The Tszar And His Delusional Greater Russian Empire!

The picturesque town of Suwa?ki, nestled at the junction of Poland and Lithuania, would seem an unlikely geopolitical flashpoint. Yet a move by Russia to station troops in this fragile corridor could well precipitate swift military response by NATO countries, which would view such an act as an affront to their regional members.

However, it’s not just Suwa?ki that’s under the microscope recently.

Back in the icy February of 2022, when Tszar. Putin’s pen drafted the orders that launched an armed invasion of Ukraine, he didn’t just light the fuse for a fratricidal war against the Ukrainians. No, he stirred a pot that threatened to boil over into a deep-seated global crisis. It was a resurgence of the Cold War-esque tensions, not witnessed for eight long decades, pitting Moscow against the West. A collision course that, if unchecked, might inadvertently steer the world into the abyss of a third World War.

Moscow’s militaristic manoeuvres, spearheaded by both its formal military and private battalions, have not restricted themselves to looming over Ukraine and Moldova. They’ve cast a long shadow across countries like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania. The Kremlin, it seems, is baiting the West. The strategy appears straightforward but dangerous: hope that one of the beleaguered NATO states buckles under pressure, commits a ‘misstep’, and then amplify that error through Moscow’s potent propaganda machine. The ultimate goal? Justifying a full-blown war with the West, stretching the span from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

But why is Russia flexing its muscles so brazenly?

For many, it’s an assertion of Moscow’s perceived dominance, a show of strength that it’s still a force to be reckoned with. But, on deeper introspection, it’s evident that Russia is responding to the encroachment of NATO towards its borders. The Baltic States and Poland joining NATO in the early 2000s was never well-received in the Kremlin. With the Ukraine crisis unfolding and the nation’s potential leanings towards NATO, Russia’s aggressiveness can be seen as a preventive strike, albeit a high-stakes one.

The situation paints a grim picture. While the frontline soldiers endure brutal physical conditions, the real battle is waged in meeting rooms and over encrypted communications. Diplomats and strategists from both sides walk the tightrope, ensuring their national interests are secured, while avoiding the cataclysmic descent into war.

One can’t help but hark back to the cautionary tales of history. The incidents of Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s assassination in 1914, and the domino effect that led to World War I, should be a stark reminder. Misunderstandings, miscommunications, and missteps can spark global crises.

Today, as the tension simmers from the Black Sea to the Baltic, it’s not just about the battle for territories or influence. It’s a contest of ideologies, willpower, and geopolitics, underpinned by a fragile balance of power. As nations watch with bated breath, the hope is that dialogue, diplomacy, and reason will prevail over sabre-rattling and war drums.

The world has witnessed two World Wars and the devastating effects they left in their wake. Whether history repeats itself or is rewritten, the next chapters are yet to be penned. For now, the focus remains on ensuring that peace, however tenuous, holds its ground amidst the brewing storm.

But why would Vladimir Putin want this? That’s the question on the lips of seasoned Kremlin watchers and casual observers alike. The Russian president’s intentions, though hinted at as early as December 2021, seemed to have been drenched in an air of suspense until that fateful day on June 24, 2023. The march of the Wagner group, loyal to Evgheni Prigojin, towards Moscow became a defining moment that threw the Russian leadership’s dynamics into stark relief.

It was a power play, all right, but not just the typical kind we’re used to witnessing on the global stage. This was a domestic theatre, with all the drama and intrigue of a Shakespearean play, set in the heart of Moscow.

Post June 24, Putin’s ability to sell a vision of peace to not just his inner circle at the Kremlin, but also the influential oligarchs and the Russian populace, has been significantly eroded. The old narrative – that the solution in Ukraine was a ceasefire followed by peace negotiations – can no longer be peddled with any semblance of credibility.

Clearly, the warhawks are ascendant in Moscow. Evidence of their newfound prominence? Evgheni Prigojin remains free as a bird, despite his brazen threats of an insurrection against the Kremlin. In stark contrast, Girkin, a vocal critic of the way Putin and Defence Minister Shoigu have been handling the war, finds himself incarcerated.

This tilt in power dynamics complicates peace talks concerning Ukraine. The warhawks aren’t content with mere territorial gains or subduing Ukraine. Their sights are set on a larger prize – a full-blown confrontation with the West. In their perspective, such a war will rally half the world behind Russia.

But is such a vision realistic or merely the pipe dream of a faction intoxicated by their own hubris?

Vladimir Putin. While he now has the ‘war wolves’ to appease and consider, it would be naive to think that he isn’t playing a few moves ahead, eyes darting across the Atlantic, gauging reactions from the White House.

Some analysts have speculated that Putin is playing a waiting game. With the next U.S. elections looming, there is a glint of hope in Moscow that Americans might re-elect Donald Trump. Why does this matter to Putin? The Russian president, it is believed, envisions a Trump-led U.S. as a more amenable partner in brokering a possible division of Ukraine – harking back to a post-WW2 Germany or the bifurcation of Korea.

