The Russians Are Coming: Lithuania's Operation Lightning Strike

[Kyle Reese]

https://youtu.be/Xd3dM2IuMc8

[5pins]

Vice new has been doing a great job covering the going on’s there.

This chart should terrify Russia's neighbors. (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/11/8764887/russia-nato-chart)




Today's Russia is much more hostile: it fought a war with Georgia in 2008, invaded Crimea in 2014, and is currently fighting in eastern Ukraine. There is a question that is increasingly asked in military policy circles in Washington and in much of Europe: what if Russia made some provocation in one of the tiny NATO states along its border? Would NATO come to its defense, as it has pledged to do? Or would the promise of Article V turn out to be a lie?

If it were up to European publics, the answer is a resounding "maybe, but maybe not."


https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ODg4FgzXG07cKjsaiHRl5XI_jj4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3780596/CHKyqENUUAAU-Al.png


Rather, they warn that Russia could repeat the so-called "hybrid war" provocations it deployed in the early stages of the Ukraine crisis: cyberattacks, propaganda meant to stir up panic or protests, armed "vigilantes," or even unmarked special forces shipped in to provoke small-scale violence. Such measures exist, by design, in a gray area between war and not-war.

[ford.304]

Damn, so essentially people think we should dissolve NATO then?

I care a lot more about this stuff than chasing terrorists into the mountains. We have agreements with these people.

[Josh Runkle]

I've been following this for a while with Russia. I'm definitely worried about what our future with Russia will look like in 5-7 years.

[5pins]

I wonder if the third world war has started and we just don’t know it yet.

[Drang]

Some interesting numbers in there; in some cases, the unstated "Not Sure" or "No response" is the real surprise.
Not sure what to make of the fact that Poland and Spain are even on the "Yes".
Not surprised that the Germans aren't interested in fighting Russia.

[RoyGBiv]

Those who forget or ignore history...

[Jeep]

I figure that at least a third of the Germans would be against fighting even if Germany is invaded. In many ways it is a dying country with a lot of citizens who just want to live out their lives in comfort.

Most of Europe is heading that way, and so are we. Not good for countries who are depending on NATO's promises. On the (semi) bright side, Russia is a dying country too as its population heads down. Politically difficult to go to war to conquer the Baltics for some reason or other when your conscripts are their mothers' only living relatives.

Of course, in the longer term that leaves the issue of who is going to fill the vacuum left by Russia's decline. Russia is a problem under Putin, but a weak Russia in which a large percentage of the population is just living out its days, (like so many Germans and other Western Europeans now) is going to be an even bigger problem.

[Kyle Reese]

On the (semi) bright side, Russia is a dying country too as its population heads down. Politically difficult to go to war to conquer the Baltics for some reason or other when your conscripts are their mothers' only living relatives.



It's not outside the realm of possibility for Putin to be deposed should he initiate a disastrous campaign against the Baltic states or Poland, where Russian forces incur heavy and sustained losses. No matter how much he wants to be I.Stalin V 2.0, he's not. The Russians also don't have an NKVD to keep the conscripts in line, either.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Germany is no surprise. You might remember in Gulf War I, Turkey (who was still an ally - not now) asked for some German forces to protect them if the war spread over their border. Germany refused.

Since the Europeans have dramatically reduced their armed forces to be insignificant, what do we expect? Not in Nato, but Swedish editorials pointed out that Sweden was almost defenseless nowadays. That's ok with lots of folks.

[5pins]

A timely and relevant article in the New York Times today.

U.S. Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in East Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/us-poised-to-put-heavy-weaponry-in-east-europe.html?smid=tw-bna)
RIGA, Latvia — In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is poised to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, American and allied officials say.

[Jeep]

Germany is no surprise. You might remember in Gulf War I, Turkey (who was still an ally - not now) asked for some German forces to protect them if the war spread over their border. Germany refused.

