If history is any guide, since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2014, Moscow sent several warnings to Kiev over various issues. All the warnings have appeared to be empty threats.

In August 2016 Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the Ukrainian Defense Ministry of killing a Russian soldier and an FSB officer in Crimea, at the border with Ukraine. Apparently, Ukraine sent a sabotage-reconnaissance group to Crimea, which resulted in a brief border clash. Putin said Russia would “not let such things slide by,” but Moscow never responded to the alleged killing of its military and intelligence personnel.

Angry mobs in Kiev have also attacked the Russian embassy on several occasions.

In June 2014, the crowd of more than 100 mostly young people pelted the Russian embassy with eggs, and ripped up a Russian flag in protest at what they called Moscow’s backing of separatist rebels in the Donbass. The demonstrators then overturned several cars, including some which appeared to belong to the embassy, and damaged the metal gate, but police did not intervene. Russia, naturally, verbally condemned the violence but never responded.

In 2016, protestors threw stones and eggs at the Russian embassy building, breaking several windows, smashing cars, and burning a Russian flag, all while demanding the release of Nadezhda Savchenko, a Ukrainian pilot on trial in Russia for the alleged killing of two journalists. Russia didn’t take any actions against Kiev.

In 2018, after the Kerch Strait incident, angry mobs fired flares and lit a car on fire outside the Russian embassy in Kiev demanding the release of three Ukrainian vessels and 24 sailors captured by Russia. After that, NATO announced plans to deploy warships to the Black Sea to ensure safe passage for Ukrainian vessels through the Kerch Strait, which is now effectively controlled by Russia. If the Kremlin allows such transit, NATO and Ukraine will doubtlessly see it as a sign of Russian weakness.

Following this new incident, Russia declared that there would be consequences “if Russians have been taken hostages.” It didn’t specify what consequences Ukraine might face, though. Surprisingly, Ukraine took this threat seriously and immediately released the Russian sailors, though not the tanker itself.

This is not the first time that Ukraine has captured a Russian ship. In March 2018, Ukraine’s State Border Service detained a fishing vessel flying the Russian flag in the Sea of Azov, whose crew included ten Russian nationals. On October 30, Kiev handed the sailors over to Russia in exchange for seven Ukrainian crew members from the YaMK-0041 and YaOD-2105 ships detained for illegal fishing off Crimea’s coast.

According to unofficial sources, Russia is now willing to exchange 24 Ukrainian sailors for captured Russian soldiers and other citizens of the Russian Federation being held imprisoned in Ukraine. It’s possible that Kiev attempted to include the crew of the Russian tanker in the prison swap deal. If that was the plan, it obviously failed. Ukraine, however, still holds seized the Russian tanker, which means that it can negotiate a ship exchange with Moscow.

In any case, the tanker seizure can be interpreted as another provocation. The Kremlin officials will certainly keep accusing Kiev of piracy, but apart from that there’s not much that Russia can actually do against Ukraine. Theoretically, Russians can capture Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov as retaliation, but such an option is very unlikely since Moscow is trying to avoid any serious confrontation with Ukraine and its Western backers – at least for now.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any institutions with which the author is associated.

The post Russia’s Tanker Threats Shouldn’t Worry Ukraine appeared first on Geopolitical Monitor.

Recently, Ukraine’s new President Volodymyr Zelensky called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to talk.

“Let us discuss who Crimea belongs to and who is not there in the Donbass,” Zelensky said, adding that he wanted the leaders of the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom present at the talks.

Shortly after the invitation, leaders of Russia and Ukraine held their first telephone conversation. According to the press service of Ukrainian President Zelensky, the primary issue of the conversation was the release of Ukrainian sailors detained by Russia after the incident in the Kerch Strait in November 2018. Another topic for the discussion was the return of other Ukrainian citizens who are imprisoned in the Russian Federation.

According to unofficial sources, Russia is willing to exchange Ukrainian sailors for captured Russian soldiers and other citizens of the Russian Federation being held imprisoned in Ukraine. Recently, the authorities of the Russia backed Donetsk People’s Republic took the first step in that direction by releasing three Ukrainian soldiers and a civilian. Since the mediator in the war prisoner exchange was Viktor Medvedchuk, the head of Ukraine’s allegedly pro-Kremlin Opposition Platform, this move can also be interpreted as part of the election campaign ahead of the Ukrainian parliamentary elections scheduled for July 21st.

Zelensky’s invitation to Putin, and the phone conversation that they had, can also be seen in that light. However, the very fact that Putin didn’t reject the proposal to discuss the status of Crimea can be interpreted as another sign of Russian weakness.

“Russia is ready for negotiations on Ukraine in any format, but the meeting should be well-prepared, and a government should be formed in Kiev,” the Russian President said.