Splitting Ukraine and securing an armistice, then engaging in protracted, seemingly-endless peace talks, may be a tactic straight out of Putin’s playbook. It would give Russia breathing space to gear up for a bigger showdown with the West, whilst simultaneously spreading instability to other global hotspots. In this grand vision, actual peace negotiations seem to be the furthest from Putin’s immediate goals.

Various signs underscore this notion. An intriguing validation comes from an unexpected quarter: Brazil’s President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In an early August press conference, Lula da Silva articulated a sentiment that resonated globally. He remarked on Brazil’s role, asserting that the nation seeks to broker peace alongside other neutral countries. However, his assessment of the situation was grim: neither Putin nor Ukrainian President Zelenski is ready for peace, at least not yet.

It’s a stark reminder that the theatre of war is not just about tanks, troops, and territories. It’s also about timing, tenacity, and sometimes, the tantalizing prospect of a political reshuffle in a far-off land.

The Russia-Africa Summit, hosted in late July, was a powerful reminder of Africa’s rising voice in global diplomacy. Half of the continent’s leaders were present, and their main ask? Peace in Ukraine. They presented Putin with a peace initiative, mirroring efforts made by Beijing approximately four months prior. The Russian President’s response was both hopeful and cautionary. While he acknowledged the initiative as a potential “basis for peace negotiations,” he was also clear that peace negotiations, owing to the complexity of the Ukrainian situation, weren’t on the immediate horizon.

A publication in The Moscow Times added another layer to this narrative. They highlighted a statement from an anonymous former U.S. official involved in a unique form of diplomacy termed ‘1.5 track’ diplomacy. This strategy sits between formal governmental talks (track 1) and informal expert dialogues (track 2) and aims to help both sides understand each other’s boundaries to mitigate potential conflicts.

However, the most revealing aspect of the former official’s insights was the ambiguity surrounding Russia’s war motives and objectives. The sentiment from certain Russian elites suggests that some never wanted the war and even considered its initiation a grave mistake. Now, caught in the throes of conflict, the idea of a humiliating defeat is untenable for these figures.

The international community, however, is growing restless. On August 5th, Jeddah in Saudi Arabia became the backdrop for a monumental peace meeting. Prompted by Ukraine, it saw representatives from 40 nations – including China, Brazil, India, Turkey, Japan, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Chile, and Zambia – come together.

Saudi Arabia’s recent decision to host a peace meeting underscores its growing influence in global geopolitics. This move is especially significant given the absence of an invitation to Russia, a primary stakeholder in the conflict. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Peskov has noted Russia’s intent to closely monitor the proceedings.

Although the meeting in Jeddah was marked by progress, achieving a joint declaration remained elusive. The central discussion was based on the ten key points Ukraine introduced:

1. Ceasefire

Withdrawal of Russian forces, cessation of hostilities, and restoring Ukraine’s borders with Russia.

2. Territorial Integrity

Reaffirmation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity by Russia in alignment with the UN Charter.

3. Prisoner Release

Including war prisoners and deported children.

4. Energy Security

Emphasis on Russian energy price restrictions and Ukraine’s energy infrastructure restoration.

5. Food Security

Protecting and ensuring Ukraine’s grain exports to impoverished nations.

6. Radiological and Nuclear Safety

Focusing on Europe’s largest nuclear plant in Zaporoje, Ukraine, now under Russian control.

7. War Crimes Tribunal

Establishment of a special court.

8. Ecology

Emphasizing demining and water treatment facility restoration.

9. Conflict De-escalation

Building security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic region with guarantees for Ukraine.

10. War Termination

Including a document signed by involved parties.

The discussions during the meeting were intense because there is no unanimous agreement on values upheld by Kiev, neither among the BRICS countries nor among the participating African states. However, everyone, led by China, supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Still, Saudi diplomats proposed a two-point foundation that all 40 participants might eventually agree upon, facilitating the move to the next negotiation phase under the UN’s aegis, involving Moscow.

Support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and ceasefire throughout Ukraine. This proposal suggests a compromise by the Ukrainians, who would no longer demand Russian troop withdrawal as a prerequisite for negotiations.

Saudi Arabia has updated Russia on the discussions’ progress, and Brazil is the only participant to release an official statement post-meeting, stating that while Ukraine is the primary victim, Moscow’s involvement is essential for genuine peace.

Further, BRICS nations at Jeddah continued to decline condemning Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. Combined with Brazil’s public concerns, this reflects the reasons for the absence of a joint statement at the meeting’s conclusion.

For Ukraine, this gathering is seen as a potential precursor to a peace summit. Speculations are rife about a high-level state meeting either on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September or at the upcoming G20 meet in India. A prime objective of the Jeddah meeting was to reach a consensus on a joint declaration to end the Ukrainian war.

