Vladimir Putin: A world on edge awaits Russian President's critical ...

CNN —

The world is suspended in an extraordinary moment of geopolitical limbo, on edge for a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine amid conflicting signals in Moscow, confusion in Kyiv and dire warnings from Washington.

Already extreme tensions rose even further as one of the most dangerous moments in Europe since World War II stretches nerves and leaves everyone – apart perhaps from President Vladimir Putin – wondering what is next.

On Monday, there were signs of a possible last-minute openness to a diplomatic off-ramp in the Kremlin, but the spectacle of an estimated 130,000 troops on high alert outside Ukraine’s borders suggested a feint as much as a blink by Putin. And Russia announced Tuesday that some of its troops would return to their bases after completing recent drills, but stressed that major military exercises would continue. It was not immediately clear how many troops were involved, following weeks of military buildups. Still, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said signs from Moscow showed that “diplomacy should continue.” He added: “This gives grounds for cautious optimism. But so far, we have not seen any sign of de-escalation on the ground.”

Tuesday’s developments saw confusion reigning – not for the first time – in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, as President Volodymyr Zelensky, a young leader facing the highest stakes, sarcastically dismissed Western projections of a possible Russian invasion on February 16. And in contrast with the foreboding signs elsewhere, couples flocked to Kyiv’s bars and restaurants to celebrate Valentine’s Day despite the looming threat of war.

In Washington, the mood music grew even darker. While believing that Putin hasn’t finally made up his mind, multiple officials suggested Russia could move against Ukraine at any moment. And one source familiar with the matter predicted an invasion was more likely this week than not – and said Moscow could maintain its current force posture for quite some time even if it doesn’t cross the border.

There is a palpable sense that Russia and the West have reached a historic fork in the road. Down one route lies a return to the confrontation and tensions that prevailed for decades during the Cold War. Down the other might lie a diplomatic fudge that no key player seems able to frame given stark Russian demands.

A crisis America doesn’t need

At a moment when many Americans are facing rising prices for basic goods and gasoline and are exhausted by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ukraine crisis seems distant and esoteric. But a Russian invasion could force up energy prices even more and rock stock markets, on which many rely for their retirements.

The crisis is largely a creation of Putin and his personal and disputed version of history that holds that Ukraine, which was part of the Soviet Union until its breakup in 1991, should be part of greater Russia. It also stems from his deep resentment about how the Cold War ended and the admission of former Warsaw Pact nations, which had been aligned with Soviets, into NATO. In effect, Putin is holding Ukraine hostage with a demand for the withdrawal of those NATO forces from Eastern Europe – a concession that would contradict 70 years of the West’s doctrine that independent nations choose their own destinies.

If America’s long support for democracy and free-market capitalism is to mean anything in a new era when its power and example are being challenged by autocracies like China, it has no alternative but to stand up for Ukraine.

Waiting on Putin

In essence, the world was left wondering and worrying Monday what one man – Putin – will do next. There are plenty of reasons why the Russian leader may step back at the brink. An invasion might swiftly overcome Ukraine’s forces. But the country is bigger than Germany or France and an insurgency – perhaps supported by US weapons and funds – could be a disaster for Russia. The sight of Russian troops being killed could further hurt Putin’s declining popularity. But a burst of nationalism triggered by war abroad could boost his standing in a nation he rules with an iron fist.

And Putin is not shy about wielding military might for political advantage, for instance against separatists in the Russian republic of Chechnya and in his annexation of Crimea – in Ukraine – in 2014.

But some analysts believe that he has already achieved many of his objectives – effectively setting back any aspirations Ukraine may have of joining NATO in the future. He has inserted Russia, disdained by many leaders as a declining power, back into the spotlight and is welcoming a parade of foreign leaders and ministers to Moscow. On Tuesday, Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, will visit the vastly more experienced Putin in a test of his resolve stiffened by a White House visit last week.

The continuing diplomatic dance is a reason for hope that war could be avoided. But the fact that Putin has built such a massive force around Ukraine, in Russia, Belarus and in the Black Sea means that a decision not to invade may be seen as a loss of face. The former KGB officer, who was in East Germany when the Berlin Wall fell, also feels the humiliation of the Soviet collapse deeply. He seems to believe that NATO, a defensive alliance, is an offensive threat to Russia, one that may require him to build a buffer around Russian territory by invading Ukraine – which has borders with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania – all NATO members once behind the Iron Curtain.

The US will not send troops to Ukraine, because it’s not a NATO member. But if Putin invades, troops from the US and Russia, the world’s two top nuclear powers, could soon be in close proximity in Europe, with the alarming possibility of miscalculations.

Hope for diplomacy?

A day that saw glimmers of hope and ended with even more chilling warnings from the United States started in Moscow, where Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had what appeared to be a scripted on-camera event.

“I must say that there is always a chance,” Lavrov said, referring to the prospects for diplomacy. Putin had earlier asked Lavrov whether efforts to talk Russia down were “just an attempt to drag us into an endless negotiation process that has no logical resolution.” His comment was ironic since many in the West believe this is exactly Putin’s game and that talks are just a bluff until the moment is right to move on Ukraine. Still, the appearance could indicate Putin is finally seeking a diplomatic off-ramp, though NATO would never accept his demands to leave Eastern Europe.

“Signals today suggest that they may be looking at some last-minute diplomatic maneuvers,” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told CNN’s Becky Anderson in an interview. “I do think as Putin gets closer to pulling the trigger here, he is better understanding the costs.” Washington and its allies have threatened the most crippling sanctions ever on Russia’s economy if Putin invades.

Michael Bociurkiw, the former spokesman for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, also expressed tempered hope.

“It’s hard to know what to believe coming out of Mr. Lavrov’s mouth,” Bociurkiw said on “CNN Newsroom” but added that the airing of his encounter with Putin on Russian state TV was significant.

“To me, it indicated that they’re willing to hold off on a possible military solution to their Ukraine issue. There are more foreign ministers coming later in the week. … So that was their way of saying, ‘We’re open to more dialogue.’ “

Dark warnings from Washington

Still, if US sources are to be believed, the photo op in Moscow was all for show.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Putin “continues to add to” his “menu of options” with new land, sea and air forces. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the US had closed its Kyiv embassy “due to the dramatic acceleration in the buildup of Russian forces.” A source familiar with the matter told CNN’s Natasha Bertrand that a Russian attack on Ukraine is more likely this week than not, and if it doesn’t happen on that timetable it doesn’t mean that the threat has passed.

Senators emerging from a briefing with national security adviser Jake Sullivan were equally pessimistic. “This is a very dangerous situation,” Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters. The committee’s chair, Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, added: “The forces the Russians have massed, they could launch at any point. Nothing I heard today dissuaded me from that.”

Grim US rhetoric continued a trend of remarkably frank US and Western commentary on the situation based on declassified information, apparently designed both to increase pressure on Putin and to smoke out any attempt by Moscow to fake an incident as a ruse to justify an invasion.

But all along, there has been a gap between Washington and Kyiv on the possibility of an invasion. Zelensky sent shock waves all the way to the US on Monday when he named February 16 a day of national unity, while referencing foreign fears of an invasion. But when CNN asked Mykhailo Podoliak, a presidential adviser, how to take his comments, he replied: “Of course, with irony.” It seems an odd time for sarcasm. But Zelensky is a former comic actor and might feel justified in dark humor given the circumstances.

This story has been updated with additional developments and reaction.

US and allies struggle to come up with plans to get vital grain ...

CNN —

The Biden administration is working closely with European allies to try to develop routes to get Ukrainian wheat and corn out of the country after Russia blocked Ukrainian ships from departing with grain that is vital for food supplies around the world, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.

There is no silver bullet to solve the complicated challenge, and officials are considering a wide array of options to get the food exports safely out by rail, sea and air, two US diplomats and four European diplomats told CNN. Possible scenarios are being studied and devised whether Russia consents or not.

The challenge will be a major focus for US Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he convenes a ministerial meeting on food security and chairs a discussion on the matter at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday and Thursday, the diplomats said.

“This is far from a done deal. There are so many moving pieces, so many things could go wrong with these discussions,” another official familiar with the discussions said.

Amid concerns about a global food shortage, urgency around the effort is growing as prices for wheat, grain, corn, soybeans and vegetable oil have soared in recent weeks due to Russia’s invasion. However, there is no simple solution available with major obstacles to all modes of transport as the war shows no sign of letting up.

Time is of the essence: Ukraine is set to run out of storage facilities for agricultural products in the next two months, explained an official from the World Food Program. If there is no movement in the coming months, Ukrainian farmers will have no place to store next seasons’ crop and they will be not paid enough to sustain their businesses.

Before the war, wheat supplies from Russia and Ukraine accounted for almost 30% of global trade, and Ukraine is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of corn and the fifth-largest exporter of wheat, according to the US State Department. The United Nations World Food Program – which helps combat global food insecurity – buys about half of its wheat from Ukraine each year and has warned of dire consequences if the Ukrainian ports are not opened up.

Grain being used as ‘an instrument in a hybrid war’

The issue was a key focus at both the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Germany and the US-EU Trade and Technology Council in France over the weekend.

“We must not be naive. Russia has now expanded the war against Ukraine to many states as a war of grain,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said on Saturday after the G7 meeting. “It is not collateral damage, it is an instrument in a hybrid war that is intended to weaken cohesion against Russia’s war.”

In a joint statement released following the meeting, the G7 foreign ministers said they are “determined to contribute additional resources to and support all relevant efforts that aim to ensure availability and accessibility of food, energy and financial resources as well as basic commodities for all.” The foreign ministers also called for Russia to “cease immediately its attacks on key transport infrastructure in Ukraine” to enable the export of agricultural products.

“There are discussions ongoing at this moment to see how these corridors can be unblocked. We know that mines have been placed in the Black Sea. The Russians have blocked Ukrainian ships from moving in – or out. And this is something that the secretary general has addressed with the Russians. It’s something we have been discussing as well with the Ukrainians: how we can work to get some of the product that is available to Ukraine out into the marketplace,” said US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield on Monday, explaining that Ukraine used to be a “breadbasket for the developing world.”

Although UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres discussed the problem when he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin last month, there have been no breakthroughs. Some US and European diplomats want the UN to play a more active role, but the organization is hesitant due to the ongoing combat, US and European diplomats said.