Since the Europeans have dramatically reduced their armed forces to be insignificant, what do we expect? Not in Nato, but Swedish editorials pointed out that Sweden was almost defenseless nowadays. That's ok with lots of folks.

Sweden's biggest problem is internal, with a huge percentage of non-integrated Moslem immigrants, who mainly exist on welfare, and a political class that insists on bringing in as many as possible.

Slow immigration can work well. Massive and extremely rapid immigration historically has often led to disaster (as you turn your country into Sri Lanka). Massive and extremely rapid immigration where you force the existing populace to support the immigrants and do little to see that the immigrants get jobs or integrate into existing structures is pretty much brain dead--but that is what Sweden's political class continues to do. Who needs to worry about the Russians when your own politicians are doing their best to create destablizing internal disharmony?

[ford.304]

Since the Europeans have dramatically reduced their armed forces to be insignificant, what do we expect? Not in Nato, but Swedish editorials pointed out that Sweden was almost defenseless nowadays. That's ok with lots of folks.

People are convinced that new diplomacy is too good, that big powers will never fight wars again. That we're too interconnected, making too much money on international trade.

Never mind that that is exactly what everyone said during the long peace between the Napoleonic wars and WW1.

[MDS]

A timely and relevant article in the New York Times today.

U.S. Poised to Put Heavy Weaponry in East Europe (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/world/europe/us-poised-to-put-heavy-weaponry-in-east-europe.html?smid=tw-bna)

First, let's acknowledge that Putin is a scary smart dude, matched by his ruthlessness. OPEC dealt him a blow by allowing oil prices to drop and stay low, this has hurt Russia's bargaining position and slowed their plans. Putin wisely stays relaxed and scales back his pushing... which seems to have exacerbated internal struggles in the Kremlin. The public still doesn't know, for example, why Putin disappeared for ten days a while back, but you can bet it wasn't for a yoga-spa vacation. It looks like Putin is coming out on top of these struggles, though it's hard to tell from open sources what's up in the Kremlin in the best of times, and a lot will depend on the outcome and how secure the winner is in his position. More secure == more bold, which is probably bad for US hegemony.

Either way, Russia can't ignore these NATO/US moves, any more than we could ignore China putting heavy weapons in Mexico or Cuba. And when oil prices go back up, Russia will suddenly have a lot more bargaining chips, e.g., with Turkey.

Speaking of Turkey, the whole ME situation is tied into this as well. I mean, we're in a position where ISIS looks like the lesser evil in Syria, where the GCC is going through a crucible in Yemen and getting a PhD in Putting Bickering Aside to cooperate on things like the Qatar PR blitz, and where Iran is likely to soon have nukes. Consider Russia's position on these things - they must be pretty happy with the US pulling out of the ME. Turkey is a lynchpin because they're key in the NATO as well as the Middle East aspects of the Great Game with Russia.

My point is that the conflict isn't simple or new, there is stress being applied on multiple fronts. I haven't even brought up the Asian stuff, but there's tension a-plenty there, too.

I say we leave it alone. Let Russia feel it oats in the Baltics. Let the ME kill each other over which caliph is rightly guided. In case of catastrophe, we can wait as long as possible for the combatants to wear each other out, then swoop in, secure our interests, and get out.

But that won't happen. That kind of thinking is labeled "isolationist" and judged as crazy and existentially dangerous. So we'll probably keep wading into religious fights among madmen, though it's good to see us forcing the GCC to do more of the heavy lifting. And we'll keep poking the Russian bear, which scares me more than anything because what are we gonna do? I mean, let's just skip ahead and ask, what's our response if Russia invades Latvia? Start ww3 with nukes? No, we all agree conventional war is preferable. Fine, so we have to position the troops and artillery. But that's only going to poke the bear further, make war more likely. I just don't see a way out of major conflict with Russia if they don't step down their responses when we poke them. And major conflict with Russia means either they win and we just wasted lives, money, and time only to give them even more sway, or else we win and I'm afraid a Russia that's losing in their backyard might resort to bad, bad things - tactically on the battlefield, and strategically on a more intercontinental platform.