China, a rising superpower with vast interests in the region, has also expressed its willingness to play a constructive role. Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, has articulated China’s eagerness to partner with the international community for a political resolution in Ukraine. This commitment is further cemented by the participation of a special Chinese envoy, Li Hui – a former ambassador to Russia, in Jeddah. His presence has particularly been hailed by Kiev’s chief diplomat, Dmitro Kuleba.

While Moscow’s steps towards de-escalation in Ukraine remain hesitant, it is clear that they are more than comfortable fanning the flames of tension. In a series of aggressive moves in late July and early August, Russian forces targeted several port facilities in Odessa, Ismail, and Reni. The strikes, particularly near Reni, dangerously flirted with the borders of a NATO member.

In Niger, elected president Mohamed Bazoum was ousted and arrested in a military coup orchestrated by General Abdourahmane “Omar” Tchani. Following this, a sovereignist group, “M62”, mobilized thousands onto the streets. Notably, these demonstrators targeted French residences, including diplomatic ones, chanting pro-Russian slogans, highlighting a shift in political alliances. Evgheni Prigojin, known for his ties to Russia’s private military company Wagner, applauded the coup on Telegram, hinting at an anticipated contract for Wagner in the region.

His remarks evoke a sentiment of Niger’s liberation from “colonizers”, asserting Wagner’s capability to restore order and combat terrorism. This suggests a significant paradigm shift in Niger’s geopolitical alignment and an enhanced role for Wagner in Africa.

In a related thread, Wagner mercenaries are undergoing training with Belarus’s national army. This military alignment alarmed Poland, prompting the movement of over 1,000 Polish soldiers closer to the Belarusian border. The situation further escalated with Poland accusing Minsk of violating its airspace. Belarus’s defense ministry, however, vehemently denied these allegations.

The nerve center of these tensions is the Suwa?ki Corridor, a narrow stretch between Poland and Lithuania. This strategically significant corridor, connecting Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave with Belarus, is now a hotspot, with Wagner troops seemingly attempting to exert pressure on both NATO and EU members.

Poland has communicated to NATO about this brewing crisis, particularly the alleged airspace violation south of the Suwa?ki Corridor. This narrow land strip remains a crucial strategic pivot for NATO, EU, Russia, and Belarus, signifying a potential flashpoint in Europe’s eastern frontier.

PM Mateusz Morawiecki alarmingly announced Wagner mercenaries’ advance towards the strategic Suwa?ki Corridor via Grodno in Belarus. This move is perceived as increasingly perilous as Russian-aligned forces amplify their presence near NATO’s borders. Deputy Foreign Minister Pawe? Jab?onski forewarned of further challenges from Belarusian and Russian forces.

Latvia, in tandem, has ramped up its military and hardware deployment at its border with Poland and Belarus. The joint mobilization aims to ward off potential Wagner incursions towards Kaliningrad via the Suwa?ki Corridor, a move corroborating the growing collective defense mechanism within NATO allies.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian intelligence services support Poland’s concerns, revealing a startling allegation: *Russia plans to attack Belarus’s Mozir refinery, intending to blame Ukraine.* This information is reportedly sourced from captured Russian military personnel, amplifying the urgency of the situation.

The goal of the Greater Russian Empire, Vladimir Putin’s pet project representing Kremlin’s imperial circle, is world domination through access to the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic oceans. In essence, the ambition is to conquer Europe, as some Russian imperialist ideologies boldly claim. Even “democrat” Boris Yeltsin didn’t shy away from this intent when he told Bill Clinton, “Give us Europe!”

The analysis of Russian writer Sergei Lebedev now based in Berlin, details how Ivan Ilin’s philosophy was embraced at the Kremlin during Putin’s reign. This obscure prophecy from over a century ago by Ivan Ilin seems to be coming true today.

Ivan Ilin, one of the few thinkers to emigrate from the Soviet Union, presented a vision for Russia post the collapse of the Lenin-Stalin regime. This vision surprisingly aligns with today’s Russia under Putin, who suppresses individual rights in the name of a warped ideology.

Marina Ovsyannikova, who gained global attention on March 14, 2022, by protesting live on Russia’s main TV channel, completes the picture by emphasizing how Putin’s propaganda has effectively frozen a normal societal response. The Kremlin’s emphasis on global russophobia is evident, making citizens feel isolated and rallying them around Putin.

There’s no peace talk in the Kremlin. If in doubt, observe the aggressive tone used by Kremlin’s spokespersons, emphasizing Russia’s historical perspective on Ukraine and dismissing any peace talks that don’t involve them or acknowledge their version of history.

While some voices in Moscow’s foreign ministry, like deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov, suggest discussions based on the Jeddah meeting outcomes with BRICS partners, the overarching actions and decisions from the Kremlin indicate a prolonged confrontation. The Russian populace, potentially the only force to change this direction, seems nearly incapacitated by propaganda and continuous repression threats.