The most efficient way to transport the grain would be to ship it, but Russia’s blockade represents a huge challenge. Sea routes are still under consideration, possibly using neutral UN-marked boats, the sources said. But there are concerns about how practical it would be to test such an idea with an aggressive Russia, diplomats said.

“The Black Sea is not entirely ruled out but it’s pretty complicated,” one said, adding that Guterres has been actively involved in those preliminary discussions on getting goods out by ship.

Using cargo planes is the least likely of the three options, the official added, due to the dangers in the air and their relatively small capacity compared to trains and ships.

Russia has managed to seal off Ukraine’s access to the Sea of Azov but Ukraine retains control over its Black Sea coastline and the port of Odesa, its primary maritime export hub. Still, due to Russian aggressions, ships are not leaving Odesa right now. Russia has also struck the port with missiles and the presence of Russian and Ukrainian mines makes in the sea makes voyages dangerous.

Turkey – which is a major player in the Black Sea and controls access to it – is involved in the discussions with the Russians on this effort, said a US official and another source familiar with the ongoing conversations.

“There is a swathe of diplomacy on applying pressure to Russia to encourage safe corridor and that’s where the UN has more focus,” a European diplomat said.

The diplomats tell CNN that one solution would be to ship the grain via rail given that, for now, it’s the safest way to transport large volumes. Talks also are taking place between Ukraine and the European Union about using rail to transport supplies into Romania, Slovakia and Poland. However, the efforts are being complicated by differences in the rail systems used by Ukraine and neighboring countries.

Russia sabotaging agricultural production, Ukraine says

While Ukraine’s routes out of the country are limited, Russia is actively sabotaging agricultural production and its forces are stealing farm equipment and thousands of tons of grain from Ukrainian farmers in areas they have occupied, as well as targeting food storage sites with artillery, Ukrainian officials have said.

The $40 billion in supplemental assistance to Ukraine, passed by the US House of Representatives but awaiting passage by the US Senate, includes more than $5 billion to address global food insecurity caused by the war. The bulk of that funding will go to the US Agency for International Development “to provide emergency food assistance to people around the world suffering from hunger as a result of the conflict in Ukraine and other urgent humanitarian needs of populations and communities inside Ukraine,” according to a summary from the House Appropriations Committee.

In an interview with CNN last week, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis floated the idea of providing a security corridor so that the Ukrainians can export their wheat and corn, saying, “that could be done by the countries who are affected by the food crisis.”

Daria Kaleniuk, a leading Ukrainian civil society activist, said that “the quickest and the most sustainable way to global food security is to unblock Ukrainian ports,” and called on the international community to provide Ukraine with the weapons needed to militarily help do so.

“We need anti-ship missiles in Ukraine to deter Russian warships, and we need intervention of the UN and other countries and nations which have to regain control over international waters,” she said at a roundtable with reporters at the German Marshall Fund in Washington last week.

Meanwhile, concerns about the looming food crisis have been exacerbated by the announcement by India that it will ban wheat exports due to concerns over drought in the country. Thomas-Greenfield said on Monday that the US hoped that India would “reconsider that position” as they hear concerns from around the world.

Kylie Atwood Alex Marquardt Jennifer Hansler

US and NATO face new dilemma on Ukraine aid | CNN Politics

CNN —

Ukraine’s military took a defiant stand this weekend – refusing to give in to Russia’s demand for Kyiv’s troops in the port city of Mariupol to surrender — at the same time that President Joe Biden and his allies face a new precipice in deciding how far the US can go in arming the embattled country, as Russia signals that it may take more aggressive action to stop the flow of weapons from the US and NATO.

There are new worries about how quickly Ukraine could run out of ammunition as heavier fighting intensifies in the Donbas where Russia is trying to encircle and cut off Ukrainian forces in their quest to control that region. And officials in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv have reported that seven people were killed and 11 were injured in Russian missile strikes Monday, citing preliminary figures that may still rise.

As he tries to keep the pressure on allies to lend greater support in this next phase, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is arguing that the West must view that fight as a critical pivot point in curbing the unbridled ambitions of Russian President Vladimir Putin and demonstrating the West’s commitment to defending democracy against a voracious autocratic power.

Zelensky warned that the battle ahead in the Donbas “can influence the course of the whole war” and said his country has no intention of giving up territory in the eastern part of Ukraine to end the war during an exclusive interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

If Russia is able to capture the Donbas region, he warned, it is entirely possible that Putin could renew his attempt to take control of Kyiv. When pressed by Tapper on whether he was satisfied with the US announcement last week of another $800 million in military aid to bolster Ukraine’s forces in the Donbas, Zelensky replied, “of course we need more.”

“There will never be enough. Enough isn’t possible,” Zelensky said, as he explained the challenges that lie ahead in the eastern region of his country. “There is a full-scale war ongoing today, so we still need a lot more than what we have today. … We do not have technical advantages over our enemy. We’re just not on the same level there.”

“For Biden’s confirmed $800 million in support, what’s most important is speed,” he added.

But even as that latest aid has begun arriving in the region, CNN’s Barbara Starr reported this weekend that there is rising concern about how quickly Ukraine could deplete its stores of ammunition in this next battle.

Though the US announced that it was sending 18 155mm Howitzer cannons and 40,000 artillery rounds as part of its latest package, Starr reported that a US official warned that the aid could be used up within a matter of days as heavy fighting intensifies in the Donbas.

Given those pressures, US officials must be clearer in defining their objectives and whether America is committed to doing what it takes to help Ukraine win, retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe, said Sunday in an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.” While the latest round of US aid was “substantial,” he said it was not enough.

“What the Ukrainians need desperately are long-range fires, rockets, artillery, drones that can disrupt or destroy the systems that are causing so much damage in Ukrainian cities, and which will also play a critical role in this next phase, if and when it begins,” Hodges said. “I would really like to hear the administration talk about winning and having a sense of urgency on getting these things there. Otherwise, this window of opportunity we have, the next couple of weeks, to really disrupt Russia’s attempt to build up is going to pass.”

A ‘red line’ in Mariupol

A critical piece of Russia’s current campaign is capturing the port city of Mariupol in an effort to create Putin’s desired land bridge from eastern Ukraine all the way to the Crimean peninsula. Russia’s Ministry of Defense had demanded that Ukrainian soldiers in Mariupol surrender by 1 p.m. local time on Sunday, but then said in a statement that the ultimatum was ignored.

In its statement, Russia’s Ministry of Defense said it had surrounded the remaining Ukrainian soldiers and others who have been holding out at the Azovstal steel plant. “In case of further resistance, all of them will be eliminated,” the statement said.

An adviser to Mariupol’s mayor said Sunday that Russian forces have announced that the city will be closed for entry and exit on Monday and that they had begun issuing passes that would be required to move within the city itself.

Both Zelensky and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba framed the fate of Mariupol as another critical turning point in the war – in part because the human toll of Russia’s relentless shelling of that city is still unknown.

Zelensky has previously warned that the elimination of military forces in Mariupol could bring any further peace negotiations with Russia to a halt. On Sunday, Kuleba noted that it was hard for his country to continue talks with Russia after the atrocities in Bucha. Russia’s determination to raze Mariupol “to the ground at any cost” could become “a red line,” he said during an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”

In a chilling admission, Zelensky told Tapper that no one yet knows how many people have died in Mariupol. “If anyone gives you a figure, it would be a total lie,” Zelensky said. He added that “several thousand, tens of thousands” were forced to evacuate the city in the direction of Russia, leaving no document trail, and that the Ukrainian government does not know where they are.

“About 5,000 children deported from this region to Russia’s side because they didn’t allow them to go to the Ukraine side,” Zelensky said in the interview. “(Those) children. Where are they? Nobody knows.”

While he said he was still prepared to engage in diplomatic discussions with Russia if that opportunity arises, it has become harder to do so as he has watched the staggering toll of Putin’s aggression on his country. “What’s the price of all this? It’s people. The many people who have been killed,” Zelensky said. “And who ends up paying for all of this? It’s Ukraine. Just us.”

Putin’s hardened mindset

One of the greatest challenges for the Biden administration and its allies thus far has been determining where Putin’s “red line” lies and how much they can continue to assist Ukraine without provoking the Russian president to widen the war, potentially placing NATO troops in harm’s way.

As the US prepared to send the $800 million aid package last week, Russia warned in a diplomatic note to the State Department that there would be “unpredictable consequences” if the US and allies continue to send in the heavier duty weaponry that Ukraine has sought.

Military experts interpreted the demarche as sign that Russia could contemplate targeting not only the weapons themselves as they arrive on Ukrainian soil, but also NATO supply convoys that ferry the weapons to Ukraine’s borders.

As world leaders try to glean what Putin is thinking – and how far he might go in trying to punish the nations that help Ukraine – Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer, who met face-to-face with Putin last week, said it was clear that Putin believes he’s winning the war and is operating “in his own war logic.”

“He thinks the war is necessary for security guarantees for the Russian Federation. He doesn’t trust the international community. He blames the Ukrainians for genocide in the Donbas region,” Nehammer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, referring to the fictional propaganda that Putin has spouted to justify his acts of aggression against Ukraine. “He is now in his world, but I think he knows what is going on now in Ukraine.”

Given the immense challenges of facing off against a leader with that warped and rigid mindset, Zelensky is trying to persuade world leaders to become more involved in the next phase by warning that they should be worried about the possible consequences of Putin’s next steps – including that he could use a tactical nuclear weapon because he has shown so little regard for human lives during his invasion of Ukraine.

Zelensky also issued a challenge to Ukraine’s allies when Tapper asked him whether the promise that world leaders make each year on Holocaust Remembrance Day – in the refrain “Never Again” – now rings hollow given that their efforts so far have failed to stop the atrocities that Russia has inflicted throughout the course of its unprovoked invasion.

“I don’t believe the world,” Zelensky said plainly when asked about that refrain. “Never again. Really, everybody is talking about this and yet, as you can see, not everyone has got the guts.”

Tensions are high on Ukraine's border with Russia. Here's what you ...

Kyiv, Ukraine CNN —

Tensions between Ukraine and Russia are at their highest in years, with a Russian troop build-up near the two nations’ borders spurring fears that Moscow could launch an invasion.

Ukraine has warned that Russia is trying to destabilize the country ahead of any planned military invasion. Western powers have repeatedly warned Russia against further aggressive moves against Ukraine.

