Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies (SCEEUS)’s Post

https://lnkd.in/gWaTtzGU The abscense of a fitting reaction from western countries in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and started military activities in eastern Ukraine, and the ongoing lack of courage from western countries to stop the current Russian aggression in Ukraine, are triggering Russia's step by step approach to continue and expand its disruptions of our western world.

9 April 2024: Key takeaways from this evening's Ukraine Update by the great team at the Institute for the Study of War: - Russian state media highlighted Russia and China’s joint effort to combat perceived Western “dual containment” targeting Russia and China during Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on April 9. - US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on April 9 that it transferred roughly a brigade’s worth of small arms and ammunition seized from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to Ukraine on April 4. - The Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) is likely responsible for a drone strike against the Borisoglebsk Airbase in Voronezh Oblast overnight on April 8 to 9. - Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to employ virulently anti-migrant rhetoric and calls for xenophobic domestic policies, but in doing so are exposing the inherent hypocrisy in Russia’s treatment of its own indigenous ethnic minority communities. - The Kremlin will likely be able to leverage a new agreement signed by the Kremlin-affiliated governor of the pro-Russian Moldovan autonomous region of Gagauzia, Yevgenia Gutsul, and a state-owned Russian bank to further its efforts to destabilize Moldovan society, attack Moldova’s democratic government, and prevent Moldova’s accession to the European Union (EU). - Russia is reportedly considering creating a new ministry for youth policy and patriotic education, likely as part of an ongoing attempt to instill pro-Kremlin and Kremlin-approved ideology in Russia’s next generation. - Russian military authorities in Armenia detained another Russian citizen in Armenia, likely in an effort to assert military and political power over Armenia and to challenge Armenia’s sovereignty amid a continued deterioration of Armenian–Russian relations. - Russian forces recently made confirmed advances near Kreminna, west of Avdiivka, and south and southwest of Donetsk City on April 9. - 76Kremlin officials continue efforts to ease public fears about another possible wave of partial mobilization. - The Russian occupation regime in Crimea is systematically persecuting clergy and parishes affiliated with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) in occupied Crimea. #ukrainewar #linkedtopvoices

Ukraine's NATO Membership: A Tipping Point for Global Politics? In the ever-shifting landscape of international relations, few events have captured public attention quite like the ongoing situation between Ukraine, NATO, and the United States. #Inauguration #Membership #NATO #prior #seeks #Trumps #Zelensky

With Central Europe and the dynamics of regional political cooperation among those states through the many sub-formats getting more and more attention, experts from The Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) will present key finding from their recent report at the PISM Washington DC Office. Important to the discussion will be how regional cooperation changed following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and possible directions for the future development of deeper cooperation in the context of NATO and the European Union

10 Apr 08:15: OVERNIGHT (9 Apr) MILITARY and GEOPOLITICAL DAILY VALUABLE REPORT: russia’s 👺🤡🤮 War on Ukraine 💙💛 and The West 🌎🌍🌏 from the Institute for the Study of War: In full - maps follow: ‘ - Russian state media highlighted Russia and China’s joint effort to combat perceived Western “dual containment” targeting Russia and China during Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on April 9. - US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced on April 9 that it transferred roughly a brigade’s worth of small arms and ammunition seized from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to Ukraine on April 4. - The Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) is likely responsible for a drone strike against the Borisoglebsk Airbase in Voronezh Oblast overnight on April 8 to 9. - Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to employ virulently anti-migrant rhetoric and calls for xenophobic domestic policies, but in doing so are exposing the inherent hypocrisy in Russia’s treatment of its own indigenous ethnic minority communities. - The Kremlin will likely be able to leverage a new agreement signed by the Kremlin-affiliated governor of the pro-Russian Moldovan autonomous region of Gagauzia, Yevgenia Gutsul, and a state-owned Russian bank to further its efforts to destabilize Moldovan society, attack Moldova’s democratic government, and prevent Moldova’s accession to the European Union (EU). - Russia is reportedly considering creating a new ministry for youth policy and patriotic education, likely as part of an ongoing attempt to instill pro-Kremlin and Kremlin-approved ideology in Russia’s next generation. - Russian military authorities in Armenia detained another Russian citizen in Armenia, likely in an effort to assert military and political power over Armenia and to challenge Armenia’s sovereignty amid a continued deterioration of Armenian–Russian relations. - Russian forces recently made confirmed advances near Kreminna, west of Avdiivka, and south and southwest of Donetsk City on April 9. - 76Kremlin officials continue efforts to ease public fears about another possible wave of partial mobilization. - The Russian occupation regime in Crimea is systematically persecuting clergy and parishes affiliated with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) in occupied Crimea. #ukrainewar #linkedtopvoices’: Thank you, General and ISW Team:

