The threat from Russia
The security of Europe has not looked as perilous since the late 1970s, said Max Hastings in the Daily Mail. In recent months, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has “massed 330,000 troops on his country’s western frontiers; despatched a carrier task group through the English Channel to join the murderous bombing of Syria; put 40 million Russians through civil defence exercises; and unveiled a new intercontinental ballistic missile” (the RS-28 Sarmat, or Satan II, can obliterate an area the size of Texas or France). No doubt much of this is mere “sabre-rattling” – but it’s worrying nevertheless, since most of history’s conflicts have come about “because an aggressor overplayed his hand”. The fear is that Putin may try to exploit the period around the US presidential election, when “Washington is at its least decisive”, said Edward Lucas in The Times. The Baltic states – the weakest part of the Nato alliance – may be at risk of aggressive destabilisation, if not outright invasion. Hence the decision to deploy Nato forces to its eastern flank, including 800 UK troops who will be sent to Estonia in 2017.
“I have news for any sections of the British public who may be living in fear of an imminent Russian attack,” said Mary Dejevsky in The Independent. The Russians are far more scared “of the US and its very junior partner, the UK”. Russia’s leaders feel “misunderstood” and threatened. The buildup of Nato troops on their western border is the greatest since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. September’s ceasefire in Syria broke down after US forces bombed their Syrian allies. When Russian ships sailed through the Channel last month – which they had every right to do – it was regarded as a “show of force”, and the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was effectively prevented from refuelling on Spanish territory. But Russia will not be bullied into submission. As one senior official put it last week: “If you think a lean and hungry Russia will be better behaved, you are making a big mistake.”
Listening to Putin’s apologists, one could forget that he has sown conflict around the world, said Mark Galeotti in Foreign Policy – from the annexation of Crimea to the invasion of eastern Ukraine, from the Syrian campaign to his attempt to influence the US election ( see page 17). The consolation, though, is what some call the “Putin Paradox”: the president’s instincts for how to seize a tactical opportunity are “brilliant”, yet “the strategic outcomes are almost invariably disastrous”. Putin is now stuck in two open-ended wars, facing vast costs and heavy sanctions. The real danger, as during the Cold War, is overestimating Russia, said David Aaronovitch in The Times. Its GDP is less than half of Britain’s, and its wealth per capita is about the same as Hungary’s. It has been in recession for two years, and its huge military spending is unsustainable. There’s no need to panic or rattle our own sabres. Russia’s position is “much weaker than it appears”, and “ours is much stronger”.