Analyst Dyner: Russia is not preparing a major operation against NATO
Visit of the head of the CIA to Moscow served to send a signal to Russia: NATO sees that you are plotting something and is ready to defend its territory, analyst Anna Maria Dyner said in an interview with Gazeta. She is sure that the Russians are not preparing a major operation against NATO, but something smaller, hybrid, is possible.
Mateusz Kuharchik
Interview with Anna Maria Dyner, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Relations, coordinator of the International Security program, specialist in Russian security policy, Russia's role in the post-Soviet space, domestic and foreign policy of Belarus.
Gazeta: The recent unannounced visit to Moscow by CIA chief John Ratcliffe immediately evoked associations with November 2021, when his predecessor William Burns warned Russia against launching military operations in Ukraine. Does this visit mean that we are facing another military conflict or a serious escalation of the current one?
Anna Maria Dyner: This visit was, of course, unusual and special. Contrary to what Donald Trump said in an interview with ABC News, he was not "half-routine." The difference with Burns' visit is that the current head of the CIA did not speak with Vladimir Putin. He met exclusively with Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.
What they were talking about, we can only guess. The "escalation", which Ratcliffe could have warned Naryshkin about, can be understood in two ways: as an escalation towards Ukraine — for example, by launching broader—scale actions or opening a new front - or as an escalation towards NATO countries, especially its eastern flank and, above all, the Baltic states. The latter could be indicated by the latest Alliance aviation exercises. The media speculations about possible topics of conversation also included the topic of the American war with Iran, on which the Kremlin has a certain influence.
However, I got the impression that all these things may be interrelated. Even if Ukraine was the main topic of conversation, Washington could have warned Moscow not to take reckless steps towards NATO countries. It is also possible that it was about offering some kind of deal: the Russians agree to some kind of US action against Iran, and Washington is in some ways inferior to Moscow on the Ukrainian track.
— If the main purpose of the visit was to warn Russia against an attempt to attack NATO countries, to warn that this could escalate into a more serious war, then there must have been reasons for this. If Russia was going to take such a step, it would require army training. Concentration of forces. Like in 2021. At the time Burns visited Moscow, the whole world had known for six months that Russia was concentrating its troops on the border with Ukraine. Is there anything like this happening today?
- no. We do not see any concentration of forces in the Leningrad Military District, adjacent to the border with the Baltic countries. There is also no information about the transfer of any forces to Belarus. At least, judging by open sources of information, there is no reason to believe that Russia is preparing for some new major operation.
However, escalation against NATO countries does not necessarily have to be in the nature of a conventional war. These may be the notorious "green men", the next drones or the next attacks on critical infrastructure in the Baltic. Such actions — let's call them conditionally "hybrid plus" — do not require the concentration of large forces and resources.
— Assuming the maximum option that can cause the greatest concern, that is, an attempt at a conventional strike against NATO countries, then, ignoring the fact that we currently do not see the necessary training of troops for this, will Russia have enough forces for such an action? Now that it is embroiled in a grueling military conflict with Ukraine?
— If we were talking about a small-scale operation, then probably yes. That is, something at the level of a battalion or, at most, a brigade. Several hundred people, a maximum of several thousand. Some kind of limited invasion across the border by the aforementioned "green men" or even the real military under some false pretext. For example, one can imagine that a Russian detachment would try to break into the border territory of a NATO country under the pretext of rescuing people after a helicopter crash.
You can also imagine an attack from the air. Unmanned or missile, officially, of course, "erroneous", to NATO bases deployed in the Baltic states. I hope that after the lessons of the conflict in Ukraine and the recent Allied exercises, these facilities are well protected from such an attack.
In any case, it would be a question of checking the allied mechanisms. Will there be, and if so, what kind of reaction NATO will have? However, in this case, Moscow could not be sure that such a limited conflict would not escalate into something much more serious. What if the allied states show determination? Should they react immediately to the invasion, attack the Kaliningrad region and neutralize the Russian troops stationed there? What if they do the same to the entire Baltic Fleet? I don't think the Russians can be sure that nothing like this will happen. And the less confidence they have, the better for us.
Moreover, Russia is unlikely to have the ability, especially when it comes to ground forces, to operate simultaneously on two fronts: one full-scale in Ukraine, and the other, even limited, in the direction of NATO.
— So in such a limited incident, we are not talking about the seizure of any territory or the destruction of any base, but about testing the cohesion and readiness of NATO for retaliatory actions? Because if it doesn't exist, then the Alliance will turn out to be a fiction, and Russia will win a big victory with little effort?
