by THE TRIBUNE staff

Is Russia really preparing another military adventure into Ukraine? And what would be its goals?

Judging from the sharp uptick in emotional language coming from Moscow, Kyiv, Washington, Brussels, and other power centres in recent days, all possibilities must be taken seriously.

So should the major Russian troop build-up along Ukraine’s eastern border. Kremlin-backed Russian separatists already control parts of the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine, and of course Moscow famously annexed Crimea in 2014.

“The crisis has the potential to escalate into a pan-European war, if not even a world one,” said Pavel Felgenhauer, a well-known independent Russian military analyst, in a recent interview with Russia’s Rosbalt media service.

“Will it happen or not? Let us wait and see. In the West, they don’t know what to do about it.”

Given realities on the ground, such grim assessments may have a place.

And yet the Kremlin may simply be continuing to use menacing tactics to attract attention abroad and try to rally some support at home.

RUSSIAN TROOP BUILDUP

Russia has amassed 4,000 troops along the Ukrainian border in recent weeks and days, according to western defence assessments, relying on satellite imagery.

Last week, United States General Tod Wolters raised the U.S. European Command (EUCOM)’s watch level for Ukraine from “possible crisis” to “potential imminent crisis” — the highest level.

This came as U.S. President Joe Biden held his first phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, on April 3.

“President Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea,” the White House said in a readout of Biden’s call with Zelensky.

“He emphasised his administration’s commitment to revitalise our strategic partnership in support of President Zelensky’s plan to tackle corruption and implement a reform agenda based on our shared democratic values that delivers justice, security, and prosperity to the people of Ukraine,” said the U.S. account.

This comes amid renewed skirmishes between Ukrainian forces and Kremlin-backed separatists in Ukraine’s Donbass region. That war has already killed roughly 15,000 people and led to a mass exodus of civilians.

EU Foreign Policy chief Josep Borrell said on Twitter on April 4 that he had spoken with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and added that he was “following with severe concern the Russian military activity surrounding Ukraine.”

Ukraine last week accused Russia of preparing for a full-scale war.

The Russian build-up has been accompanied by loud statements from Moscow, which claims that it is Kyiv which is preparing for an assault on the unrecognised Moscow-backed statelets.

Long-time Russian foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in unusually blunt language, said any new escalation in the conflict could result in the “destruction” of Ukraine, a country of more than 40 million.

On Friday, Russia also threatened “extra measures” if NATO sends troops to Ukraine. Russian TV paraded images of military helicopters and tanks near Ukraine’s border.

WHAT WOULD BE THE KREMLIN’S OBJECTIVES?

If Russia were indeed to use regular troops and formally invade eastern Ukraine, rather than use proxies and unofficial units as it did in Crimea and in the Donbass before, or its signature “plausible deniability” doctrine where it claims naivete for obvious but unofficial intervention, it would likely face no major resistance.

This is because the Kremlin already controls these areas, albeit unofficially.

The real losers might turn out to be the EU, whose foreign policy chief Borrell has promised Kyiv its full support but lacks any military force of its own.

As well as the new Biden administration in the United States, which, lacking realistic measures other than more sanctions, would have no obvious or reasonable recourse to retaliate.

Such traps are textbook Kremlin-style tactics, said one veteran European diplomat.

“It would be like invading something you already control, and embarrassing your adversary in the process,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“Then you claim victory, which in fact is a victory only in name, but with no real change on the ground, thereby fomenting chaos and finger-pointing in the U.S. and the E.U.”, the diplomat continued.

The timing would be even more fortuitous as the Biden administration has not had the chance to get its own foreign policy team firmly in place.

Aside from embarrassment value, the Kremlin would likely be trying to rally support at home as President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party seems more vulnerable than ever. His own ratings are plummeting. And he faces parliamentary elections later this year.

Though previous parliamentary votes have been a cinch for Putin’s Kremlin, using a combination of a solid but unknown real core base of support, as well as various forms of administrative resources, overt pressure and an increasingly cynical public, there are reasons these elections might be trickier.

Last summer’s weeks of anti-government demonstrations in Siberia and the far east of Russia, long a region more sceptical of the central authorities, clearly caught the Kremlin off-guard.

The botched poisoning of activist Alexei Navalny was a PR disaster at home and abroad.

Living standards, though still far higher than in the Soviet period, are relatively stagnant, and opinion polls show a public widely infuriated with corruption.

LARGER RUSSIAN MILITARY SHOWBOATING

The Ukraine-Russia intrigue comes amid a flurry of Kremlin military assertiveness, perhaps to deflect attention from domestic problems, and perhaps to demand recognition from the U.S. and NATO not to forget that it is still a major power.

This projection of power is especially visible in the Russian arctic, where coastal military installations have seen sudden upgrades. Russia has also used the region as a testing ground for new missile technologies, including ones with nuclear warhead carrying capabilities.

Senior U.S. officials said late last year that Russia’s military was testing new multi-megaton torpedo and missile technologies. The goal, they said, was to develop the ability to swamp U.S. coastal cities with attacks that would create ferocious tsunamis, thereby rendering entire regions uninhabitable for decades to come.