The Kremlin denies it is planning to attack and argues that NATO support for Ukraine – including increased weapons supplies and military training – constitutes a growing threat on Russia’s western flank.

The picture is complicated – but here’s a breakdown of what we know.

What’s the situation on the border?

The United States and NATO have described the movements and concentrations of troops in and around Ukraine as “unusual.”

As many as 100,000 Russian troops have remained amassed at the Ukrainian border, despite warnings from US President Joe Biden and European leaders of serious consequences should Putin move ahead with an invasion. And US intelligence findings in December estimated that Russia could begin a military offensive in Ukraine “as soon as early 2022.”

Speaking alongside his Ukrainian counterpart in Kyiv on January 19, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Russia had “ratcheted up its threats and amassed nearly 100,000 forces on Ukraine’s border, which it could double on relatively short order.”

In late 2021, satellite photos revealed Russian hardware – including self-propelled guns, battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles – on the move at a training ground roughly 186 miles (300 km) from the border.

The Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s latest intelligence assessment says Russia has now deployed more than 127,000 troops near Ukraine, including some 21,000 air and sea personnel, transferred more Iskander operational-tactical missiles to the border, and increased its intelligence activity against the country.

The assessment came after three rounds of diplomatic talks between Russia and the West aimed at de-escalating the crisis failed to produce a resolution.

US officials have said a Russian invasion of Ukraine could happen at any point in the next month or two.

Many of Russia’s military bases are to the west of the vast country – the direction from which history suggests any threats are most likely to come. Russia’s Defense Ministry has said it is conducting “regular” winter military drills in its southern region, parts of which border Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions bordering Russia, an area known as Donbas, have been under the control of Russian-backed separatists since 2014. Russian forces are also present in the area, referred to by Ukraine as “temporarily occupied territories,” although Russia denies it.

The front lines of the conflict have barely moved in five years, but there are frequent small-scale clashes and sniper attacks. Russia was angered when Ukrainian forces deployed a Turkish-made combat drone for the first time in October to strike a position held by the pro-Russian separatists.

Russia also has forces numbering in the tens of thousands at its massive naval base in Crimea, the Ukrainian territory it annexed in 2014. The Crimean peninsula, which lies to the south of the rest of Ukraine, is now connected by a road bridge to mainland Russia.

Russian tanks take part in a military drills at Molkino training ground in the Krasnodar region, Russia, on December 14, 2021. AP

What’s the history of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia?

Tensions between Ukraine and Russia, both former Soviet states, escalated in late 2013 over a landmark political and trade deal with the European Union. After the pro-Russian then-President, Viktor Yanukovych, suspended the talks – reportedly under pressure from Moscow – weeks of protests in Kyiv erupted into violence.

Then, in March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, an autonomous peninsula in southern Ukraine with strong Russian loyalties, on the pretext that it was defending its interests and those of Russian-speaking citizens. First, thousands of Russian-speaking troops, dubbed “little green men” and later acknowledged by Moscow to be Russian soldiers, poured into the Crimean peninsula. Within days, Russia completed its annexation in a referendum that was slammed by Ukraine and most of the world as illegitimate.

Russian soldiers patrol the area surrounding the Ukrainian military unit in Perevalnoye, outside Simferopol, Crimea, on March 20, 2014. Filippo MonteforteAFP/Getty Images

Shortly afterwards, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions declared their independence from Kyiv, prompting months of heavy fighting. Despite Kyiv and Moscow signing a peace deal in Minsk in 2015, brokered by France and Germany, there have been repeated ceasefire violations.

According to UN figures, there have been more than 3,000 conflict-related civilian deaths in eastern Ukraine since March 2014.

The European Union and US have imposed a series of measures in response to Russia’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, including economic sanctions targeting individuals, entities and specific sectors of the Russian economy.

The Kremlin accuses Ukraine of stirring up tensions in the country’s east and of violating the Minsk ceasefire agreement.

Ukrainian soldiers prepare to support the withdrawal of troops on February 19, 2015 in Artemivsk, Ukraine. Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

What’s Russia’s view?

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied that Russia plans on invading Ukraine, insisting Russia does not pose a threat to anyone and that the country moving troops across its own territory should not be cause for alarm.

Moscow sees the growing support for Ukraine from NATO – in terms of weaponry, training and personnel – as a threat to its own security. It has also accused Ukraine of boosting its own troop numbers in preparation for an attempt to retake the Donbas region, an allegation Ukraine has denied.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for specific legal agreements that would rule out any further NATO expansion eastwards towards Russia’s borders, saying the West has not lived up to its previous verbal assurances.

Putin has also said that NATO deploying sophisticated weapons in Ukraine, such as missile systems, would be crossing a “red line” for Russia, amid concern in Moscow that Ukraine is being increasingly armed by NATO powers.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in November that weapons and military advisers were already being supplied to Ukraine by the US and other NATO member states. “And all this, of course, leads to a further aggravation of the situation on the border line,” he said.

If the US and its NATO allies do not change course in Ukraine, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned that Moscow has the “right to choose ways to ensure its legitimate security interests.”

What is Ukraine’s view?

Ukraine’s government insists that Moscow cannot prevent Kyiv from building closer ties with NATO if it chooses.

“Russia cannot stop Ukraine from getting closer with NATO and has no right to have any say in relevant discussions,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement to CNN, in response to Russian calls for NATO to halt its eastward expansion.

“Any Russian proposals to discuss with NATO or the US any so-called guarantees that the Alliance would not expand to the East are illegitimate,” it added.

Ukraine insists Russia is seeking to destabilize the country with the country’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently saying a coup plot, involving Ukrainians and Russians, had been uncovered.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba warned that a planned coup could be part of Russia’s plan ahead of a military invasion. “External military pressure goes hand in hand with domestic destabilization of the country,” he said.

Tensions between the two countries have been exacerbated by a deepening Ukrainian energy crisis that Kyiv believes Moscow has purposefully provoked.

At the same time, Zelensky’s government faces challenges on many fronts. The government’s popularity has stagnated amid multiple domestic political challenges, including a recent third wave of Covid-19 infections and a struggling economy.

Many people are also unhappy that the government hasn’t yet delivered on benefits it promised and ended the conflict in the country’s east. Anti-government protests have taken place in Kyiv.

In a January 19 video address, Zelensky urged the Ukrainian people to “calm down” amid mounting unease over a possible Russian invasion. “We are aware of everything, we are ready for everything,” he said, before adding that he “sincerely believes” this year “will pass without a war” with Russia.

Kuleba also sought to reassure Ukrainians who fear the US, its NATO allies and Russia could leave Kyiv out of discussions. “No decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine is a principle that we adhere to,” he said.

Pro-Russian fighters arrive on February 20, 2015 in Debaltseve, eastern Ukraine. Pierre Crom/Getty Images

What does NATO say?

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said “there will be a high price to pay for Russia” if it once again invades Ukraine, a NATO partner.

“We have a wide range of options: economic sanctions, financial sanctions, political restrictions,” said Stoltenberg, in a December 1 interview with CNN.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, NATO increased its defenses “with combat-ready battlegroups in the eastern part of the alliance, in the Baltic countries, in Latvia … but also in the Black Sea region,” Stoltenberg said.

Ukraine is not a NATO member, and therefore doesn’t have the same security guarantees as NATO members.

But Stoltenberg left the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member on the table, saying that Russia does not have the right to tell Ukraine that it cannot pursue NATO membership.

High-stakes talks between Russia and NATO in Brussels in mid-January were “not an easy discussion,” according to Stoltenberg, who added that “differences will not be easy to bridge.” However, NATO allies and Russia “expressed the need to resume dialogue,” he said.

What does the United States say?

President Joe Biden told Zelensky earlier this month in a phone call that the US and its allies “will respond decisively if Russia further invades Ukraine.”

But Biden appeared to undermine that message when he subsequently suggested during a White House news conference that a “minor incursion” by Russia would elicit a lesser response than a full-scale invasion of the country.

While Biden vowed harsh economic consequences on Russia should Putin send his troops over the border, including restricting its financial transitions in US dollars, he suggested Western nations were not in sync on what to do should a lesser violation occur. “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens,” he said.

His remarks prompted a swift White House clarification. “President Biden has been clear with the Russian President: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies,” press secretary Jen Psaki wrote in a statement.

One Ukrainian official told CNN he was “shocked that the US President Biden would distinguish between incursion and invasion” and suggest that a minor incursion would not trigger sanctions. “This gives the green light to Putin to enter Ukraine at his pleasure,” the official added.

The diplomatic kerfuffle came as Blinken prepared for further talks with European allies on the Ukraine-Russia crisis and to meet with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov. Blinken has previously warned Russia that “any renewed aggression can trigger serious consequences.”

Two defense officials told CNN on January 3 that the Defense Department has developed military options for Biden if he decides to increase capabilities in eastern Europe to further deter potential Russian aggression against Ukraine. Both officials emphasized that this part of routine planning the military does and that for now, the focus remains on diplomacy and potential economic sanctions.

US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov held meetings in Geneva on January 10, as the US sought to de-escalate the threat of a Russian advance.

The US delivered roughly $450 million in security assistance to Ukraine in 2021, the Pentagon said, including a package of small arms and ammunition in December. The Biden administration is now weighing new options, including providing more arms to Ukraine to resist a Russian occupation, a senior US official told CNN.

The Obama administration was taken by surprise when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 and backed an insurgency in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. US officials say they are determined not to be caught out by another Russian military operation.

“Our concern is that Russia may make a serious mistake of attempting to rehash what it undertook back in 2014, when it amassed forces along the border, crossed into sovereign Ukrainian territory and did so claiming falsely that it was provoked,” Blinken said late last year.

What other factors are at play?

Unrest in the former Soviet state of Kazakhstan was unwelcome news for Putin at the beginning of 2022.

Deadly protests in early January saw the Kazakh government resign, a state of emergency be declared and troops from a Russia-led military alliance deployed to help contain the unrest.

But experts have warned that Russia’s intervention is unlikely to be the end of the story. Blinken said that “once Russians are in your house, sometimes it is very difficult to get them to leave.”

Another issue revolves around energy supply. Ukraine views the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline – connecting Russian gas supplies directly to Germany – as a threat to its own security.

Nord Stream 2 is one of two pipelines that Russia has laid underwater in the Baltic Sea in addition to its traditional land-based pipeline network that runs through eastern Europe, including Ukraine.

