US monitoring Russian military activities in the Arctic

[beenherebeforeagain]

with the shrinking sea ice, Russia sees itself as sole possessor of an Atlantic-to-Pacific shipping route...even though it also knows that the US/Canada will also have such passage

 

[Kooky]

Russia likes testing our response.

The US frequently flies patrols over neutral countries' air space, just as a matter of course.

This is what military powers do - they are built on oppression and harassment of the weak, after all.

 

[Batya]

I don't think our government is blind to it. Clearly, they are always keeping their eyes and ears open for just about anything that could happen. I think their problem now is that they don't really know what to do or how to handle it. They still seem to be thinking in Cold War terms. I think that they would do well to come up with a new strategy, one that's more realistic than the old style "containment" or the stale refrain of "making the world safe for democracy."

For one thing, I don't think they really understand our adversaries well enough. There's the old notion that you should "know your enemy," but I'm not sure if we really know them well enough.

You're right, I don't think they're blind to it, but rather they have indeed known a lot about what is going on, yet without acting on it as perhaps they should or could have. The Russians have had a vested interest in our country for a long time, and yet we have put ourselves at a disadvantage by the way we handle these issues or even cooperate at times.
Yes, they need to update their thinking and strategy, we are behind Russia and China in that sense.
I don't really think we have an excuse not to know and understand our enemies in this case, at least to a large extent. There are people who have had concerns and information about Russia and the threat they have posed, yet were ignored.

 

[Augustus]

Apparently, there is a build up of Russian military equipment in the area, as well as testing of a new Russian torpedo.

Putin: "Stupid polar bears, think they're so tough with their fur and claws, wouldn't think they were so tough if I put a torpedo up their *** though..."

 

[Brickjectivity]

with the shrinking sea ice, Russia sees itself as sole possessor of an Atlantic-to-Pacific shipping route...even though it also knows that the US/Canada will also have such passage

An interesting related question is how does it affect Australia, Hawaii, Japan & Taiwan? On most maps its difficult to see, but this might direct more trade past them. Is this related to China's (Zongua's) expanded claim to local waters?

Another question is: Is it a coincidence that China claims more ocean territory at the same time Russia claims a northern passage? Maybe. A new trade passage is important enough to cut channels across continents, so it may be.

 

[Batya]

It takes effort to look at it this way, and I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is its only half of the truth.

Have you heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? President Kennedy nearly started a nuclear war with the USSR. His generals pressed him to launch a nuclear strike, and it seems logical at the time. Logic and sound reason would have destroyed us, so there is something to be said for being the first to lower the gun.

There is a Proverb about it, which I think you'll like: [Pro 17:19 NIV] 19 Whoever loves a quarrel loves sin; whoever builds a high gate invites destruction.

There is a time and a place for everything. Sometimes being the first to lower the gun would be the right response I'm sure, but that doesn't always ensure safety. There are things we could have been doing proactively to help prevent us from coming to such a precarious position as during the Cuban missile crisis, yet by not doing so are only making it more easy and likely for such things to occur. MAD is becoming an outdated theory.

 

[Stevicus]

You're right, I don't think they're blind to it, but rather they have indeed known a lot about what is going on, yet without acting on it as perhaps they should or could have. The Russians have had a vested interest in our country for a long time, and yet we have put ourselves at a disadvantage by the way we handle these issues or even cooperate at times.
Yes, they need to update their thinking and strategy, we are behind Russia and China in that sense.
I don't really think we have an excuse not to know and understand our enemies in this case, at least to a large extent. There are people who have had concerns and information about Russia and the threat they have posed, yet were ignored.

I think it may also be a case where "they're more afraid of us than we are of them." I know far more about Russian history than Chinese history, but I know that both countries have been on the receiving end of a lot of BS from the West over the past 100+ years, so if they appear to be antagonistic or threatening now, there may be a good reason for it. If we can learn and understand that reason and what motivates them, we may be in a better position to work with them and turn escalating tensions towards a more positive and productive relationship.

 

[Kooky]

I think it may also be a case where "they're more afraid of us than we are of them." I know far more about Russian history than Chinese history, but I know that both countries have been on the receiving end of a lot of BS from the West over the past 100+ years, so if they appear to be antagonistic or threatening now, there may be a good reason for it. If we can learn and understand that reason and what motivates them, we may be in a better position to work with them and turn escalating tensions towards a more positive and productive relationship.

The geopolitical goals of Russia have actually remained fairly stable for the past decades. In my opinion, the Putin regime largely appears inscrutable because journalism does not appear to be a field that rewards these kind of deep cut analyses any more, and parrotting some politician's inane hot take seems far more important in terms of remaining part of the public discourse than doing some deep research into a country's foreign policy goals.

Here is an interesting paper by Arseny Sivitsky, a Belarusian foreign policy analyst with a vested interest in the subject, given Belarus' close relationship with the Putin regime:

Report: Russia's New Geostrategy

There is also a small but vocal minority among Russian intellectuals peddling the idea of Eurasianism, a specific and very ideological take on Russian history and foreign policy that has a pretty long history among Russian nationalists. Here is a video summarizing Eurasianism as a foreign policy concept:

I think we can see a certain pattern emerge here:

• Secure Russia's borders and prevent an encroachment by Western powers
  
• Keep commodity prices high (specifically, oil and gas)
  
• Keep rivals divided

As a strategy, it appears to be largely reactive and lacking any positive policy goal. In this sense, Putinist Russia's primary mode of engagement with the rest of the world appears to be "stir up trouble".

