombers attacked ground targets for the first time since the Cold War. Tensions are clearly high and further escalation does not look favorable to NATO in terms of military prospects. The stretch of land located between northeastern Poland and southern Lithuania between Kaliningrad and Belarus at its narrowest point is only 66 kilometers wide and is called the Suwalki Corridor. This strategically important area is one of NATO's most vulnerable geostrategic points because it serves as the only land corridor between the alliance and the Baltic states. Whoever controls the Suvalki corridor will dominate the entire battlefield, so NATO should do everything possible to maintain land access to the Baltics, while Russia will do everything possible to block this passage. For Lithuania the Suvalki corridor is also crucial because this area provides access to the second largest city in the country, Kaunas, located at the confluence of two major rivers dividing the country into two parts. Historically, both Napoleon and Hitler conducted offensives through the Suvalki Corridor. During the First World War, the Russian troops conducted counterattacks here. This region became the main battlefield of the Polish-Lithuanian War. The hilly terrain in Suwalki makes it difficult to regain control of the area should it be lost, and reinforcing NATO defenses face diplomatic difficulties in view of the transport routes from Russia to Kaliningrad that pass through here. More specifically, Russia has a legal right of passage through the Suvalki corridor to connect with Kaliningrad, and this freedom of access is a red line for Moscow. The Zapad 2017 exercise involving Belarus demonstrated how easily Russia can gain an advantage on the eastern flank of the Suvalki Corridor through which it can ferry its units. Meanwhile, it is assumed that three brigades of about 15,000 soldiers can be mobilized on the western flank in Kaliningrad alone for comparison, the regular Lithuanian army has 18,000 soldiers and it is not as well equipped as the Russian army and the number of forward multinational NATO units is just over 4 and a half thousand soldiers in fact the Russian troops located in the region outnumber the NATO troops by a ratio of about eight to one.

It is believed that to achieve parity with the Russian NATO forces, 18 more brigades will have to be deployed in the Baltics. However, reinforcing the Baltic allies is a politically risky and logistically complex undertaking. Even in the air NATO will not find it easy to gain military superiority. It is worth stressing that NATO has the technical capability to destroy Russian missile systems in the region. However, such a strike would increase tensions to the point of no return, which is a dangerous gamble in a conflict with a nuclear power.

All this means that at the moment Russia can easily suppress NATO forces in the Suvali corridor and isolate the Baltic states. This could be realized quite unexpectedly given Russia's freedom of movement in this region and the close proximity of its forces in Belarus and long-range missiles in Kaliningrad. Even with the rapid deployment of NATO forces, as suggested by the Defender of Europe 22 exercise, there is great doubt that they will be able to defend this territory until reinforcements arrive. Retaking the Suvalki Corridor by military means will require significant efforts from every NATO member state. By and large, NATO's vulnerability in the Baltics is well known to its military leadership. However, the general public in NATO member states is less familiar with it. Increased awareness of military realities could prevent possible miscalculations, because in any situation on the brink of war, NATO democracies would have to enlist the support of the people. Article 5 of NATO declares that an attack on one member of the Alliance is an attack on all members. This is the Cornerstone of the entire organization. If the Kremlin's ultimate goal is the destruction of NATO, one way of doing so is to demonstrate that the Alliance cannot defend its allies and the Baltics is the best place to test this theory.

July 1, 2021 — No Comments

European Security Challenges II: Russia

By: Alessandro Spada

Picture via West vs Russia: the Clash of Narratives | Madan

The tensions between the European Union (EU) and Russia have considerably increased over the last years. In this context, Ukraine has become a crucial geopolitical flashpoint. Ever since the annexation of Crimea and Russian military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, the relations between Russia and the EU have deteriorated progressively with the adoption of severe sanctions by the latter.

In addition to the Ukrainian crisis, both the Russian intervention in the Syrian war and the attempted poisoning of the former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skipral and his daughter by Kremlin agents in 2018 are worth recollecting. Besides, the use of targeted actions to influence and to destabilise European countries such as disinformation, cyber-attacks and support for pro-Kremlin political parties and NGOs, and in the end, the attempted murder by poisoning of Alexei Navalny, one of the most fearsome opposition leaders of Vladimir Putin, have imposed EU to take further countermeasures.