Kyiv views the pipelines across Ukraine as an element of protection against an invasion by Russia, since any military action could potentially disrupt the vital flow of gas to Europe.

Analysts and US lawmakers have raised concerns that Nord Stream 2 will increase European dependence on Russian gas and could allow Moscow to selectively target countries such as Ukraine with energy cut-offs, without broader disruption to European supplies. Bypassing eastern European countries also means those nations would be deprived of lucrative transit fees Russia would otherwise pay.

In May 2021, the Biden administration waived sanctions on the company behind Nord Stream 2, effectively giving it the green light. US officials say the move was in the interest of US national security as it sought to rebuild frayed relations with Germany.

In November, the US imposed new sanctions on a Russian-linked entity and a vessel linked to Nord Stream 2. Some US senators have called for further sanctions to be imposed to prevent Russia using the pipeline as a weapon; Ukraine too has called for tougher measures.

Matthew Chance Laura Smith-Spark
Matthew Chance
Laura Smith-Spark

Bipartisan pressure mounts for US to do more in Ukraine amid ...

CNN —

After two weeks of unity surrounding the Biden administration’s swift and sweeping response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, patience is quickly thinning on Capitol Hill, with Republicans – and even some Democrats – challenging the administration to go further to help Ukrainian allies under attack.

The tension comes as the administration has exhausted some of its most obvious tools to rein in Russian aggression. Debilitating sanctions, humanitarian aid, military support and diplomatic efforts have all been used in conjunction with Europe in the lead-up to and opening days of Russia’s war, which slowed but has not stopped Moscow’s assault on Ukrainian cities and civilians. Now there are mostly hard choices ahead as the US weighs whether to take even further steps amid risks of escalating tensions between Russia and NATO.

On Thursday, lawmakers in multiple committee meetings criticized the Biden administration’s decision to reject a Polish offer to send fighter jets to Ukraine through the United States and a German air base. Several senators on the Foreign Relations Committee blasted the administration for not acting immediately to help facilitate the transfer, questioning how the administration had made that decision after initially appearing to back it earlier in the week.

“It’s not clear why we are standing in the way,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, told CNN about the US position that it would not be appropriate to send Poland planes so that it could transfer its own aircraft to Ukraine.

Inside the hearing, Shaheen pushed further, telling administration officials it was “disappointing” to see them so reluctant to lend air support.

“It’s coming across as indecision and bickering among members of the administration, which is not helpful to the cause and not helpful to the administration,” she said.

The public airing of frustrations underscores the tension over how to respond to a war that the US has flatly said it will not enter because Ukraine is not a member of NATO and doing so would risk a broader war between Russia and NATO. The US and other NATO countries have provided weapons like anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine, but the Biden administration has drawn the line at steps that some lawmakers have advocated for, such as a no-fly zone, which US officials warn could put the US military in the position of shooting down Russian planes.

One Democratic lawmaker told CNN that the response to date in Congress overall has been quite unified, especially given how the two parties in the House have been at each other’s throats for the past year. Now that the easy moves to punish Russia have been taken, the lawmaker noted, there’s going to be a natural tension between the White House and members of Congress, who don’t “really need to worry so much around the particulars of jets flying from Ramstein into Russian-controlled airspace.”

“It is the White House’s job to think seriously about that,” the lawmaker said.

Even some of the President’s closest allies have signaled they’d like to do more to help Ukraine.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during her weekly news conference Wednesday that while she wasn’t a military expert, she hoped the administration would find a way to help boost Ukraine’s air power after she spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Myself, when I see those tanks, that 40 miles of tanks, I’d like to take out those tanks. I mean, I think that having more planes might be useful, but I’m not a military strategist,” she said. “I hope that we can get to a place where the MiGS, which are the kinds of planes they have been depending on, can go to Ukraine, the F-16s especially if you have an excess of them can go to Poland.”

Another Democratic lawmaker said the push from Capitol Hill can be useful even if the steps aren’t supported by the Biden administration, noting that both the US and European countries have taken steps in response to Russia’s attacks that had seemed impossible just days before they happened: Germany froze the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project from Russia, Switzerland joined in with sanctions and several European countries have provided lethal aid to Ukraine.

“It’s always a little late, but it comes,” the lawmaker said. “Unless there’s an off-ramp here, this thing continues, and you start to see them move toward the things they weren’t going to consider.”

The Pentagon ramps up its position

The Pentagon said Wednesday that it opposed the transfer of the Polish fighter jets through the German air base because such a move would be “high risk,” warning that the intelligence community assessed it “may be mistaken as escalatory and could result in significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO.”

In a sign of the concern about the reaction on Capitol Hill, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley was making calls to a number of members of Congress on Thursday, according to Sen. Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, who said he hadn’t received a call from Milley but knew of others who were planning to speak to him.

“A number of members are talking to him today,” Cramer told CNN.

Lawmakers have questioned why the administration was drawing the line at providing Ukraine with fighter jets when the US is already giving Ukraine anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles that are being used against Russian forces.

In the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Sen. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, said the situation amounted to a “fiasco,” pressing Director of National intelligence Avril Haines about why the administration was pointing to the intelligence community as the reason it did not support the transfer of fighter jets.

“Here’s my opinion. You don’t have new intelligence. This is opinion, and in many cases, this is policy makers who are looking to intelligence community to provide them cover for their hesitancy,” Cotton said.

Over the last several days, members have come to see a split between Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken on whether the administration should approve a potential transfer of aircraft to Poland that would allow that country to send planes directly to Ukraine. Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on Foreign Relations, told CNN it was an “embarrassing” division.

“The first branch of government is almost unanimous on this. I don’t know who is against this up here, but it’s embarrassing for the second branch of government to be divided. This is a job for the President of the United States. He needs to step up. Knock heads together and get everybody in the same place,” Risch said. “We really need to do that. This is a matter of life and death.”

Risch said the Pentagon’s explanation that a jet transfer could be perceived as escalatory by the Russians is “nonsense.”

“We’re taking their yachts, we’re taking their vacation properties, we are giving the Ukrainians all the arms we can give them. It is foolish to say this is somehow going to aggravate them more. That’s nonsense,” he said.

Sen. Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, referred to comments Blinken had made on Sunday saying the US had given the “green light” to Poland to send the jets – questioning why things changed when Poland proposed giving them to the US through Germany.

“When the US publicly gives Poland a green light to transfer aircraft, and then changes their mind when the aircrafts have transferred off of our space, our geography, as a member of NATO as well, and we say that that would make it escalatory, but if Poland transferred, we didn’t consider it to be escalatory, then I draw this conclusion: This is a policy decision. It’s a policy decision made by the administration,” Burr said. “And I remind all of you at the table: Intelligence is never supposed to influence policy.”

The Pentagon has pushed swiftly back against efforts to send Poland replenishment planes, arguing that other weapons would be more strategic in deterring the Russians, but even those arguments have been met with stiff resistance.

“The administration just told us they think Ukraine needs other things more and would be more effective in the battlefield. In theory, that means that you have the United States government deciding what the military strategy should be for Ukraine,” said Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican. “Ukraine wants planes. They have made a decision.”

A week of building tension

Providing air support for Ukraine is just one of the latest sticking points to emerge. When the Biden administration released its first round of sanctions last month the day after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, many Republican and Democratic lawmakers said they did not go far enough, calling for removing Russia from the SWIFT international financial messaging system and a US ban on importing Russian oil.

Several days later – with emotional prodding from Zelensky in messages from Kyiv – the Biden administration acted in conjunction with European countries initially opposed to remove Russia from SWIFT. Earlier this week, the US acted on its own to ban Russian oil imports, which make up a smaller amount of US energy purchases than in Europe.

But that step came as members of Congress had also moved to pass legislation that would ban Russian oil, natural gas and coal imports to the US, in a legislative debate where the administration had intervened. Republicans argued the bill had been watered down before passing the House of Representatives. In the Senate, the bill faces a potentially arduous road where Republicans and Democrats alike have said they’d like to strengthen provisions in the House-passed legislation before approving it in their own chamber, potentially challenging the White House’s position once again.

It’s a delicate balance for many Democrats, who have watched the horrors in Ukraine unfold but are also trying to give the White House room to maneuver on an evolving and ever-complicated geopolitical threat.

“I generally trust the administration’s decision-making,” Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, told CNN. “I think this is a time when we should get behind the administration rather than constantly second-guessing.”

Lawmakers have noted the role that Zelensky has played in pushing the US and its allies in Europe to do more. Zelensky held a call with all members of Congress last Saturday, where he urged the US to ban Russian oil imports and to provide Ukraine with fighter jets. The Democratic lawmaker said the timing of Zelensky’s plea was masterful – made at the same time that many lawmakers were in their districts and attending pro-Ukraine rallies with constituents urging the US government to do something about the horrors of Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian civilians.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez on Thursday questioned the US assessment that the Ukrainians mainly need air defense capabilities right now.

“I don’t understand why we are not working expeditiously to facilitate planes to Ukraine,” the New Jersey Democrat said, asking the Pentagon official at the hearing, “So you are saying they don’t need airplanes?”

Lauren Fox Jeremy Herb
Lauren Fox
Jeremy Herb

China has expressed some openness to providing military and ...

CNN —

The US has information suggesting China has expressed some openness to providing Russia with requested military and financial assistance as part of its war on Ukraine, a Western official and a US diplomat told CNN, and is conveying what it knows to its NATO allies.

It is not yet clear whether China intends to provide Russia with that assistance, US officials familiar with the intelligence tell CNN. But during an intense, seven-hour meeting in Rome, a top aide to President Joe Biden warned his Chinese counterpart of “potential implications and consequences” for China should support for Russia be forthcoming, a senior administration official said.

The series of events underscored the growing concern among American officials at the budding partnership between Moscow and Beijing as Biden works to isolate and punish Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. While officials have said the Chinese President was alarmed at what has taken place since Russia invaded, there is little to indicate China is prepared to cut off its support entirely.

That leaves open a troubling possibility for American officials – that China may help prolong a bloody conflict that is increasingly killing civilians, while also cementing an authoritarian alliance in direct competition with the United States.

In a diplomatic cable, the US relayed to its allies in Europe and Asia that China had conveyed a willingness to assist Russia, which has asked for military support. The cable did not state definitively that assistance had been provided. One official also said the US warned in the cable that China would likely deny it was willing to provide assistance.