In closing, I don't know what's gonna happen, but it's probably not good.

Goodnight, I'm gonna order some more whiskey, ammo, and cigarettes before bed. ;)

[45dotACP]

In closing, I don't know what's gonna happen, but it's probably not good.

Goodnight, I'm gonna order some more whiskey, ammo, and cigarettes before bed. ;)

Easily sig line material there...

[Joe in PNG]

I figure that at least a third of the Germans would be against fighting even if Germany is invaded. In many ways it is a dying country with a lot of citizens who just want to live out their lives in comfort.

In a funny way, wasn't that what the US wanted, post WW1 & 2?

[TGS]

But that won't happen. That kind of thinking is labeled "isolationist" and judged as crazy and existentially dangerous. So we'll probably keep wading into religious fights among madmen, though it's good to see us forcing the GCC to do more of the heavy lifting. And we'll keep poking the Russian bear, which scares me more than anything because what are we gonna do? I mean, let's just skip ahead and ask, what's our response if Russia invades Latvia? Start ww3 with nukes? No, we all agree conventional war is preferable. Fine, so we have to position the troops and artillery. But that's only going to poke the bear further, make war more likely. I just don't see a way out of major conflict with Russia if they don't step down their responses when we poke them. And major conflict with Russia means either they win and we just wasted lives, money, and time only to give them even more sway, or else we win and I'm afraid a Russia that's losing in their backyard might resort to bad, bad things - tactically on the battlefield, and strategically on a more intercontinental platform.

So, appeasement is supposed to work out better in the end than countering Russia?

I don't see how countering Russia will eventually lead to war, either. Deterrence works.

Keep in mind that it's not just the US that Russia has to deal with. I don't know if you've kept pace with them, but the Poles have a good collective memory and one of the best trained, equipped, and motivated fighters on Earth. I don't think it's any secret that they purposely used Afghanistan for no other purpose than to get some experience under their belt with spilling blood. Sure, in the end it's just Poland, but the geopolitical landscape is a lot different. People are overstating the poor readiness of other European neighbors for a conventional war given Russia's collapsing infrastructure and decaying military hardware. It's Russia.....but it's Russia with an obsolete, largely broken down Air Force. Their tactical pilots only get about 25 hours of flying each year. Think about that.

[ranger]

There are multiple articles postulating that the breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Soviet Union vs the West (NATO anchored by the US) has led to these issues. The boundaries of the world drawn by the colonial era, WW1, and WW2 do not always match the cultures of the people. In turn, these various cultures are now "free" to seek their own future and that is getting messy. STRATFOR has some good, free reads on these.

The European militaries have reduced their capability (and military spending) such that they really can only do disaster relief and constabulary missions. Gone are the days of Heavy Divisions, large navies, and large air forces in Europe. Europe cannot defend itself from Russia - they can only hope that Russia cannot monetarily afford a war. Note however the success ISIS is having looting the area that it seizes.

Note that the headline of US stockpiles heavy weapons in Eastern Europe is for only one Brigade and apparently a Stryker BDE at that. A far, far cry from the Cold War.

[Jay Cunningham]

I say we leave it alone. Let Russia feel it oats in the Baltics. Let the ME kill each other over which caliph is rightly guided. In case of catastrophe, we can wait as long as possible for the combatants to wear each other out, then swoop in, secure our interests, and get out.

But that won't happen. That kind of thinking is labeled "isolationist" and judged as crazy and existentially dangerous. So we'll probably keep wading into religious fights among madmen, though it's good to see us forcing the GCC to do more of the heavy lifting. And we'll keep poking the Russian bear, which scares me more than anything because what are we gonna do? I mean, let's just skip ahead and ask, what's our response if Russia invades Latvia? Start ww3 with nukes? No, we all agree conventional war is preferable. Fine, so we have to position the troops and artillery. But that's only going to poke the bear further, make war more likely. I just don't see a way out of major conflict with Russia if they don't step down their responses when we poke them. And major conflict with Russia means either they win and we just wasted lives, money, and time only to give them even more sway, or else we win and I'm afraid a Russia that's losing in their backyard might resort to bad, bad things - tactically on the battlefield, and strategically on a more intercontinental platform.

