ABOUT THE SO-CALLED ‘RUSSIAN AGGRESSION THREAT'

Under the UN definition of ‘Aggression’, nothing can in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination: nor the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration.

Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its accession to Russia took place in extreme conditions of impossibility to implement the right of self-determination within the framework of Ukraine. During its more than 20 year history as a part of Ukraine, the people of Crimea failed to realize their right to self-determination. On 17 March 2014, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Crimea, reflecting the will of the people of Crimea directly expressed by it in a referendum held on 16 March decided to proclaim the Republic of Crimea as an independent sovereign state and the city of Sevastopol as a city with a special status. On 18 March, the Republic of Crimea concluded an accession treaty with Russia. The decision about the independence of Crimea was adopted by popular vote during the referendum with the participation of international observers. The independence of Crimea and its accession to Russia was supported by more than 95% of voters with a turnout of 83%. Russia did not interfere in, or exert influence on the expression of free will by the population of Crimea. Russian troops did not intervene in the processes occurring in Crimea, including the process of the referendum and the proclamation of the independence of Crimea, as confirmed by numerous observers.

Western pundits are busy peddling a new phenomenon they call ‘Russian aggression’, which they say represents a global threat of the first order. Claims of ‘Russian aggression’ now represent a significant part of the Western media’s 'information war' against Russia. It has become nearly impossible to peruse an article on Russia these days without being confronted with some variation of the theme.

Claims of ‘Russian aggression’ are increasing in direct proportion to how close NATO forces approach Russia’s western border. In other words, Russia assuming a defensive posture as NATO forces carry out massive war games next door in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe is now explained as ‘aggressive’ behavior.

Before the West’s rhetoric concerning ‘Russian aggression’ morphs into something altogether undesirable, the West should come to the realization that Russia – more so than many other countries on the global stage  possesses a natural ability to negotiate at length in order to defuse any global tensions. Part of this willingness, derives from its historical appreciation of the spoken and written word, part comes from what amounts to pure intelligence, and part comes from the Russian peoples’ loathing of war, most notably due to World War II, which left an indelible impression on the Russian mentality.

Russia is only as aggressive as the Western imagination needs it to be.

Washington is going to spend about $3.4 billion on the so-called "European Reassurance Initiative" aimed at beefing up the US military presence in East Europe in 2017 in order to deter the so-called "Russian aggression”.

Most is for the Army, but there are pieces for the other services as well.·

• Presence ($1,050 million): Continuing and expanding the program of deployments and exercises begun in 2015. The addition of another armored brigade combat team (BCT) in the rotation means there will be an armored brigade on the ground continuously. With the two existing brigades in Europe, there will thus be a total of three U.S. BCTs on the continent at all times, and four during times of handover. A BCT is the Army’s basic deployable maneuver unit consisting of 4,000 to 5,000 troops.
• Exercises and training ($163 million): ERI increased the number and size of exercises and partnership engagements in 2015, and this will continue.
• Prepositioned Equipment ($1,904 million): The largest amount of the ERI request funds the maintenance and expansion of prepositioned sets of war-fighting equipment (known as Army Prepositioned Stock). The United States has long had a program in Europe whereby it stores equipment in warehouses ashore to allow rapid reinforcement of the forces already in theater. In an emergency, the United States need only fly the personnel from wherever they are to Europe, which is relatively easy, and link up with the prepositioned equipment. The extensive prepositioned sets of the Cold War in Europe have been reduced over the years, greatly slowing U.S. reinforcement capacity in an emergency. To shorten this timeline, the United States will add additional equipment sets, including tanks, heavy artillery, weapons, ammunition, and other gear, in Western Europe, as well as maintaining the training set already spread across the Baltic states and elsewhere in the east.
• Infrastructure ($217 million): The ERI requests funds for improving air fields and bases in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. Improvements, such as for training ranges, make the bases more useful for training of U.S. and allied forces. Improvements to airfields make them more capable of not just training, but also of receiving reinforcements during an emergency.
• Building Partner Capacity ($ 86 million): A small portion of the ERI request will be allocated to increasing the resilience of allies and partners through institutional development and training. In addition to the Defense Department’s ERI request, the State Department cites $953 million in its budget for “critical support for Ukraine and surrounding countries in Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia to counter Russian aggression.”

The theory is that Russia is the aggressor-nation and that they may invade Europe. But there is something really illogical about putting troops on someone else's border and still describing it as "deterrence”. The "Russian aggression" slogan is nothing less than sheer propaganda. The US has blown this imaginary threat out of proportion. It is an attempt to increase the anti-Russian sentiment in Europe. Moscow does not pose a threat to the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. This is why this threat is imaginary. But beware, Russia will not just sit and wait watching NATO's beefing up its military presence in Europe. There will be an asymmetrical response, which will be highly efficient, not extremely expensive and calibrated in accordance with Russia's understanding of the extent of the military threat.