Russian ‘deniable’ intervention in Ukraine: how and why Russia broke the rules

Abstract

The Russian military interventions in Ukraine, which have led to the annexation of the Crimean peninsula and to the entrenchment of separatist enclaves in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces, directly challenge the post‐Cold War European state system. Russia has consistently denied any wrongdoing or illegal military involvement and has presented its policies as a reaction to the repression of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. This article argues that it is important to examine and contest unfounded Russian legal and political claims used by Moscow to justify its interventions. The article proceeds to assess in detail three different explanations of the Russian operations in Ukraine: geopolitical competition and structural power (including the strategic benefits of seizing Crimea); identity and ideational factors; and the search for domestic political consolidation in Russia. These have all played a role, although the role of identity appears the least convincing in explaining the timing and scope of Russian encroachments on Ukrainian territorial integrity and the disruption of Ukrainian statehood.

Hybrid Warfare in the Baltics: Threats and Potential Responses

“…1-8. 72 Allison, 2014. 73 NATO, 1949. 74 See, for example, Shlapak and Johnson, 2015. have important ramifications for the relations between the Russian speakers and their governments.…”

The Baltic states should adopt the self-defence pinpricks doctrine: the “accumulation of events” threshold as a deterrent to Russian hybrid warfare

“…He shifted his view on April 2014, admitting that "Russian servicemen did back the Crimean self-defence forces" and that "Russia created conditions […] for the expression of the will of the people living in Crimea and Sevastopol".15 As for South-East Ukraine, Russia constantly denied that regular forces were involved. By denying and then openly admitting that his previous public statements were not true, President Putin defied a rather widely accepted principle of international diplomacy: statements of top officials concerning major political crises can, at most, be blurry, but never totally and wilfully wrong (Allison, 2014).16 A hybrid war is therefore a non-linear conflict. Russian hybrid warfare blurs the classic war paradigms: Who is behind the armed attacks; how much is the attacker implicated in the armed attacks; and what are the objectives of the offender.…”

Beyond geopolitics: exploring the impact of the EU and Russia in the “contested neighborhood”

“…Growing pressures on NCs (for example, Armenia in 2013, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing war in Ukraine) to deter them from further integration with the EU is a new phenomenon for the EU, which it is struggling to react to. Previously, it was integration with NATO that triggered a military backlash from Russia, whereas now, the EU's role has also been securitized in the Russian view (Allison 2014). The contribution by Kataryna Wolczuk (2016) argues that Russia's military and economic coercion has opened unprecedented windows of opportunities for harsh reforms in Ukraine's energy sector.…”