The Russian threat can be subdivided into the following three categories: 

  1. Military threat: The high-risk level of Baltic States to be invaded by Russian troops in just a few days and short-range Iskander missiles stationed in “the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad” with high capacity to deliver nuclear warheads attack and to reach Poland and Eastern Germany in 2013. In this regard, it is worth highlighting that the repeated NATO airspace and sea space violations have often provoked several skirmishes between the Russian and NATO planes and warships in the Black and the Baltic Seas. In addition, more than 100,000 Russian troops have been deployed to the border between Russia and Ukraine and Russia’s navy presence around the whole Crimean Peninsula, including also the Sea of Azov, are not absolutely less alarming for Ukraine, NATO and European allies.
  2. Hybrid threat: This is meant as financial and political support for pro-Kremlin parties and NGOs, also spreading disinformation. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning the cyber-attacks to influence and cause instability within European Countries and borders. For example, Moscow was able to build strong ties with populist and mostly far-right political parties such as Rassemblement National (RN) in France, Lega in Italy, Alternative für Deutschland(AfD) in Germany, Vlaams Belang (VB) in Belgium and Catalan independence movement in Spain. Among Russian hybrid tools, the state-owned RT news channel and Sputnik news agency, are considered propaganda instruments, which disseminate anti-establishment conspiracy theories, aim at creating divisions on sensitive issues such as migration and Islamic terrorism. At last, it is worth recalling the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the St. Petersburg-based “troll factory”, specialized in fake social media profiles on Facebook and Twitter.
  3. Energy threat: Russia supplies a third or more of EU oil and gas demand and “a large share of this is delivered via pipelines crossing Ukraine, a country whose relations with Moscow are even more problematic than the EU's, raising the possibility that Europe's gas supplies could be held hostage to geopolitical tensions”. Indeed, the energy crisis in 2006 and 2009 created serious warnings for gas supplies.

In reaction to these threats, 4500 troops have been stationed on a rotational basis in Poland and Baltic countries by NATO since 2017 and Lithuania approved the reintroduction of compulsory military service in 2015. The three Baltic countries have significantly raised their defence budget and two neutral countries as Finland and Sweden strengthened partnership with NATO. Furthermore, this year, many European countries took part in DEFENDER-Europe 21, “an annual large-scale U.S. Army-led, multinational, joint exercise designed to build readiness and interoperability between U.S., NATO and partner militaries”. Last May, 600 NATO and non-NATO forces, including troops from Ukraine and Georgia, were involved in the "Trojan Footprint" military exercise across five Eastern European countries (Bulgaria, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Georgia, and Romania). The drill took place “alongside much larger Defender-Europe 21 NATO joint exercises”, mentioned before, which had “some 28,000 forces participating from 26 different countries”. 

Numerous countermeasures have been taken by EU countries to counter Russian disinformation. For example, media literacy training has been introduced in school curricula by several countries and “regulators have clamped down on pro-Kremlin outlets such as RT for failing to comply with media standards”. In 2015, EU created a special task force as East StratCom Task Force for a weekly publication of Disinformation Review identifying and unmasking disinformation from pro-Russia sources. Moreover, it has the purpose to cooperate with Eastern Partnership countries for building resilience to pro-Kremlin disinformation, for example explaining EU policies to audiences from the region by producing Russian-language materials and training journalists. In 2018, the disinformation Code of Practice and the Action Plan were both adopted by the European Union. Several media companies signed the Code of Practice, committing to remove fake profiles and allowing users to see who pays for online political adverts.

The EU has taken meaningful measures to mitigate energy shortage. For example, it has started to build new energy infrastructures - such as interconnecting pipelines enabling EU Member States to share gas, building terminals to import LNG from USA and Qatar and storage facilities to keep gas in reserve. In this context, NATO plays a fundamental role as well, establishing “three main priorities regarding energy security. The first is to enhance allies’ strategic awareness of the security implications of energy developments. The second goal is to support the protection of critical energy infrastructure, including tankers and offshore energy installations. Third, NATO has prioritized enhancing energy efficiency in the military”.       

The EU will have to support Eastern European member countries politically, military and economically to counter Russian threats. It will have to promote major policies of economic development, social inclusions fighting inequalities created by pandemic, more cooperation and investments in counter-intelligence and cybersecurity technologies. Additionally, it will have to invest more financial resources to rebuild the economy based on renewable energies, being less hostage by the Russian oil and gas. In the end, it will need to be more independent from the American influence and speaking with a common and single voice. If Europe does not follow this path, it would put at risk the foundations of European democratic institutions, causing their disintegration, paving the way to antidemocratic and populist political parties and lastly it would continue to be subject to energy blackmail of the Kremlin.