Among the assistance Russia requested was pre-packaged, non-perishable military food kits, known in the US as “meal, ready-to-eat,” or MREs, according to two sources familiar with the matter. The request underscores the basic logistical challenges that military analysts and officials say have stymied Russian progress in Ukraine – and raises questions about the fundamental readiness of the Russian military.

Forward-deployed units have routinely outstripped their supply convoys and open source reports have shown Russian troops breaking into grocery stores in search of food as the invasion has progressed. One of the sources suggested that food might be a request that China would be willing to meet, because it stops short of lethal assistance that would be seen as deeply provocative by the west.

The Chinese Communist Party leadership is not all in agreement regarding how to respond to Russia’s request for assistance, said one of the sources. Two officials said that China’s desire to avoid economic consequences may limit its appetite to help Russia. Officials separately told CNN that Chinese President Xi Jinping has been unnerved by how the war in Ukraine has reinvigorated the NATO alliance.

“There is real concern by some that their involvement could hurt economic relationships with the West, on which China relies,” said one of the sources.

Officials are also monitoring whether China provides some economic and diplomatic relief for Russia in other forms, like abstention votes at the United Nations.

In Rome, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and a US delegation who met with top Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi “raised directly and very clearly” concerns about Chinese “support to Russia in the wake of the invasion, and the implications that any such support would have for” China’s relationship with the US and partners around the world, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said.

“That includes allies and partners in Europe and the Indo-Pacific,” Price said at a State Department briefing Monday.

Concerns over China’s potential involvement in the war came as bombardments intensified in Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and Russia’s military campaign moved westward. Still, there remained signs that Russia’s armed forces are being hampered by Ukrainian fighters, underscoring Russia’s need for outside assistance.

Ukrainian forces have “effectively struck Russian logistics and sustainment capabilities” in the war, a senior US defense official told reporters on Monday. And the US does not believe Russia’s missile strikes on a Ukrainian military training center in western Ukraine will affect American efforts to provide weapons shipments to that country’s military.

Biden, who is working to rally international support for Ukraine, could travel to Europe soon to further consult with allies there, people familiar with the plans said, though as of Monday no trip had been finalized. His administration is also considering expediting the resettlement of Ukrainian refugees with US ties. The US President may face increased pressure to assist displaced Ukrainians soon – the nation’s President, Volodomyr Zelensky, plans to virtually address a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

US watching how China responds to Russian invasion of Ukraine

Heading into the meeting, US officials said they expected Yang to portray China as a neutral partner willing to help facilitate talks between the two sides aimed at bringing an end to hostilities. China has ramped up its diplomatic efforts in the past days, including in a call last week between Xi and the leaders of France and Germany meant to signal a willingness to adopt a more proactive role in the crisis.

The US has viewed those efforts somewhat skeptically, given China’s recent closeness with Russia. And over the weekend, US officials said they had information that Russia had asked China for military support, including drones, as its invasion advances more slowly than the Kremlin had expected. Both the Chinese and Russian governments publicly denied that the request had been made.

Sullivan told CNN on Sunday that China providing Russia with support is a “concern.”

“We also are watching closely to see the extent to which China actually does provide any form of support, material support or economic support, to Russia. It is a concern of ours. And we have communicated to Beijing that we will not stand by and allow any country to compensate Russia for its losses from the economic sanctions,” Sullivan said.

American officials say they believe Xi has been unsettled by Russia’s invasion and the performance of Russia’s military, which has experienced logistical and strategic setbacks since the invasion began more than two weeks ago. Watching from Beijing, Xi was caught off-guard that his own intelligence had not been able to predict what happened, even though the United States had been warning of an invasion for weeks, the officials said.

“They may not have understood the full extent of it,” Sullivan said on CNN on Sunday, “because it’s very possible that Putin lied to them, the same way that he lied to Europeans and others.”

The mostly global repudiation of Russia’s actions has caused China to weigh what damage it may suffer to its reputation by sticking with Russian President Vladimir Putin. And an economic rupture with Europe or the United States could damage a Chinese economy already growing more slowly than it has in 30 years.

For all those reasons, American officials believe now is a moment when engaging with China is an imperative as it determines how to proceed amid Russia’s aggression. US and Chinese officials have been in regular touch over the past several weeks, including in the lead-up to Russia’s invasion.

Price said the US is “watching very closely the extent to which the PRC” – another name for China – “or any other country, for that matter, provides any form of support, whether that’s material support, whether that’s economic support, whether that’s financial support to Russia.”

“Any such support from anywhere in the world would be of great concern to us,” he said.

He declined to comment specifically on reports about the diplomatic cable.

“We have communicated very clearly to Beijing that we won’t stand by. … We will not allow each country to compensate Russia for its losses,” he added.

Price characterized the Chinese response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine as somewhat “ambivalent.”

“I read a statement the other day from a PRC official calling the situation complicated. There’s nothing complicated about this. This is naked aggression,” he said.

Russian invasion of Ukraine tosses its relationship with China into tumult

Sullivan’s meeting Monday in Rome was originally meant as a follow-up to US President Joe Biden and Xi’s nearly three-hour virtual summit in November, which occurred at the same time American officials began warning of a massive buildup of Russian troops along Ukraine’s borders. On that call, Xi warned Biden that dividing the world into competing blocs would “inevitably bring disaster,” according to a Chinese readout.

Yet Russia’s invasion has done more to align the world in competing alliances than anything Biden had done with the aim of bolstering American relationships – an outcome American intelligence has found Xi was also unprepared for, believing instead that European economic interests would prevent countries there from imposing severe sanctions.

That dynamic has complicated a relationship that Xi and Putin declared had “no limits” in a lengthy document in February, when Putin visited Beijing for talks and to attend the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics. The US decision to stage a diplomatic boycott of the Games infuriated Xi, officials have said, making Putin’s presence in the stadium even more important.

The evolving response in China to the Russian invasion – from denying one would happen to avoiding public condemnation to presenting itself as a possible mediator – has been closely monitored by the White House, where the potential of a Moscow-Beijing alliance is viewed with heightened concern. CIA Director Bill Burns said last week the partnership was rooted in “a lot of very cold-blooded reasons.”

A new “axis” forming in opposition to American-led efforts at bolstering regional security has been in the works since before the war in Ukraine, including in the economic, political and military sectors. But the US does not view the partnership as fully developed, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told lawmakers last week.

“We do see it as not yet at the point where we are, for example, with allies,” Haines said. “They have not achieved that kind of level of cooperation, and we anticipate it is unlikely in the next five years that they will … become the way we are an ally with our other NATO members in that context.”

This story has been updated with additional reporting.

Kevin Liptak Natasha Bertrand Katie Bo Lillis Kylie Atwood Jennifer Hansler

Ukraine-Russia crisis: How soon might a war be and what would it ...

CNN —

The Ukraine crisis is the classic case of a known unknown: We know that we don’t know what Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to do as he amasses troops on the Ukrainian border.

So how imminent is the threat of a full-scale war? Some fears appear to have receded slightly following key talks that included Russian and Ukrainian officials. But the Pentagon also says the Russian troop buildup continues, and President Joe Biden told his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on a call Thursday that there was a distinct possibility Russia could launch an invasion in February, according to National Security Council Spokesperson Emily Horne.

Zelensky, however, restated his position that the threat from Russia remains “dangerous but ambiguous,” and it is not certain that an attack will take place, a senior Ukrainian official told CNN. Diplomatic efforts to defuse the crisis continue.

Taking that into account, here’s a look at how soon an invasion could happen and what it might look like.

How imminent is the threat of war really?

Analysts say Russia has a menu of options to attack at any moment it chooses, from shock-and-awe style air strikes to a ground invasion along a broad front. But while it has moved large amounts of military equipment into place in areas bordering Ukraine, not all the personnel needed for a ground operation are ready.

“At the moment, Russia has a lot of equipment pre-positioned along with its own border with Ukraine,” said Janes, a global agency for open-source defense intelligence. “(This) reduces the amount of time it requires for them to fill that area with more forces if they decide to fight because all of their heavy equipment’s there.”

Troops can be deployed in less than 72 hours, the agency said, since they need only be sent from their bases by plane or train across the country.

Russia is also in the process of deploying “quite a sizable formation” in Belarus from its Eastern Military District (EMD), which extends from Russia’s Pacific Coast to Siberia, Janes said. This formation, which Janes first detected moving west early this month, appears to include troops, logistics and communications resources as well as military equipment.

Russia has said the force is there for a Russian-Belarusian training exercise. But according to Janes, the troops “are essentially deploying as close to ready to go as you can be.”

Judging by what has been pre-positioned on Russian soil near Ukraine’s border, it considers Russia would require “maybe a maximum of two weeks of intense movement to bring all of the pieces into position” if it were to launch an invasion.

Whether Russia would want to put large numbers of boots on the ground remains unclear, particularly given the risk of casualties.

“The important thing to realize is that (Russia) is quite wary of what it calls contact warfare,” that is, forces fighting each on the ground, said Sam Cranny-Evans, a research analyst with the UK-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). “We’ve seen (this) in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, in Georgia and its covert deployments to Ukraine, that military losses actually do generate political pressure.”

Russia could instead opt to use its very long-range intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to target critical national infrastructure within Ukraine, such as military bases or even power plants and bridges, Cranny-Evans said. “The goal is to either stop a contact conflict from emerging or shape the battlefield so that when one does emerge, it’s much more favorable to the Russian forces,” he said.

US intelligence findings in December estimated that Russia could begin a military offensive in Ukraine “as soon as early 2022.” Since then, US officials have stuck to that line.

However, Ukrainian officials say the latest military intelligence suggests Russian forces are not yet prepared to stage a full-blown invasion into the country.

Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, a source close to the Ukrainian leadership said defense and intelligence chiefs were analyzing satellite images of Russian forces “from US and other western agencies” on an hourly basis, but were not yet seeing Russia “getting into combat mode, or positioning themselves to attack.”

Ukrainian intelligence assesses that the threat from Russia is “dangerous, but not imminent,” the source told CNN, and that if any Russian order to attack were given it would still take one to two weeks for Russian forces near the border to be ready.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba struck a similar note Wednesday, saying Russian troops could attack Ukraine at any time, as had been the case since 2014, but that its forces were not yet fully assembled. “We can say 100 times a day invasion is imminent, but this doesn’t change the situation on the ground,” he said.