Clearly the rantings of a madman. Only a nut who hates America would suggest not throwing ourselves headlong randomly into wars on the the other side of the planet.

[MDS]

So, appeasement is supposed to work out better in the end than countering Russia?

I don't see how countering Russia will eventually lead to war, either. Deterrence works.

I don't see Russia ignoring its interests, specifically energy exports and restoring its sphere of influence, at a minimum. They're not afraid of fighting for it, and fighting dirty. They took our lunch in Georgia, which made them bolder in Ukraine. Our A-game response is moving in some (more) heavy weapons. What happens when 95% of Latvians "vote" for annexation? Like I said, a lot depends on how things shake out in the Kremlin, but Russia doesn't have a big reputation for bluffing. We can hope that things remain relatively tame, like the low-level dance in Ukraine. But it's a fragile situation with lots of traps and caveats. Deterrence works until it doesn't, and I'm piss-my-pants scared of ww3 under Hillary.

So, yeah, I think "appeasement" - what an unexpected synonym for prudence - works out better in the end. Keep our noses out of Baltic and Middle East business, let the regions sort themselves out. When our critical interests are critically threatened, we swoop in and annihilate the threat. In the inevitable large-scale conflicts, we want to replay our role from the first couple of world wars, not play the roles that were originally France's, Germany's, or England's. We became the global hegemon because we let the rest of the world bear the brunt of those wars, swooping in after all sides were worn down and cementing an outcome in our favor. Contrast that to the wars in which we led the way - Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan. We can compare tactical pilot training and other minutia, but the macro analysis is clear: minding our own business until the continental adversaries wear themselves out has been the winning play since forever.

And again, we're not even talking about shenanigans in Asia, how China and her interests play into all this. How's this for a nightmare scenario. Hillary vs Putin, WW3 rages with or without nukes. The adversaries wear each other out over a European and middle-eastern battlefield. Amazing things happen, 100% employment, technology advances rapidly, all the benefits of war. But people die and soon enough, the belligerents tire to the point where China realizes they can decide the war. They step in, Russia/China wins, and terms are agreed. The US contracts its focus in a fight to retain its regional hegemony, but is too worn out to keep China from dominating our hemisphere. (Domestically, how well does the Bill of Rights fare in this scenario?) I'm not predicting this, mind you, but even in that nightmare scenario I despair of Americans or their leaders realizing that we should have stayed out of these messes.

So, yeah. Like I said before: whiskey, ammo, and cigarettes.

ETA:


Note that the headline of US stockpiles heavy weapons in Eastern Europe is for only one Brigade and apparently a Stryker BDE at that. A far, far cry from the Cold War.

Good point. Maybe an attempt to appease the hawks at home, without poking the bear too much?

[TGS]

They took our lunch in Georgia, which made them bolder in Ukraine

Thanks for supporting my argument on why appeasing Russia is a bad idea.

They were bolder in the Ukraine, and now they're setting their sights elsewhere.

Latvia?

Then who?

How far are we going to let it go? We could just stop them before the snowball gets too big...but no. Let it get to the point where the only course of action is world war, because they'll dominate most of Europe and more. That's what you're proposing.

[5pins]

Deterrence works when you have leaders that know how to use it, we don’t have that.

[MDS]

Let it get to the point where the only course of action is world war, because they'll dominate most of Europe and more. That's what you're proposing.

Interesting. I propose that our core disagreement is about whether world war is inevitable. If I believed it was avoidable in the long run, I'd side with you on this. But I believe world war is unavoidable, for that matter I believe nuclear war is unavoidable. So I side with setting things up to minimize our suffering.