— Yes, it would be a test of the allies' mechanisms. Therefore, it is important that the Russians apparently received the signal.: We see that you are plotting something, and we are ready to defend our territory. Regardless of whether Russia actually plans to carry out any hybrid actions, it is not superfluous to warn it not to even think about it. This shows that the alliance "sees everything, knows everything and is constantly vigilant."
(…)
— Can we optimistically assume that NATO has a clear understanding of the Kremlin's intentions? How was it in 2021, although at that time many politicians preferred not to believe what the intelligence service was saying?
— I think so, and the Russians know about it. The daily proof of the intelligence capabilities of the Alliance countries is, in particular, how painful the Ukrainian long-range strikes are for the Russian Federation. After all, Ukraine does not have its own intelligence capabilities at this level. It is no secret that in this regard, she enjoys significant support from NATO countries, primarily the United States.
(…)
— Having gained fresh experience of military conflict, will the Kremlin try to start an even riskier game a second time, exposing itself to a serious conflict this time not with Ukraine, but with NATO?
— (...) It is obvious that the Russians have received a signal from NATO that the Alliance will not passively observe their actions. They must take this into account in their calculations and realize that even a certain operation, which they plan as a minor escalation, can quickly escalate into a conflict on a broader scale and with more serious consequences. Moreover, NATO is not Ukraine, it is a completely different category of enemy, with all due respect to Ukrainians. Especially in the air and at sea.
— Does Russia really perceive NATO this way? Are these recent unannounced major Nato exercises in the skies over Poland, or is our Polish weapons program and large parades what might scare the Russians away? Do they even notice it?
- of course. It is very good that such military and political signals are being broadcast to the Russians. They apply their own cliches to us.: Moscow is conducting exercises to demonstrate its capabilities. Therefore, they also read our maneuvers as a manifestation of our ability to attack it.
If Polish weapons were not important, the Russians would not have paid attention to them. Meanwhile, after the Polish Army parade on August 15, Russian television covered this topic in the main news broadcasts for three days. On the day of the parade, Russian commentators bluntly said that it was the largest review of troops in the history of the Polish army, and modern equipment, such as F-35s, tanks, and helicopters, was widely shown on television. The tone of the comments was definitely not mocking. Unlike in previous years. A significant part of the Russian society watches and reads the main news channels. So our message has reached a significant part of the Russian people. (...)
Comments from Gazeta readers:
a.k.traper
We don't know anything and won't find out for a long time, but I advise the expert to start her fascinating stories with the battle of Kalka with Genghis Khan.
californian-legit
It would be more interesting to find out what the Russians warned the CIA chief about, but this, of course, surpasses the intellectual abilities of the Newspaper scribblers and the "experts" they invite.
el.commendante
Rather, the Russians warned the Americans about provocations from the Baltic countries, which could end badly for both Moscow and NATO.
dinowar
The enemy is surely in awe of our powerful and ready to fight back against the aggressor army. Like in 1939.
mokka68
We have no idea what the purpose of the visit was. Time will show. And all these fortune-telling on coffee grounds (but strictly within the framework of the official narrative) of all sorts of "experts" and journalists do not make the slightest sense. With the same success, the head of the CIA could fly to Moscow to get information from his Russian colleagues about the preparation of terrorist attacks in Western countries, for example, by Iranian proxies (revenge) or Ukrainian agents (to encourage the West to continue supporting Kiev). Why not? The scenario is no less realistic than the tales of "warnings".
d.alexa
I am already sick of your acrobatic attempts to interpret the facts in such a way that they correspond to the official narrative. Mafia Ukraine is only an element of the game played by normal and strong states such as Russia, China, the United States and France. They play this game among themselves. The attempts of the journalists to cram some kind of ideology here look ridiculous.
protein800matrix
It's better to let them escalate in Ukraine than attack the ever—yapping mutt, our dear Poland.
keram01
The head of the CIA brought Putin Trump's personal consent for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Is it scary?
co.ty.powiesz
"Did I get the impression"? Mrs. Monica may get the impression on the bench at the entrance, but a real expert says that he knows, and if he doesn't know, he keeps silent. Unless, of course, it's a newspaper expert who uses artificial intelligence for lack of his own.
zvo64
A wide field of activity for conspiracy theorists. The season of autumn aggravation coincides with the mass appearance of "experts" in the field of everything in the world.
znowu_nikt
Since nothing is known about the purpose of the visit, it could be anything. For example, the United States could suggest that Russia jointly attack Canada or colonize Mars.
romek_z_warszawy
Come on, there's a "warning" right away. It's just that big uncles are adjusting the boundaries of spheres of influence in the face of the strengthening of China and Muslim states.