Ukrainian soldiers are seen at a defensive trench position on the front line, 500 yards from separatists' positions, on January 21, 2022, in Ukraine's eastern Luhansk region. Timothy Fadek/Redux for CNN

“In terms of timelines, what we’ve seen up until now has been very overt signaling of the intention for the ability to invade Ukraine,” said Cranny-Evans. But the Russians are “taking their time” to get the final pieces into place in order to leave space for conversations which might allow them to achieve their political goals, such as installing a pro-Kremlin or even neutral leader in Kiev, without having to fight, he suggested.

If it does come to an invasion, he considers that Russia could move the necessary troops into place in the space of 72 hours. “It’s the forces that Russia already has in the Southern Military District on the borders with Ukraine that would probably take on the first bit of fighting,” Cranny-Evans said.

The Kremlin denies it is planning to attack and argues that it is NATO’s support for Ukraine – including increased weapons supplies and military training – that constitutes a growing threat on Russia’s western flank.

What else could influence the timeline for a potential invasion?

There may also be non-geopolitical factors to take into account, such as the weather and the upcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing.

If Putin orders his forces to invade, some analysts have speculated it would come before the spring thaw. “The best time to do it is winter because it’s going to be a mechanized advance and the mechanized divisions need hard frozen ground,” journalist and author Tim Marshall told CNN.

However, Cranny-Evans does not believe the weather would play a major role in any decision to invade.

“Russia has quite a long history of just fighting when it suits Russia. There’s no real indication that it’s bothered by mud,” he said, adding that Russian forces are experienced in operating on this terrain. “Armored fighting vehicles, particularly tracked ones, have generally very good mobility even on very soft soil, and it would have to be extremely degraded before they couldn’t move on it at all.” Ukraine has a pretty good road system, he added.

Russian T-72B3 tanks take part in drills at the Kadamovskiy firing range in the Rostov region in southern Russia, on January 12, 2022. AP

US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman suggested this week that the Winter Olympics beginning next week in China could influence Russia’s thinking. Putin plans to be there when the Games kick off and Chinese President Xi Jinping “would not be ecstatic if Putin chose that moment to invade Ukraine,” Sherman said.

Sherman added that she suspects that “even the people around” Putin don’t know what he will do with regards to Ukraine, but that the US sees “every indication that he is going to use military force, sometime perhaps now and (up to the) middle of February.”

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman noted on January 14 that United Nations members had adopted an Olympic Truce resolution which urges countries to “cease hostilities from seven days before the start of the Olympic Games until seven days after the end of the Paralympic Games.” That period would extend from January 28 to March 20.

What would an invasion look like?

It’s hard to predict – but recent history may give some clues. Russia has, after all, already invaded Ukrainian soil twice in the past decade.

When Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014 it did so on the pretext that it was defending its interests and those of Russian speakers. First, thousands of special-operations troops, dubbed “little green men” and later acknowledged by Moscow to be Russian soldiers, poured into the southern peninsula. Then, within days, Russia completed its annexation in a referendum that was slammed by Ukraine and most of the world as illegitimate.

Shortly afterwards, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions, known as the Donbas, declared their independence from Kiev, prompting months of heavy fighting. Russia’s de facto invasion of the Donbas region ended in 2015, when a ceasefire was signed, but Russia still props up the separatist movement there.

CNN global affairs analyst Michael Bociurkiw, a former spokesman for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, said this week he believed Putin might choose to invade through the Donbas because he “knows he will get away with it.” The area – heavily damaged in places by shelling – is wrongly regarded by some in the West as “a territory that is dispensable,” Bociurkiw said.

“Putin has been giving out hundreds of thousands of Russian passports to pro-Russian residents of the Donbas – now he has an even further pretext to go in and say they need to be protected,” he said.

At its most minor, Russian action could involve “normalizing” the country’s grip on the Donbas region by sending in Russian troops to lock down their control of the area, or even to slightly widen its buffer zone against the rest of Ukraine, said CNN’s International Security Editor Nick Paton Walsh.

Other analysts suggest that a narrow land corridor along the Azov Sea, through the southern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, could be easily achieved through an amphibious landing on the Azov Sea coast, said Paton Walsh – although such a corridor would be hard to defend.

Another option that’s been mooted is a wider invasion of the country, Paton Walsh added, but this would be costly for Russia in terms of Russian lives and Western sanctions.

Kuleba said Wednesday that his country was focused on “every scenario,” not just the threat of military invasion.

“We see a scenario of destabilization of Ukraine and that scenario is imminent, it’s already taking place – by spreading panic, by putting pressure on Ukraine’s financial system, by conducting cyber attacks against Ukraine,” the minister said.

Ukrainian soldiers operate in a destroyed industrial zone in Avdiivka, in Ukraine's Donetsk region, that is in some areas only about 50 yards from the front line, on January 23, 2022. Timothy Fadek/Redux for CNN

What forces does Russia have in place?

According to a Ukrainian Defense Ministry intelligence assessment shared with CNN last week, Russia had more than 106,000 ground personnel near Ukraine’s borders, with another 21,000 or so air and naval personnel on hand.

The assessment also said Russia supports more than 35,000 rebels in eastern Ukraine and has about 3,000 of its own military personnel based in rebel territory. Moscow denies having any forces in eastern Ukraine.

“Russia’s armed forces appear to have entered their highest level of activity and movement since the autumn-winter build-up began in late October,” said an analysis from Janes released Tuesday.

“Evidence indicates activity from all of Russia’s major regional commands, and Moscow has also signaled that it will move a large number of surface vessels, including six landing ship tanks (LSTs), a cruiser, and a destroyer, into the Mediterranean Sea, where they could easily continue into the Black Sea.”

A pair of Tu-95 strategic bombers are parked at an air base in Engels, near the Volga River in Russia, on January 24, 2022, in an image taken from video provided by the Russian Defense Ministry. AP

According to Janes, the force deployed into Belarus from Russia’s Eastern Military District is equipped with at least two Iskander-M battalions – the Iskander being a road-wheeled cruise missile launcher system – as well as long-range BM-27 multiple rocket launchers, and a large number of main battle tanks.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense has also announced the deployment of 12 Su-35S fighter jets, two battalions of S-400 air-defense systems, and a Pantsir-S air-defense battalion to Belarus as part of military exercises there, the analysis said.

Having forces in Belarus helps Russia greatly “because it forces the Ukrainians to defend another several hundred kilometers of border,” whether the Russians decide to invade or not, according to Janes. It could also allow the Russians to expand the geographic reach of their radars and electronic warfare systems and bolster their air defenses.

“Units from the Central, Southern, and Western Military Districts appear to be deploying additional equipment, including tanks, artillery, and communications systems, to established sites near the Ukrainian border,” the Janes analysis added.

What is Ukraine’s military capability?

Ukraine insists that its forces are well prepared. Western allies, including the United States and United Kingdom, have stepped up their provision of military training, equipment and supplies to Ukraine as tensions with Russia have risen.

An adviser to Ukraine’s President Zelensky told CNN on Wednesday that the US was now providing “an unprecedented level of support” to Ukraine, both military and diplomatic.

Ukrainian soldiers patrol on the frontline in Zolote, Ukraine, on January 20, 2022. Wolfgang Schwan/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

“Our army is very well prepared. And you have a population which is very well motivated,” Ukraine’s Ambassador to Japan Sergiy Korsunsky said this week.

Meanwhile, Zelensky has repeatedly urged Ukrainians to remain calm and not panic.

According to Cranny-Evans, Ukraine’s armed forces are in a much better place than they were in 2014 and 2015, when their state of readiness was very low.

“Ukrainian armed forces have really pushed hard for their modernization, they’ve done what they’ve can with the domestic industry to improve their capabilities and harden their defenses,” he said. “But ultimately, a lot of what they have achieved is tactical in nature. The way in which the Russians fight is very much a level above that.”

While nobody really thinks the Ukrainians could stop the Russians, “they’ve definitely raised the potential costs for the Russian forces,” Cranny-Evans added.

“They have the means to really potentially drag Russia into quite a bloody conflict. It’s just whether or not Russia can achieve its goals without having to do that.”

The ball, at the moment, remains in Putin’s court, as the Kremlin leader mulls over written responses by both the United States and NATO to Russia’s security demands. As Fiona Hill, who served as the National Security Council’s point person on Russia in the Trump administration recently observed in a New York Times op-ed, Putin has a knack for manufacturing crises, and can stir up trouble elsewhere around the globe if he wants to further confound Western policymakers.

Biden warns Putin US will react 'decisively and impose swift and ...

CNN —

President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that the US and its allies will respond “decisively and impose swift and severe costs” on Russia should Putin decide to invade Ukraine.

In a roughly hour-long phone call, the White House said Biden made clear to Putin what he would be risking with an invasion. A senior administration official told reporters following the call that the discussion was substantive but the US fears Russia may still launch a military attack anyway.

“President Biden was clear that, if Russia undertakes a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia. President Biden reiterated that a further Russian invasion of Ukraine would produce widespread human suffering and diminish Russia’s standing,” the White House said in a statement, adding Biden “was clear with President Putin that while the United States remains prepared to engage in diplomacy, in full coordination with our Allies and partners, we are equally prepared for other scenarios.”

The call between the two leaders comes hours after the US moved some of its forces out of Ukraine and ordered the evacuation of most of its embassy staff on Saturday as fears mount that a Russian invasion of the country could take place in the next few days. The moves were yet another sign that the US fears Putin could order an invasion at any time, just one day after Biden’s national security adviser warned Americans in Ukraine to leave and that military action could begin with an aerial bombardment that could kill civilians.

A senior administration official told reporters Saturday afternoon that the call between the two presidents was “professional and substantive,” but “there was no fundamental change in the dynamic that has been unfolding now for several weeks.”

“The two Presidents agreed that our teams will stay engaged in the days ahead,” the official told reporters after the call. “Russia may decide to proceed with military action anyway. Indeed, that is a distinct possibility.”

The official said that Biden reiterated the US’ ideas on how to enhance European security while also addressing some of Russia’s security concerns, but noted that it “remains unclear whether Russia is interested in pursuing its goals diplomatically.”

Asked whether Russia has made a decision to invade, the official said, “I think the honest answer to that question is we don’t have full visibility into President Putin’s decision making.”

