International:<\/strong> Ukraine\u2019s chances against Russia, (opinion) Igor Zevelev explains last week\u2019s negotiations, a report on the Ryanair incident in Belarus, the Tokayev family\u2019s real estate, (opinion) Michael Kimmage says NATO must shut its doors, (opinion) Rob Lee breaks down Moscow\u2019s time horizon in Ukraine, (opinion) Thomas Graham wants to resolve Europe\u2019s frozen conflicts, and (opinion) Andrey Kortunov says Moscow needs to study history and its frightened neighborsLaw and order:<\/strong> new prison torture videos, and Dmitry Muratov\u2019s latest finesPublic policy:<\/strong> withdrawn vaccine passport legislation, and why Russian weddings aren\u2019t funny<\/p>\n After last week\u2019s talks between Russia, the United States, and NATO led to no apparent breakthroughs on European security, speculation has resumed in the West that Moscow is preparing an expanded invasion of Ukraine that could begin at any time. The Kremlin denies any plans to attack Ukraine, but policymakers in Kyiv and Washington say the Russian military\u2019s buildup near Ukraine\u2019s borders suggests otherwise. Some experts in the West, including several former senior U.S. military personnel, now argue that the Ukrainian Army might be able to withstand a Russian onslaught, if it receives all feasible support from NATO. Hoping that is purely a thought experiment, Meduza reviews some of the theories about how a larger war between Russia and Ukraine could unfold.<\/p>\n Russia\u2019s week of security talks with the U.S., NATO, and the OSCE wrapped up on Thursday, January 13. The meetings took place amid ongoing international concern over Russia concentrating troops near its border with Ukraine. However, the talks didn\u2019t result in any agreements, as each party refused to budge on key issues. Russia has demanded an array of security guarantees, including that NATO rule out membership for Ukraine and Georgia. But both the alliance and Washington insist that Moscow has no say in the matter. For Meduza, political scientist Igor Zevelev breaks down why this week\u2019s talks failed to produce results and where there may be room for negotiations.<\/p>\n The UN\u2019s civil aviation agency has released its fact-finding report on the May 2021\u00a0diversion\u00a0of a Ryanair passenger plane to Belarus. The Athens to Vilnius flight was forced to make an emergency landing in Minsk after Belarusian dispatchers warned of an alleged bomb threat. Once the plane touched down, the Belarusian authorities promptly detained two of its passengers: Belarusian opposition journalist Roman Protasevich and Russian national Sofia Sapega, his girlfriend. The arrests prompted an international scandal that resulted in European countries banning airlines from traveling through Belarusian airspace. According to the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which obtained a copy of the fact-finding report, the investigation documents inconsistencies in the Belarusian authorities\u2019 version of events, as well as their failure to comply with standard aviation procedures.<\/p>\n Precious little is known about the immediate family of Kazakhstani President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. But according to a recent investigation from RFE\/RL\u2019s Russian Service and Current Time TV, Tokayev\u2019s ex-wife and son are both closely connected to Russia. Indeed, according to media reports, Tokayev\u2019s ex-wife is a Russian citizen. And both she and her son have been linked to pricey real estate in and around Moscow. More recently, their ownership of two apartments in the Russian capital appears to have been covered up in Russia\u2019s federal property database.<\/p>\n In an essay for Foreign Affairs, historian Michael Kimmage argues that NATO should abandoned its open-door policy, which he says renders the alliance\u2019s eastern flank \u201cincomprehensible.\u201d Describing Eastern Europe as \u201cthe ruthless playground of empires, nation-states, and ethnicities,\u201d Kimmage clarifies that NATO itself isn\u2019t the cause of regional stability, though its \u201cnonneutral presence\u201d makes the alliance inseparable from this instability. The expansion of NATO under presidents Clinton and George W. Bush was based on two assumptions, says Kimmage: (1) the organization was \u201cthe best vehicle for guaranteeing European peace and security,\u201d and (2) \u201cthe magnetic Western model\u201d would attract Russia and others to Europe. Though NATO achieved wonders for midcentury Western Europe, the expanded alliance \u201coperates entirely differently in Eastern Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n Kimmage says Washington should lean more on the EU and economic statecraft in its future conflicts with Russia. The U.S. also needs to acknowledge that \u201cPutin\u2019s Russia [\u2026] is not going away any time soon,\u201d which necessitates \u201cattuning\u201d NATO membership to Eastern Europe\u2019s \u201ccomplexities.