Admittedly, we're already so entrenched everywhere that it's going to take time and effort to untangle ourselves. Europe's going to have to rearm, etc. But past stupidity can't justify continuing a failed policy of policing the world.

Have I mentioned that none of this matters? Regardless of what I think, we are going to find out what's at the end of our interventionist path. I hope I am wrong, in which case, everyone is invited to an epic party at my house to use up my stash of whisky, tobacco, and ammo.

[TGS]

Interesting. I propose that our core disagreement is about whether world war is inevitable. If I believed it was avoidable in the long run, I'd side with you on this. But I believe world war is unavoidable, for that matter I believe nuclear war is unavoidable. So I side with setting things up to minimize our suffering.

See, I view the matter as the best way to minimize suffering is to just take a bite out of a shit sandwich sooner and nip it in the bud. Trying to delay the inevitable will only make it worse in the end.

None of this would even be happening if Russia didn't stop Georgia and other former satellite states from joining NATO. Medvedev said so himself, and implied that if the West had successfully intervened in such that Russia would not be on the roll that it is. How can you argue with Russian leaders about their own goals and how they plan to achieve them?


Admittedly, we're already so entrenched everywhere that it's going to take time and effort to untangle ourselves. Europe's going to have to rearm, etc. But past stupidity can't justify continuing a failed policy of policing the world.


Define failed, Mario. We're in a remarkably peaceful era of human history, as pointed out not only in the recently posted interactive video you donated to (http://www.fallen.io/ww2/), but also on TED by Steven Plinker. (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en)

[MDS]

See, I view the matter as the best way to minimize suffering is to just take a bite out of a shit sandwich sooner and nip it in the bud. Trying to delay the inevitable will only make it worse in the end.

Worse for who? We delayed the inevitable in every overseas intervention through WW2. If we'd have intervened sooner, would that have minimized suffering? I'm not so sure, and it certainly wouldn't have left us so strong after the wars.


None of this would even be happening if Russia didn't stop Georgia and other former satellite states from joining NATO.

None of the drama and violence through history would even have happened if people and nations were enlightened zen masters motivated by brotherly love. Instead, we are mostly selfish bastards motivated by desire. Russia pursued its interests, which are often opposed to our interests, when it maneuvered to keep its periphery out of NATO. Wouldn't you have done the same? In fact, didn't NATO promise, at its founding, to stay out of Russia's periphery? Doesn't it seem prudent to allow such a major power some buffer space, to respect its sphere of influence as we would like them to allow and respect ours?


Define failed, Mario. We're in a remarkably peaceful era of human history[...]

Defined as failing to achieve stated goals. Peace isn't always good, especially when it amounts to clamping down on a high-pressure situation, forcing the pressure to keep building. Final outcome could be much worse in that case. Now, if we disagree on whether our wars after ww2 tend to achieve stated goals, that's a whole other thread. I propose we call it whiskey, tobacco, and ammo. ;)

[TGS]

Doesn't it seem prudent to allow such a major power some buffer space, to respect its sphere of influence as we would like them to allow and respect ours?

Yeah, oppressive regimes seeking lebensraum is totally cool.

On a more productive note, do you think there's a point where Russia will find a happy medium? Do you think they'll stop after oppressing their neighbors and repeating a few million more democides like they did last century?

[MDS]

Yeah, oppressive regimes seeking lebensraum is totally cool.

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us." Does anyone seriously believe that we fight wars to liberate oppressed peoples?


On a more productive note, do you think there's a point where Russia will find a happy medium? Do you think they'll stop after oppressing their neighbors and repeating a few million more democides like they did last century?

Yeah, I do. Because oppression doesn't scale, especially with the illuminating technology of today and tomorrow.

This confidence in American superiority - moral, social, and martial - is unwarranted, IMO. Just because we only assassinate a few of our citizens with whom we disagree the most, doesn't make us angels of light.

[TGS]

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us." Does anyone seriously believe that we fight wars to liberate oppressed peoples?


Totally not my point.