“But you know, we are not basing our assessment of this on what the Russians say publicly,” the official continued. “We are basing his assessment on what we are seeing on the ground … which is a continued Russian buildup on the border with Ukraine, and no meaningful evidence of de-escalation, or really of any interest in de-escalation.”

Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov described the call Saturday as “balanced and businesslike,” but said the US and NATO had failed to address Russia’s main security concerns.

Ushakov said the conversation “took place in an atmosphere of hysteria about the supposedly imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine by American officials, everyone knows this.”

Ushakov added: “The pressure around the topic of the invasion was carried out in a coordinated manner and the hysteria has reached its climax.”

According to Ushakov, Biden told Putin he was “committed to the diplomatic path and had laid out a range of considerations that he sees as addressing many of Russia’s concerns.” Putin said the US and its allies had been “pumping up” Ukraine with new weaponry and encouraging provocations by Ukrainian forces in the Donbas region and in Crimea, Ushakov said.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had on Friday accused Western countries and the press of spreading a “large-scale disinformation campaign” about an allegedly impending Russian invasion of Ukraine “in order to divert attention from their own aggressive actions.”

“At the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, the global information space faced a media campaign unprecedented in its scale and sophistication, the purpose of which is to convince the world community that the Russian Federation is preparing an invasion of the territory of Ukraine,” the Ministry said in a statement published on its website.

All eyes on Ukraine

The US has estimated that Russia has more than 100,000 troops near the Ukraine border, with thousands added just this week, according to an administration official. National security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters on Friday that a Russian assault on Ukraine could begin soon, beginning with aerial bombings and missile attacks. He advised all Americans in Ukraine to depart the country for their own safety as quickly as possible.

“We obviously cannot predict the future, we don’t know exactly what is going to happen. But the risk is now high enough and the threat is now immediate enough that this is what prudence demands,” he said.

In Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, Mayor Vitali Klitschko outlined preparations the city is taking to safeguard “critical and social infrastructure facilities” in “the event of a possible emergency.”

In the statement issued on Telegram ahead of the weekend, Klitschko said, “Our efforts are aimed at preventing or overcoming both possible provocations and withstanding a military attack.”

The senior administration official on Saturday said that US will continue, and even increase, its support for Ukraine to help it defend itself should Russia continue to escalate its aggression.

“As to our plans going forward, I think President Biden and other officials have been clear, that should Russia continue down the path to escalation, the United States will continue to increase our support to Ukraine, to enable it to defend itself, and you know, that approach has not changed,” the official said.

The call on Saturday was the latest attempt at diplomacy between the two leaders aimed at de-escalating the situation. Putin and Biden had last spoke on the phone late last year. Prior to that, on December 7, they had negotiations via video-conference. The first face-to-face meeting between Putin and Biden as heads of state took place in Geneva in June 2021.

The Russian President has also engaged a series of Western leaders in talks that have so far appeared fruitless in defusing the situation.

The attempts at diplomacy with the Russians would continue, the senior administration official said.

“We remain committed to keeping the prospect of de-escalation through diplomacy alive,” the official said. “But we’re also clear eyed about the prospects of that, given the readily apparent steps Russia is taking on the ground in plain sight, right before our eyes. The stakes of this are too high not to give Russia every chance to avoid an action that we believe would be catastrophic. So as always, we continue along two paths.”

Biden, who is spending the weekend at Camp David, took part in a virtual meeting from the White House on Friday with leaders from Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, NATO, the European Commission and the European Council to discuss escalating tensions.

Along with the US, several other countries are calling for their citizens to leave Ukraine immediately as well. On Friday, a British diplomat told CNN that the British Embassy in Kyiv is “temporarily removing all nonessential staff and dependents” and “a core team will remain to continue with essential duties.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this version misquoted the White House statement on Biden’s call with Putin.

Natasha Bertrand Maegan Vazquez Jasmine Wright Donald Judd

Russia has requested military and economic assistance from China ...

Washington, DC CNN —

Russia has asked China for military support, including drones, as well as economic assistance for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, according to conversations CNN had with two US officials.

The requests came after the invasion, one of the officials said. That official declined to detail the Chinese reaction but indicated that the Chinese had responded. Both the Chinese and Russian governments publicly denied that the request happened.

Potential assistance from the Chinese would be a significant development in Russia’s invasion. It could upend the hold Ukrainian forces still have in the country as well as provide a counterweight to the harsh sanctions imposed on Russia’s economy.

News of Russia’s request came before White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan met with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, in Rome on Monday as part of a follow-up conversation to President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s virtual meeting last November, according to National Security Council spokesperson Emily Horne.

Sullivan told Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that China providing Russia with support is a “concern.”

“We also are watching closely to see the extent to which China actually does provide any form of support, material support or economic support, to Russia. It is a concern of ours. And we have communicated to Beijing that we will not stand by and allow any country to compensate Russia for its losses from the economic sanctions,” Sullivan said.

Russia expanded its offensive to western Ukraine on Sunday, firing missiles near the city of Lviv and hitting a large military base close to the Polish border, reportedly killing dozens of people and drawing the war closer to the borders of a NATO country.

The attack came the day after the Kremlin threatened to attack Western weapons shipments to Ukraine.

Governments issue denials

China says it was not asked by Russia for military equipment or other assistance. When asked by CNN about the reporting, Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the US, said in a statement, “I’ve never heard of that.”

Liu expressed concern for “the Ukraine situation” – calling it “indeed disconcerting” – and said China has and will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.

Liu said: “The high priority now is to prevent the tense situation from escalating or even getting out of control. … China calls for exercising utmost restraint and preventing a massive humanitarian crisis.”

And Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Zhao Lijian accused the US on Monday of “peddling disinformation.”

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on Monday dismissed the allegations as well, saying, “Russia has an independent potential to continue the operation.”

When further pressed by journalists to confirm there wasn’t such a request from the Russian side, Peskov said: “No, there wasn’t.”

Washington critical of Beijing response

US officials, including White House press secretary Jen Psaki, have been increasingly critical of Beijing’s response to Russia’s war in Ukraine. While Beijing has seemingly tried to strike a neutral tone on the international stage, Chinese domestic media coverage has promoted Russian disinformation campaigns and described the war as a “special military operation.” Psaki also tweeted Wednesday that Beijing “has seemingly endorsed” false Russian claims that the US is developing chemical weapons in Ukraine.

“Our assessment right now is that (China is) abiding by the requirements that have been put in place, but we would continue to encourage any country to think a lot about what place they want to – what role they want to play – in history as we all look back,” Psaki said during a news conference Wednesday.

Sullivan told Bash on Sunday that the US has made it clear to Beijing that there will “absolutely be consequences” for “large-scale” efforts to give the Kremlin a workaround to US sanctions.

“We will not allow that to go forward and allow there to be a lifeline to Russia from these economic sanctions from any country anywhere in the world,” he said.

Still, Sullivan said that while the US believes “China, in fact, was aware before the invasion took place that Vladimir Putin was planning something, they may not have understood the full extent of it.”

“Because it’s very possible that Putin lied to them the same way that he lied to Europeans and others,” Sullivan told Bash.

While US officials have made note that China has been abiding by the sanctions the US and its allies have imposed against Russia, Biden said recently he was not prepared to discuss his efforts to pressure China to help isolate Russia over the Kremlin’s bloody war.

“I’m not prepared to comment on that at the moment,” Biden told reporters at the White House in February.

Biden has often talked about his conversations with Xi, frequently recalling the dozens of hours the two leaders spent with each other when they were serving as their country’s vice presidents. In his speeches, Biden often likes to recall dining with Xi on the Tibetan Plateau and describing the United States in one word: “possibilities.”

During the face-to-face meeting in Rome, Sullivan and Yang will also discuss issues that Biden and Xi went over during their virtual call last year, sources familiar with the matter say. The sources added that this meeting has been in the works for some time, and they don’t expect any concrete outcomes from it.

Since taking office, Biden has stressed he believes the US is at an inflection point in its history and must show the world democracies can compete with autocratic regimes like China’s.

“To compete for the best jobs of the future, we also need to level the playing field with China and other competitors,” Biden said at his first State of the Union address earlier this month.

During the three-hour summit with his Chinese counterpart roughly four months ago, Biden raised concerns about human rights, Chinese aggression toward Taiwan and trade issues. The Biden administration has been clear managing competition with China is a long-term national security and economic priority of the United States.

“How the United States, Europe, and Asia work together to secure the peace and defend our shared values and advance our prosperity across the Pacific will be among the most consequential efforts we undertake,” Biden said at the Munich security conference last year.

While in Rome, Sullivan is also expected to meet with Luigi Mattiolo, diplomatic adviser to the Italian Prime Minister; the two men will discuss ongoing efforts to respond to the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, according to Horne’s statement.

Nuclear escalation threat

Meanwhile, Sullivan told CNN on Sunday that while the Biden administration is “concerned about the possibility of escalation,” with respect to Putin’s nuclear posture, “we have not seen anything that would require us to change our nuclear posture at this time.”

“We are watching this extremely closely, and obviously, the escalation risk with a nuclear power is severe, and it is a different kind of conflict than other conflicts the American people have seen over the years,” he said on “State of the Union.”

Still, Sullivan stood by the administration’s decision to reject a Polish offer to transfer fighter jets to Ukraine through the United States and a German air base.

“The President listened to the assessment of his intelligence community, he listened to the advice of his military commanders, he consulted his NATO allies, and he ultimately determined that the risk-benefit analysis of flying planes from NATO bases into contested airspace over Ukraine did not make sense, was not something that he would authorize,” he said, adding the US is focused on providing “other anti-air systems that could help the Ukrainians make progress in terms of dealing with the threat that is coming from the air from the Russian side.”

The national security adviser also reiterated comments from Biden earlier this week that Russia “would pay a severe price” if they chose to use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, adding that Russia’s accusations against Ukraine preparing to deploy chemical weapons “is a tell, a tell that they themselves may be preparing to do so and then trying to pin the blame on someone else– that’s a classic page out of the Russian playbook.”

This story has been updated with additional reaction and background information.

Jim Sciutto Sam Fossum Kaitlan Collins Kylie Atwood

Finland and Sweden want to join NATO. Here's how it works and ...

CNN —

Finland and Sweden are poised to end decades of neutrality by joining NATO, a dramatic evolution in European security and geopolitics sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The two Nordic nations had long kept the military alliance at an arm’s length, even while eying Russia to their east with caution.