\u201d When dealing with Moscow (unless Russia attacks a NATO member), Washington should turn to \u201cad hoc coalitions with allies and partners instead of directly involving NATO.\u201d Ending NATO expansion, he argues, \u201cwould be an act of self-defense for the alliance itself, giving it the gifts that greater limitation and greater clarity confer.\u201d<\/p>\n In a paper for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, military expert Rob Lee explains how Moscow pivoted from deterrence in Ukraine to a \u201ccompellence campaign.\u201d Lee lists several recent events and broader \u201ctrend lines\u201d that explain why Moscow has decided to mobilize against Ukraine now: (1) the Kremlin has come to believe that Ukrainian domestic politics prevents further progress in implementing existing peace agreements \u201cwithout external pressure\u201d; (2) Ukraine\u2019s acquisition of Turkish TB2 UAVs constitutes encroachment by Ankara and shifts the balance of power between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas; (3) a TB2 strike against artillery in the Russian-occupied Donbas last October, Britain\u2019s decision to send a naval frigate through Crimean territorial waters, and Washington\u2019s accelerated weapons shipments to Kyiv were all \u201cpublic embarrassments that tested Russia\u2019s credibility\u201d after a previous mobilization in the spring of 2021; and (4) Ukraine continues to strengthen its defensive capabilities, improving its own conventional deterrence.<\/p>\n Given today\u2019s deadlock, \u201cRussia has concluded that Ukraine will remain a hostile neighbor for the foreseeable future\u201d and eventually acquire long-range missiles that could threaten Russian cities. These calculations raise Moscow\u2019s perceived costs of not<\/em> acting, says Lee.<\/p>\n Clarifying that \u201ca large-scale invasion is not Russia\u2019s only course of action as part of a compellence campaign,\u201d Lee offers competing reasons for the likelihood of both aggressive and more restrained strategies. For example, Russian forces\u2019 current posture \u201cpoints to a ground invasion towards the Ukrainian capital\u201d that might \u201cthreaten the survival of the Ukrainian state,\u201d but Moscow also has reasons to limit its objectives and use less force. Russia\u2019s need to exact major political concessions from Kyiv makes aggressive options \u201cmore likely,\u201d but compellence that falls short of occupying forces (such as planned withdrawals or artillery and missile strikes) would likely (1) \u201cnot incur the maximum response from NATO\u201d and (2) reduce the chances that domestic public opinion turns against the Kremlin.<\/p>\n As policy advice for the United States, Lee suggests that Washington could try to deter Russian assaults on Ukraine by threatening to deliver the same long-range missiles or missile defense systems to the Baltic countries that Moscow wants to prevent in Kyiv. This could potentially \u201cnegate whatever security benefits [Moscow] hopes to achieve by escalating in Ukraine,\u201d says Lee.<\/p>\n In an interview with Elena Chernenko at Kommersant, former National Security Council senior director for Russia Thomas Graham argues that the United States should be ready to \u201cdiscuss the problem of NATO expansion.\u201d Graham points out that last week\u2019s supposedly failed talks between Moscow and the West were in fact designed merely to familiarize both sides with each other\u2019s core positions (not to reach a final compromise), meaning that the meetings weren\u2019t necessarily a disaster. He advocates a 20\u201325-year moratorium on further NATO expansion, arguing that this period would be long enough to allow Moscow to claim victory and simultaneously let America say that it upheld the alliance\u2019s open-door principle.