 

[Stevicus]

Putin just put Santa in Navalny's cell.

It appears Navalny has been hospitalized.

Report: Jailed Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Hospitalized | Voice of America - English (voanews.com)

MOSCOW - Jailed Russian opposition politician Alexey Navalny has been moved to a prison hospital and tested for the coronavirus, Russian media reported. His hospitalization came Monday, just hours after he released a statement on social media in which he alleged a tuberculosis outbreak in the prison and complained of a heavy cough and high fever.

Concerns over Navalny’s health have returned to the spotlight after he announced last week he was starting a hunger strike to gain access to what he insists is urgently needed medical care as he serves out a 2 ½-year sentence in a Russian prison 100 kilometers from Moscow.

“I have a right to ask for a doctor and access to medication. Yet stupidly, I’m receiving neither,” Navalny wrote in a message released on his Instagram account announcing the hunger strike.

Navalny, 44, also shared a handwritten letter he sent to the prison administration describing acute pain in his back that had spread to his legs, causing a loss of sensation.

Navalny said his ailments are linked to an August 2020 poisoning attack with a military-grade nerve agent that nearly took his life, and that he and Western governments blame on the Russian government.

The Kremlin has denied any involvement but also refused to investigate the incident —maintaining there is no definitive proof Navalny was ever poisoned.

The government has also deployed state media to Navalny’s prison to film reports that portray conditions at the penal colony as near ideal, and Navalny as seeking special treatment by faking his symptoms.

Maria Butina, a Russian national who was sentenced to 18 months in a U.S. prison in 2019 after confessing to operating as an undeclared Russian foreign agent, toured the prison last week with cameras in tow.

“Believe me, U.S. prison is much worse,” Butina said in a lengthy report broadcast on the Rossiya 24 channel.

Local prison authorities have also insisted Navalny was receiving all necessary treatment.

On Tuesday, dozens of supporters traveled to the prison to demand Navalny be given access to adequate care. Met with police barricades, several demonstrators were detained, including Navalny’s chief physician, Anastasia Vasilyeva of the Alliance of Doctors.

Vasilyeva has joined more than 1,000 Russian health care professionals in issuing an online appeal regarding Navalny’s condition.

 

[Stevicus]

The geopolitical goals of Russia have actually remained fairly stable for the past decades. In my opinion, the Putin regime largely appears inscrutable because journalism does not appear to be a field that rewards these kind of deep cut analyses any more, and parrotting some politician's inane hot take seems far more important in terms of remaining part of the public discourse than doing some deep research into a country's foreign policy goals.

Here is an interesting paper by Arseny Sivitsky, a Belarusian foreign policy analyst with a vested interest in the subject, given Belarus' close relationship with the Putin regime:

Report: Russia's New Geostrategy

There is also a small but vocal minority among Russian intellectuals peddling the idea of Eurasianism, a specific and very ideological take on Russian history and foreign policy that has a pretty long history among Russian nationalists. Here is a video summarizing Eurasianism as a foreign policy concept:

I think we can see a certain pattern emerge here:

• Secure Russia's borders and prevent an encroachment by Western powers
  
• Keep commodity prices high (specifically, oil and gas)
  
• Keep rivals divided

As a strategy, it appears to be largely reactive and lacking any positive policy goal. In this sense, Putinist Russia's primary mode of engagement with the rest of the world appears to be "stir up trouble".

Interesting article. I'll have to read it more closely later on, but it seems to go into quite a bit of detail. I think it will probably confirm what I already know, that nations can be expected to vigorously pursue their own national interests and take measures to defend their own territory as much as possible.

Putin is able to operate as he does because he has strong support of the people, whose history has seen many invaders and great powers hostile to Russia. This is part of their historical experience and makes up a large part of how they see the world. From their point of view, they've already been encroached upon by the West. Plus, the US and its allies haven't exactly been acting like a bunch of choir boys either, so as I said above, there are reasons why they do the things they do.

I noticed in the conclusions, the authors of the article you linked recommend maintaining the status quo with China, perhaps hoping to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Nixon was able to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet split, which tipped the balance in the Cold War and eventually led to the fall of the USSR. Triangular diplomacy, working both adversaries against each other to try to get a better deal from both. But that was 50 years ago, and a lot has changed since then.

We also seem to having a problem in that, much of America's leadership and media still seem stuck in the Cold War. Just like with the video about Eurasianism, there are those who believe in a certain mythos about their national identity, and I've read that Russians don't really consider themselves either "Western" or "Eastern." It's a philosophical position which I respect, but I never really delved into it that much.

I remember when the Berlin Wall fell, the Warsaw Pact dissolved - although it was rather surprising to see the Soviet Union collapse the way it did, accelerated by some ill-conceived, misguided attempted coup which essentially spelled the end of the Communist regime and the Soviet state. The Soviet Union ended when the Russian Federation itself voted to secede from the USSR. We, in America and our allies, had a golden opportunity for a lasting peace, as the USSR had effectively "surrendered" in the Cold War. But I don't think we handled it very well. We took advantage of them when they were in a weaker position. We did not stand down or dissolve NATO. On the contrary, we expanded NATO to bring in all the former nations of the Warsaw Pact, as well as three former Soviet republics in the Baltic region. I can see where they would see that as a threat, as well as the possibility of Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO. That's where they draw the line, and they seem very adamant on this point.

They made the peaceful gesture by standing down in the Cold War, so why couldn't we do the same? What was there left to fight about?

So, the question now is, do we want to keep pressing their buttons and forcing a response? Or do we want to sit down and talk about this diplomatically, as civilized nations should do?