Kommersant, a Russian newspaper, is reporting that foreign minister Sergei Lavrov delivered a response to a Biden administration proposal on “security guarantees.”
Washington and Moscow have been, for the past few weeks, exchanged written proposals on resolving the Ukraine crisis. No one has any illusions that these letters will lead to a de-escalation of the Russian military buildup around Ukraine. But the Kremlin response this morning hints at a potential course of action for Vladimir Putin: If the U.S. doesn’t give in to Russian diplomatic demands on European security, “Russia will be forced to respond, including by implementing measures of a military-technical nature.”
The Russian response, per these reports, ruled out a full-on invasion. That’s significant not because Washington should believe what Moscow claims, but because the Kremlin is drawing a distinction between an invasion of Ukraine and a “military-technical” response.
Greg Austin of the International Institute for Strategic Studies explained what that could mean in an article earlier this month. He noted that Putin had previously used the term “military-technical reciprocal measures” during a speech in December, and that other Russian officials and media have also referred to it.
Austin wrote that the phrase seems to connote a sort of “coerced arms control”:
My assessment is that by ‘military-technical’ Putin means, apart from weapons deployments outside Ukraine, measures that constitute coerced arms control: the imposition, by force if necessary, of certain restraints or prohibitions on foreign arms deliveries to Ukraine; on stationing of NATO personnel in Ukraine; on military overflight of Ukraine or parts of it; and possibly on NATO operations in close proximity to Ukraine’s borders.
He elaborated on what this could mean:
Maritime blockade of certain ports (e.g., Mariupol, Kherson and/or Odessa); or indeed a complete naval blockade of the Ukrainian coast (which Moscow could potentially depict as a ‘quarantine operation’, citing as precedent the US blockade of Cuba in 1962)
Forcible inspection of ships on the maritime approaches to Ukraine
Military seizure of several airports deemed central (rightly or wrongly) to the NATO supply of weapons and personnel
Enforcement of a no-fly zone over parts of Ukraine, citing as precedent similar efforts by the coalition members in Iraq and Syria
Bombing of certain weapons stores or missile-launch sites in Ukraine, citing the precedent of the NATO operations in Kosovo and Yugoslavia in 1999
Attacks on Ukraine’s electric grid, citing the precedent of NATO operations in Yugoslavia in 1999
Widespread cyber-sabotage operations against military bases involved in weapons transfer or NATO training, and other critical infrastructure, especially the internet.