While Ukraine officially never declared itself to be neutral, before the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukraine maintained a multi-vector foreign policy.  It had relations with both NATO and Russia, but did not have full NATO membership.  The conflict prompted Ukraine to seek stronger security ties with Western countries, leading to the current situation where it has signed bilateral agreements with allies to enhance its security posture.  While the idea of neutrality was considered, Ukraine’s practical approach has been to strengthen its security through bilateral agreements rather than adopting an official neutral status. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 profoundly impacted Ukraine’s foreign policy.  Historically, Ukraine's foreign policy was bifurcated between the West and Russia.  It remained bipolar in a multipolar world order. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Ukrainian governments focused on wealth acquisition and legitimacy through international economic avenues.  They flirted with Euro-Atlantic or Eurasian integration and engaged in enrichment schemes.  Since the mid-2000s, the geopolitical landscape shifted due to factors like the 2008 financial crisis, China’s rise, and the erosion of the post-Cold War balance of power. Russia's petrodollar influx allowed it to expand in Ukrainian markets during the presidency of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (2010–2014).  Ukraine’s foreign policy during these periods was short-sighted, rigid, and often shaped by domestic politics and narrow interests.  It failed to adapt to the changing balance of power and identify key challenges and opportunities. Russia’s invasion in 2022 was the final blow to Ukraine's post-Soviet foreign policy.  Although not fully realised on the political level, the war significantly affected Ukraine’s international agenda and self-identification on the global stage. During peace negotiations with Russia, Ukraine explored the possibility of adopting a neutral status.  In return for permanent Ukrainian neutrality and non-nuclear status, some proposals suggested that it would receive security guarantees akin to a watered down NATO Article 5.  This arrangement would be underwritten by several countries, including Belarus, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey. Because Russia could not give satisfactory guarantees of continued Ukrainian sovereignty, including the return of annexed territory, Ukraine signed twenty bilateral security agreements with its new allies.  These agreements include provisions for long-term military aid, financial support, training for Ukrainian troops, and weapons deliveries.  While they do not have provisions for the official deployment of foreign soldiers to fight in Ukraine, they aim to bolster its defence capabilities. (Continued) Terence Nunis Terence K. J. Nunis, Consultant Chief Executive Officer, Equinox GEMTZ