<\/p>\n Graham says another key to any breakthrough on European security and stability is addressing the continent\u2019s frozen conflicts not just in Ukraine but also in Kosovo, Transnistria, and the Caucasus. He proposes referendums in these areas, controlled and monitored by \u201cinternational structures\u201d and regulated by \u201ca series of political and technical agreements.\u201d These plebiscites could enable the \u201camicable divorce\u201d that\u2019s eluded Europe for decades. (Graham says he expects Kosovo would vote for independence, Crimea would vote to remain inside Russia, and he isn\u2019t sure what the people of the Donbas would do.)<\/p>\n Reflecting on strategic thinking in Moscow, Graham says Russia\u2019s geographic position makes it \u201ccritically important what happens on its borders,\u201d driving the nation\u2019s leaders to seek buffer zones at its periphery. Washington worries that Russia will inevitably violate the rights and interests of the states in its supposed buffer zone, but the United States is also an \u201cexpansionist power,\u201d admits Graham, arguing that \u201cthese two types of expansionist impulses\u201d are now clashing in Europe. He says the final result of negotiations between Moscow and the West should be a new dividing line in Europe. \u201cGood fences make good neighbors,\u201d he argues, adding that America\u2019s allies must be consulted actively throughout this process (though \u201cthe countries that bear the main responsibility for security in Europe should be the key negotiators\u201d).<\/p>\n In an essay for the Carnegie Moscow Center, Russian International Affairs Council director-general Andrey Kortunov cautions the Kremlin against the \u201cuncompromising\u201d \u201cshock therapy\u201d that the West adopted in the aftermath of its Cold War victory. Policymakers in Moscow, he says, are eager to punish the West diplomatically and to disrupt Western security wherever possible as retribution for Washington\u2019s refusal to make concessions in Eastern Europe. This would repeat NATO\u2019s \u201ctragic mistake\u201d and perpetuate a \u201cvicious circle,\u201d Kortunov says.<\/p>\n The biggest priority today in Russian-U.S. relations is clearly separating strategic weapons issues from disagreements about European security. (Negotiations on nuclear bombs, he explains, are simply too important to the world to link them to other problems.)<\/p>\n Kortunov argues that the current hopelessness of bridging the fundamental disagreements between Moscow and the West means it is even more imperative that both sides take steps to make the confrontation stabler and more predictable. Regarding Russia\u2019s concerns about NATO\u2019s expansion to its western borders, \u201cit would be logical to focus on this infrastructure and not on the theoretical possibility of NATO expansion itself,\u201d says Kortunov. Moscow should also confront the reality that its neighbors are running to NATO, not the other way around. To reduce the pressure on the West to respond to these overtures, Russia should \u201cfocus on finding alternative mechanisms for ensuring the security of the countries in its \u2018common neighborhood\u2019\u201d that will lower states\u2019 desperation to join NATO.<\/p>\nInternational<\/h3>\n
\ud83d\udee1\ufe0f Ukraine\u2019s improved but still longshot odds of withstanding a full-fledged Russian invasion (10-min read)<\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udd4a\ufe0f (Opinion) Political scientist Igor Zevelev breaks down Russia\u2019s security talks with the U.S. and NATO (6-min read)<\/h4>\n
\u2708\ufe0f UN aviation agency releases fact-finding report on Ryanair incident in Belarus (5-min read)<\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udcb0 Journalists trace real estate in Russia to Kazakhstani president\u2019s ex-wife and son (5-min read)<\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udee1\ufe0f (Opinion) NATO should end its open-door policy before Eastern European \u2018complexities\u2019 drag it into a war with Russia<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udee1\ufe0f (Opinion) Russia\u2019s \u2018compellence strategy\u2019 in Ukraine is based on the perceived costs of not acting<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udee1\ufe0f (Opinion) NATO should suspend enlargement while Europe settles its frozen conflicts<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\ud83d\udee1\ufe0f (Opinion) For its own sake and everyone else\u2019s, Moscow needs to exercise the restraint that eluded the West<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Law and order<\/h3>\n