What is sure for now is that Russia is still perceived as a real threat to the whole Western world, as also demonstrated by the UK and USA. Indeed, concerning this last one, in spite of the constructive U.S.-Russia Summit in Geneva on 16th June 2021, the deep underlying tension between the superpowers seems less than solved.

Here you can read the first part of this article.

June 24, 2021 — No Comments

Balance of power Russian and Europe. An Interview with Dr Gonzalo Pozo-Martin Stockholm University.

Dr Gonzalo Pozo-Martin from the Department of Academic History and International Relations at Stockholm University is answering the questions on the topic whether the balance of power between Russia and Europe has changed in recent years.

Interviewing Team: Igor Shchebetun.

June 21, 2021 — No Comments

How the Biden-Putin Summit will change the Russian American Relations

By: István Hagyó 

Picture via GettyImages

The long-awaited Biden-Putin Summit took place on the 16th of June in Geneva. The fact that the two sides managed to set up a summit in such a short period of time, taking into consideration previous events that seriously deteriorated their bilateral relations, represents a significant success and shows the willingness and commitment on their part to restabilize the relationship. The Russian military build-up near the Ukrainian border, President Biden calling President Putin a “killer” or the American accusation of Russian interference in 2020 US elections, raised questions on the future of the bilateral relations between the two states. The article analyses whether the summit can lead to a long-term rhetoric change in American-Russian relations.

The relations with each other represents a core role in their global strategy. Therefore, many topics were discussed. From Afghanistan, Iraq, to climate change, Arctics, Ukraine and Alexei Navalny, the growing Russian cybersecurity threat and lastly, the question of nuclear arms control; many of them sensitive and problematic. During the meeting, both leaders were focusing primarily on topics directly affecting their bilateral relations. Progress was seen in three main topics: cybersecurity, nuclear arms control and human rights. These topics require continuous dialogue and are long-term plans, where both sides are interested in solving. 

What was discussed during the Biden-Putin Summit:

Return the Ambassadors: Both sides agreed to return their ambassadors, which serves as a positive indicator for a chance of future talks between the two states. 

Cybersecurity Task Force: President Biden informed his counterpart regarding his concerns about Russian cyberattacks. The recent attack by Russian hackers, the ransomware strike on an American oil pipeline company obstructed the gasoline supply in the country. President Putin denied all the allegations stating that “most of the cyberattacks in the world are carried out from the cyber realm of the United States”. However, facts show that the most damaging attacks are coming from state-backed Russian hackers. Therefore, Biden drew a redline and informed about 16 types of infrastructure that must be free of cyberattacks. As a result, a common cybersecurity task force will be set up to avoid such escalations and initiate dialogue. The potential of it is unclear, however, the willingness to cooperate at least on a working level represents progress.

Strategic Stability Dialogue on nuclear arms control: Issuing a joint statement on nuclear arms control stating that, “today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  In addition, an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue will be initiated for future nuclear arms control measures.

Human Rights: Biden highlighted the importance of this subject for the American people and for the United States, saying that “it is in our country’s DNA”. It became a sensitive topic, due to the recent imprisonment of the Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, currently in jail. According to President Putin, Alexei didn’t respect the law while returning from Germany being on treatment and consciously knowing that he will face imprisonment. However, President Biden clearly stated that in case of Navalny’s death in prison, there will be “devastating consequences” for Russia. 

Ukraine: Less progress on Ukraine as President Putin dismissed both the possibility that Ukraine will join NATO which he considers unacceptable. Regarding the Russian aggression in East Ukraine, he stated that it is not the business of the United States. 

Analyzing the reactions from the summit between the two leaders, we feel prudence from both, which highlights the importance of the summit itself as a result. Putin said about Biden, “he's a balanced and professional man, and it's clear that he's very experienced," also that, “it seems to me that we did speak the same language", while Bidencommented, "the bottom line is, I told President Putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we can all abide by." 

Overall, the summit did not result in a breakthrough and both leaders initially had low expectations, however, sending back their ambassadors and initiating cooperation in new areas like cybersecurity show low but clear progress in the Russian American relations toward stability. Even with fruitless talks on Russian involvement in the cyberattacks on the United States and refusal of explanation about the imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny, any progress is seen as a success, due to how low the relations were. Each side informed the other what are the red lines. The summit clearly represented how strategically crucial are these bilateral relations. Both sides affirmed that they don’t want another Cold War, but the reality is that the world has changed. Biden must calculate with a global China and at some point, there will be an interest to cooperate with Russia, regardless of the several obstacles presently obstructing a more cordial relationship. However, Russia can possibly use this card and profit from the tense Sino-American relation. 