While Ukraine officially never declared itself to be neutral, before the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukraine maintained a multi-vector foreign policy.  It had relations with both NATO and Russia, but did not have full NATO membership.  The conflict prompted Ukraine to seek stronger security ties with Western countries, leading to the current situation where it has signed bilateral agreements with allies to enhance its security posture.  While the idea of neutrality was considered, Ukraine’s practical approach has been to strengthen its security through bilateral agreements rather than adopting an official neutral status. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 profoundly impacted Ukraine’s foreign policy.  Historically, Ukraine's foreign policy was bifurcated between the West and Russia.  It remained bipolar in a multipolar world order. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Ukrainian governments focused on wealth acquisition and legitimacy through international economic avenues.  They flirted with Euro-Atlantic or Eurasian integration and engaged in enrichment schemes.  Since the mid-2000s, the geopolitical landscape shifted due to factors like the 2008 financial crisis, China’s rise, and the erosion of the post-Cold War balance of power. Russia's petrodollar influx allowed it to expand in Ukrainian markets during the presidency of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (2010–2014).  Ukraine’s foreign policy during these periods was short-sighted, rigid, and often shaped by domestic politics and narrow interests.  It failed to adapt to the changing balance of power and identify key challenges and opportunities. Russia’s invasion in 2022 was the final blow to Ukraine's post-Soviet foreign policy.  Although not fully realised on the political level, the war significantly affected Ukraine’s international agenda and self-identification on the global stage. During peace negotiations with Russia, Ukraine explored the possibility of adopting a neutral status.  In return for permanent Ukrainian neutrality and non-nuclear status, some proposals suggested that it would receive security guarantees akin to a watered down NATO Article 5.  This arrangement would be underwritten by several countries, including Belarus, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Poland, and Turkey. Because Russia could not give satisfactory guarantees of continued Ukrainian sovereignty, including the return of annexed territory, Ukraine signed twenty bilateral security agreements with its new allies.  These agreements include provisions for long-term military aid, financial support, training for Ukrainian troops, and weapons deliveries.  While they do not have provisions for the official deployment of foreign soldiers to fight in Ukraine, they aim to bolster its defence capabilities. (Continued) Terence Nunis Terence K. J. Nunis, Consultant Chief Executive Officer, Equinox GEMTZ

Russia's aggression against Ukraine in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in Ukraine in 2022 reminded us that today the military dimension of security in Europe is more topical than it has been for seve...

In a lecture delivered to the Australian Institute of International Affairs (NSW), Tom Switzer, executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies, argues that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine has been primarily driven by the threat of NATO’s expansion along Russia’s border. Its strategic objective is to annex some Ukrainian territory and badly weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. He argues that since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, various officials and experts have dismissed any links between the crisis and NATO expansion, attributing it solely to Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. However, the Kremlin's actions are primarily driven by the threat of NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders, a concern anticipated decades ago. In the 1990s, numerous military and foreign-policy experts warned that NATO expansion would provoke Russian aggression, creating the very danger it aimed to prevent. Prominent figures, including George Kennan and senior defense officials, voiced strong objections, predicting that NATO's eastward expansion would escalate East-West tensions and weaken European stability. Despite these warnings, NATO expanded, and Russia responded predictably. Today’s critics of NATO expansion, like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, face contempt, a stark contrast to the respectful discourse of the 1990s. The ongoing Ukraine conflict underscores the accuracy of those early warnings, highlighting a failure to heed historical lessons. https://lnkd.in/guKxc6jD #NATOExpansion #UkraineConflict #GeopoliticalTensions

In a lecture delivered to the Australian Institute of International Affairs (NSW), Tom Switzer, executive director of the Centre for Independent Studies, argues that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine has been primarily driven by the threat of NATO’s expansion along Russia’s border. Its strategic objective is to annex some Ukrainian territory and badly weaken the country so it cannot join NATO. He argues that since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, various officials and experts have dismissed any links between the crisis and NATO expansion, attributing it solely to Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. However, the Kremlin's actions are primarily driven by the threat of NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders, a concern anticipated decades ago. In the 1990s, numerous military and foreign-policy experts warned that NATO expansion would provoke Russian aggression, creating the very danger it aimed to prevent. Prominent figures, including George Kennan and senior defense officials, voiced strong objections, predicting that NATO's eastward expansion would escalate East-West tensions and weaken European stability. Despite these warnings, NATO expanded, and Russia responded predictably. Today’s critics of NATO expansion, like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, face contempt, a stark contrast to the respectful discourse of the 1990s. The ongoing Ukraine conflict underscores the accuracy of those early warnings, highlighting a failure to heed historical lessons. https://lnkd.in/guKxc6jD #NATOExpansion #UkraineConflict #GeopoliticalTensions