But Moscow’s assault on Ukraine has sparked renewed security concern across the region, and the leaders of each country have signaled their desire to join the bloc after more than 75 years of military non-alignment.

Here’s what you need to know about how the war in Ukraine caused the shift, and what comes next.

What’s happened so far?

Finnish leaders announced their intentions to join NATO on Thursday, and formally presented that desire at a press conference on Sunday.

Sweden’s Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson followed suit on Monday, confirming her government had decided to begin the process of seeking NATO membership.

Finland’s move to seek to join the alliance requires a vote in parliament, but given the support of the ruling government, that hurdle is expected to be passed comfortably. In Sweden, the move was debated in parliament on Monday and there is broad support for joining NATO, but the government does not need parliamentary consent to move ahead.

“When we look at Russia, we see a very different kind of Russia today than we saw just a few months ago,” Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said Sunday. “Everything has changed when Russia attacked Ukraine. And I personally think that we cannot trust anymore there will be a peaceful future next to Russia.”

Joining NATO is “an act of peace [so] that there will never again be war in Finland in the future,” Marin said.

Her Swedish counterpart, Andersson, said Monday: “To ensure the safety of Swedish people, the best way forward is to join NATO together with Finland.”

When asked when exactly the country will hand in the application, she said it could it happen either Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday this week, adding that it needs to be done in coordination with Finland.

The announcements were met with support from leaders in almost all NATO nations. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters “the United States would strongly support the NATO application by either Sweden or Finland should they choose to formally apply to the alliance. We will respect whatever decision they make.”

Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin and its President Sauli Niinistö announced their decision to join NATO on Sunday. Heikki Saukkomaa/Lehtikuva/AFP/Getty Images

What comes next?

NATO has what it calls an “open door policy” on new members – any European country can request to join, so long as they meet certain criteria and all existing members agree.

A country does not technically “apply” to join; Article 10 of its founding treaty states that, once a nation has expressed interest, the existing member states “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty … to accede.”

NATO diplomats told Reuters that ratification of new members could take a year, as the legislatures of all 30 current members must approve new applicants.

Both Finland and Sweden already meet many of the requirements for membership, which include having a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy; treating minority populations fairly; committing to resolve conflicts peacefully; the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and committing to democratic civil-military relations and institutions.

The process may not be without hurdles; Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday he was not looking at both countries joining NATO “positively,” accusing them of housing Kurdish “terrorist organizations.”

Finnish President Sauli Niinistö told CNN he was “confused” by those comments on Sunday, claiming Erdogan had been far more receptive to the idea in a telephone conversation between the two leaders a month ago.

“I think that what we need now is a very clear answer. I’m prepared to have a new discussion with President Erdogan about the problems he has raised,” Niinistö said.

But NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg attempted to allay concerns about Turkey’s stance, saying Sunday the country “has made it clear that their intention is not to block membership.” Blinken also said Sunday he was “very confident that we will reach consensus.”

In the meantime, both countries will have to rely on its current allies and partners for security guarantees, rather than Article 5 – the clause which states an attack against one NATO nation is an attack against all, and which triggers a collective response in that event.

Sweden and Finland have received assurances of support from the United States and Germany should they come under attack, while British Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed mutual security agreements with his Finnish and Swedish counterparts last week.

What does NATO membership entail?

The reason most countries join NATO is because of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which stipulates that all signatories consider an attack on one an attack against all.

Article 5 has been a cornerstone of the alliance since NATO was founded in 1949 as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

The point of the treaty, and Article 5 specifically, was to deter the Soviets from attacking liberal democracies that lacked military strength. Article 5 guarantees that the resources of the whole alliance – including the massive US military – can be used to protect any single member nation, such as smaller countries who would be defenseless without their allies. Iceland, for example, has no standing army.

Former Swedish leader Carl Bildt told CNN he doesn’t see new big military bases being built in either country should they join NATO. He said that joining the alliance would likely mean more joint military training and planning between Finland, Sweden and NATO’s 30 current members. Swedish and Finnish forces could also participate in other NATO operations around the globe, such as those in the Baltic states, where several bases have multinational troops.

“There’s going to be preparations for contingencies as part of deterring any adventures that the Russians might be thinking of,” Bildt said. “The actual change is going to be fairly limited.”

Why haven’t Finland and Sweden already joined NATO?

While other Nordic countries like Norway, Denmark and Iceland were original members of the alliance, Sweden and Finland did not join the pact for historic and geopolitical reasons.

Both Finland, which declared independence from Russia in 1917 after the Bolshevik revolution, and Sweden adopted neutral foreign policy stances during the Cold War, refusing to align with the Soviet Union or the United States.

Sweden’s policy of neutrality goes back to the early 1800s, when the country steadfastly stayed out of European conflicts. Its King Gustav XIV formally adopted that neutral status in 1834, according to NATO, and Sweden declared a policy of “non-belligerency” during World War II – allowing Nazi troops to pass through its land into Finland, while also accepting Jewish refugees.

Sweden opted to maintain its neutral status after the war ended.

Finland’s neutrality has historically proved more difficult, as it shared a massive border with an authoritarian superpower.

A Finno-Soviet treaty known as the Agreement of Friendship, signed in 1948 and extended on occasion through the decades, prohibited Finland from joining any military alliance considered hostile to the USSR, or from allowing a Western attack through Finnish territory.

To keep the peace, Finns adopted a process some call “Finlandization,” in which leaders acceded to Soviet demands from time to time. The term was coined during the Cold War and has been applied to other countries in which a superpower exerts control over smaller neighboring states.

Video Ad Feedback Fmr. Finnish PM: 'Finlandization' not an answer for Ukraine 10:01 - Source: CNN

Both countries’ balancing acts effectively ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Sweden and Finland joined the European Union together in 1995 and gradually aligned their defense policies with the West, while still avoiding joining NATO outright.

Each country had different reasons for avoiding signing up for NATO pact in tandem with the EU.

For Finland, it was more geopolitical. The threat for Russia is more tangible thanks to the two countries’ shared 830-mile border.

“Finland has been the exposed country, and we’ve been the protected country,” Bildt told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in a joint interview alongside former Finnish prime minister Alexander Stubb.

While an independent nation, Sweden’s geography puts it in the same “strategic environment” as its liberal democratic neighbors, Bildt said. Finland and Sweden have enjoyed a close partnership for decades, with Stockholm viewing its decision to refrain from joining NATO as a way to help keep the heat off Helsinki. Now, however, Sweden is likely to follow Finland’s lead.

“We share the idea that close cooperation will benefit both of us,” current Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said at a news conference last month alongside her Finnish counterpart Marin.

How Russia’s invasion changed everything

Sweden and Finland have been inching towards the West on security issues since joining the EU in 1995, shortly after the end of the Cold War. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dramatically accelerated that process, pushing Sweden and Finland to pull the trigger on NATO membership.

If the Kremlin was willing to invade Ukraine – a country with 44 million people, a GDP of about $516 million, and an armed forces of 200,000 active troops – what would stop Putin from invading smaller countries like Finland in Sweden?

“Everything changed when Russia invaded Ukraine,” Finnish premier Marin said in April. “People’s mindset in Finland, also in Sweden changed and shifted very dramatically.”

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February, public support for joining NATO in Finland has leaped from around 30% to nearly 80% in some polls. The majority of Swedes also approve of their country joining the alliance, according to opinion polls there.

“Our NATO membership was decided on the 24th of February, at 5 o’clock in the morning, when Putin and Russia attacked Ukraine” former Finnish leader Stubb told CNN. “Finland and Sweden would not have joined without this attack.”

Officials in both Sweden and Finland have also expressed frustration that, in the lead-up to the war in Ukraine, Russia attempted to demand security guarantees from NATO that the alliance stop expanding eastward. Such a concession, however, would have effectively given Russia the power to dictate the foreign policies of its neighbors by taking away their ability to choose their own allies and partners.

Russia, Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist told CNN, wants “real influence in the security choices in Europe.”

“They want an influence over the countries in the neighborhood. And that is totally unacceptable for Sweden.”

All NATO members must agree to adopt a new nation. Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

How has Russia reacted?

Russia lambasted the decision by Finland and Sweden. Its deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Monday that the move would be a “mistake” with “far-reaching consequences,” according to state news agency TASS.

That followed similar threats from high-ranking Moscow officials. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that “NATO expansion does not make the world more stable and secure” after the announcement. He added that Russia’s reaction would depend on “how far and how close to our borders the military infrastructure will move.”

Russia currently shares about 755 miles of land border with five NATO members, according to the alliance. Finland’s accession would mean that a nation with which Russia shares an 830-mile border would become formally militarily aligned with the United States.

The addition of Finland and Sweden would also benefit the alliance, which would frustrate Russia. Both are serious military powers, despite their small populations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday that “Russia has no problems with these states,” adding that the expansion of NATO “does not pose a direct threat to Russia.”

“But the expansion of military infrastructure into this territory will certainly cause our response,” he added at the Collective Security Treaty Organization in Moscow. “We will see what it will be based on the threats that will be created for us.”

However, Bildt and Stubb, the former Swedish and Finnish premiers, believe that so far, Russia’s response has been relatively muted.

“The Kremlin sees Finnish and Swedish NATO membership as a Nordic solution, and in that sense, not a radical threat,” said Stubb. “We’re not too worried.”

Stubb and Bildt said they believe Moscow ultimately sees the two countries as reliable neighbors, despite their decision to join a Washington-backed alliance.

“The fact that Finland and Sweden are part of the West doesn’t come as a surprise,” said Bildt.

Why does Russia loathe NATO?

Putin sees the alliance as a bulwark aimed at Russia, despite the fact that it had spent much of the post-Soviet years focusing on issues like terrorism and peacekeeping.

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, he made clear his belief that NATO had edged too close to Russia and should be stripped back to its borders of the 1990s, before some countries that either neighbor Russia or were ex-Soviet states joined the military alliance.

Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, and its status as a NATO partner – seen as a step on the way to eventual full membership – was one of the numerous grievances Putin cited in an attempt to justify his country’s invasion of its neighbor.

The irony is that the war in Ukraine has, effectively, given NATO a new purpose.

“Article 5 is back in the game, and people understand that we need NATO because of a potential Russian threat,” Stubb said in an interview with CNN before the invasion.

This story has been corrected to reflect that Sweden’s government does not need parliament’s consent to pursue membership in NATO.