To sum it up, it is more than likely that the summit itself will not radically change the rhetoric of the Russian American relation, but can be a cornerstone to initiate that change. 

May 13, 2021 — No Comments

Russia and Ukraine prepare for War

By Igor Shchebetun

     The situation in Eastern Ukraine is heating up.  Videos published on social networks show military columns moving towards Donbass. Kiev has put its troops on high alert. Washington is considering sending the navy to the Black Sea, while Moscow is pulling heavy weapons and landing troops to the border.

     Ukraine is a buffer state located in the center of Europe that serves as a road to an attack to the East or West. Today, the European Union and NATO, mainly represented by Poland, see Ukraine as a place where Russian influence on the European continent can be stopped. Russia sees Ukraine as an indispensable buffer zone against the West. To be fair, both Moscow and Kiev have internal motives for escalating tensions. President Zelensky's rating is rapidly goes down. In 2021, only slightly more than 20% of Ukrainians are willing to vote for him. Putin faces the same problem, his level of support in February 2021 is only 32%. The bottom line is that both sides have reasons to use the tensions in Donbass to influence the opinion of their voters. But let's still imagine that the conflict is not limited to Donbass, but fully involves Ukraine and Russia, what would it look like?  Despite Kiev's efforts to reform the army in recent years, the balance of power between Ukraine and Russia has changed little. Russia has the ability to defeat its adversary and can implement its strategy in a variety of ways. Let's consider which ones? It can conduct small operations along the entire border with Ukraine, which will disperse Ukrainian forces. On the other hand, a small offensive will not bring additional influence in terms of politics or security. Another option for Russia and the Donbass it supports is to expand controlled territory into the rest of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, making the separatists more self-sufficient. However, increasing the buffer territory is too little. Especially considering that such an action would also evoke an even stronger pro-Western sentiment in Ukrainian society and guarantee Moscow additional sanctions, something it cannot afford. 

     A third option for Russia could be to advance along the Southern coast of Ukraine and the Dnieper River and connect Donbass with Crimea creating such an overland corridor would strengthen Russia's control over Crimea and Donbass and allow it to control 75% of the fresh water supplied to Crimea. In such a situation, the supply lines of the overland corridor will be greatly stretched. And that's not to mention their vulnerability for about 400 km this will not be a problem for Russia unless other regional forces are measured in the conflict otherwise the supply will probably be cut off and the whole campaign proves unsuccessful. However, if no outside force intervenes, then technically Russia could advance further it could seize all of Ukraine and link up with its forces in the region of Transnistria (а separatist region of Moldova) in which case Ukraine would be undermined it would lose access to the Black Sea, reducing the importance of its alliance with Turkey. The apathy of the port city of Odessa would cause significant damage to the Ukrainian economy. From Russia's point of view, having a regional territory along the Black Sea would ensure that most of its interests in the region would be achieved. Geographically, if Russia intended to attack Ukraine, the Dnieper River would be the ideal anchoring point. Capturing all of eastern Ukraine and controlling all crossing points across the Dnieper would allow Russia to focus only on specific points. This would have provided it with a much more reliable line of defense than the buffer zone of Donbass. However, the seizure of such vast territory would instantly provoke fierce resistance that would be difficult to pacify. Such cities as Kharkov, Kiev and Dnepr would become particularly problematic and hotspots. In addition, the seizure of Ukrainian territory would be guaranteed to lead to covert or overt interference by other countries, as well as the maximum application of sanctions by the U.S. as in the case of Iran.

      Not much has changed between Ukraine and Russia, at least militarily and politically. Ukraine still does not have the ability to defeat Russia The US is now satisfied with the current situation, Germany does not want to interfere in the situation, and France remains a de facto ally of Russia. Turkey is increasing its support for Ukraine, but they do not have enough resources to affect the status quo. Meanwhile, Russia continues to insist on constitutional autonomy, not wanting direct annexation, so despite all the hype, the resumption of a large-scale conflict is unlikely. However, given the amount of weapons along the borders, it cannot be completely ruled out. In all likelihood, Donbass will remain in limbo, because in political issues diplomats often welcome something new and only when it is actually no different from the old.

April 4, 2021 — No Comments

Dr Tracey German on Russia and Related Security Concerns

Dr Tracey German (KCL, Defence Studies Department) discusses the relevance of Putin's Russia in international affairs, potential security concerns related to Russian aspirations and capabilities, NATO and post-Brexit UK approaches, and implications of COVID-19 on Russia.

‹ Newer Posts