In other words, Russia doesn’t mind negotiating its sovereignty, as long as the meeting is well prepared and the government in Kiev is formed. Even though the Kremlin officials repeated on several occasions that the status of Crimea “cannot” and “will never” be discussed during international negotiations, it’s hard to believe that Russia will be able to reject strong pressure from the West when the Crimean topic comes to the table.

If the US President Donald Trump, the Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and President of France Emmanuel Macron really take part in a discussion on “Who Crimea belongs to and who is not there in the Donbass,” as Zelensky suggested, Russia will definitely have to make some concessions. It remains to be seen how far Putin is ready to go and if the Kremlin has any red lines at all when it comes to the Donbass and Crimea.

Some voices close to the Kremlin suggest that Russia should return the Donbass to Ukraine in exchange for a de facto Ukrainian recognition of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Such an option, at least at this point, doesn’t seem realistic. Even if the Kremlin stops supporting the self-proclaimed Donbass republic, there’s absolutely no guarantee that Ukraine, backed by the West, won’t try to reestablish control over Crimea, once the conflict in the Donbass is resolved. Therefore, any form of reintegration of the Donbass into Ukraine would be seen as a clear sign of Russian weakness, and would be a start of another conflict, but this time on de-facto Russian soil.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any institutions with which the author is associated.

The post What’s on the Table in Upcoming Russia-Ukraine Negotiations? appeared first on Geopolitical Monitor.

If history is any guide, Russia already proved to be a completely unreliable partner, especially when it comes to Iran. Moscow has refused to provide Iran with an S-400 missile system, although this request allegedly came from the very top of the Iranian political leadership. Kremlin officials explained that “the sale would stoke more tension in the Middle East.” In other words, Russia tried to avoid any confrontation with major Western and regional powers over this very sensitive matter. On the other hand, it’s interesting that Russians didn’t hesitate to provide this weapons system to the NATO member state Turkey.

This is not the first time that Russia has “betrayed” Iran. Back in 2010, Russia refused to sell S-300 to Iran, bending to pressure from the United States and Israel. Later Russian officials admitted that such decision was a mistake, but it was too late since it damaged Moscow’s image as a reliable weapons supplier.

In September 2018, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu said in a televised statement that “Russia will transfer the modern S-300 air defense system to the Syrian armed forces within two weeks.” Since then, Israel has conducted numerous air strikes in Syria, targeting the Syrian Arab Army as well as pro-Iranian and Iranian forces. Either the S-300 is not efficient against Israeli air power, or Russia simply didn’t keep its promise to supply Syria with the missile system.

Syria and Iran are not the only nations to feel betrayed by the Kremlin. In 2003, Russia left the Serbs at the mercy of the West when Russian peace-keeping troops were ordered by the Kremlin to leave both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo.

Armenia is another Russian “ally” that constantly has doubts over its alliance with Moscow. In 2017, Russia delivered a new batch of anti-tank missiles to Azerbaijan as a part of a lucrative arms deal with Baku that has been strongly criticized by Armenia. However, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev rejected the ensuing criticism, saying that “providing weapons to both sides creates a military balance in the conflict.”

Russia is also trying to create a balance in Syria. On one hand, it backs the Syrian Arab Army against ISIS and various Jihadi factions, but on the other hand it doesn’t provide any support to the Syrian armed forces against frequent Israeli air strikes, which is why some analysts believe that Russia acts as ally of Israel. For the past few years, Tel Aviv has used its military superiority to hit at the different elements of Iran’s military presence in Syria, including its proxies. Russia has the ability to protect Iranian forces with its own air force and air defense systems in Syria, but it has opted not to use them to stop Israel.

Along these lines, the Kremlin has historically used Iran as a counterweight or source of leverage to balance its relations with Western powers, particularly Washington. For instance, Russia did not hesitate to vote in favor of all six resolutions passed at the UN Security Council against Iran from 2006 to 2010.

In case of an extremely unlikely major military confrontation between the US and Iran, Russia would be one of the main geopolitical beneficiaries, especially because the price of oil could be expected to skyrocket. Such conflict would return Iran to a total isolation and would help Russia to regain lost markets in Central Asia. Also, the Kremlin could use the issue and attempt to reduce anti-Russian sanctions imposed by the US and the EU. However, there’s no guarantee that sanctions would actually be lifted, as any concessions made by the US President Donald Trump might still be blocked by the US Congress. In spite of that, Iran is likely to fall victim to the Kremlin’s desire to improve ties with the US.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect Geopoliticalmonitor.com or any institutions with which the author is associated.

The post Will Russia Betray Iran Again? appeared first on Geopolitical Monitor.