This confidence in American superiority - moral, social, and martial - is unwarranted, IMO. Just because we only assassinate a few of our citizens with whom we disagree the most, doesn't make us angels of light.

Not really my point.

[MDS]

Totally not my point.



Not really my point.
Fair enough. Maybe you could clarify, then? Because I just reread our posts, and it sounds like you favor early intervention in the hopes that we can deter major world powers from increasing their sphere of influence and oppression. Whereas I hold no such hope, nor do I judge their oppression so harshly, so I favor late intervention to keep adversaries exhausted and maintain our relative superiority at minimum cost to ourselves.

Seems like a simple enough difference of opinion, no?

[TGS]

Fair enough. Maybe you could clarify, then? Because I just reread our posts, and it sounds like you favor early intervention in the hopes that we can deter major world powers from increasing their sphere of influence and oppression.

Yes, but I never meant to imply that all of our military actions (combative or MOOTW) are for completely altruistic reasons with no political or economic end-states.

[MDS]

Yes, but I never meant to imply that all of our military actions (combative or MOOTW) are for completely altruistic reasons with no political or economic end-states.
OK, fair enough. So if our motivation to intervene in the Baltics isn't to combat Russian oppression, it must be to limit Russia's ability to expand or cement its influence there... right? In which case, my question is, why are we so afraid of Russia having a stronger regional influence? Are we so enamored with hegemony, that we'd risk everything to keep it; nay, even to avoid sharing a little of it on the other side of the world?

[PPGMD]

OK, fair enough. So if our motivation to intervene in the Baltics isn't to combat Russian oppression, it must be to limit Russia's ability to expand or cement its influence there... right? In which case, my question is, why are we so afraid of Russia having a stronger regional influence? Are we so enamored with hegemony, that we'd risk everything to keep it; nay, even to avoid sharing a little of it on the other side of the world?

If all they were doing was influencing you would have a point. But they have literally invaded and annexed a sovereign country. When do we intervene? Do we do it when they take more than just the Sudetenland? Or do we wait until they start rolling on Paris?

Yes those comment are sarcasm, but unless we show that we won't stand to outright aggression, they are just emboldened. And all those republics that end in stan are taking notice that the US isn't going to help them, the UN isn't going to help them, nor is NATO. They now know either play ball or get invaded under the current political leadership.

And to be honest we lost the opportunity for the Obama administration/UN/NATO to respond to Ukraine. The next administration might get a chance, but at this point the most we can do is move forces into Germany (if they will have us). It would take Russia invading another country (or taking the rest of the Ukraine) for the US/UN/NATO to show their backbone, and I think most of the former Soviet Republics might not give us the chance as they don't want to risk poking the bear.

[Kyle Reese]

Some interesting historical context:

http://www.historynet.com/lithuania-vs-u-s-s-r-a-secret-hot-fight-in-the-cold-war.htm

I do not see the Baltic states or Poland going gently into the good night to appease Russia.

I don't see Russia faring well in a toe to toe fight with Poland. Putin has gotten lucky so far with his military adventurism in Ossetia, Georgia and eastern Ukraine, as Russian forces incurred few casualties in these operations. I don't think that this would be the case with Poland.

[David S.]

Are Russia's motives expansionist (march on Paris, then the world) or is Russia trying to reset the buffer zone that was previously agreed upon by NATO?

[MDS]

I don't see Russia faring well in a toe to toe fight with [...]

If Russia manages to reestablish influence/control in its periphery, and then tries to keep going, they'll have to roll over some serious obstacles, even if the US was only a small part of that.

[Jay Cunningham]

Are Russia's motives expansionist (march on Paris, then the world) or is Russia trying to reset the buffer zone that was previously agreed upon by NATO?

Well there's a relevant question.

[LittleLebowski]

Are Russia's motives expansionist (march on Paris, then the world) or is Russia trying to reset the buffer zone that was previously agreed upon by NATO?

You're onto something here. What NATO has done is roughly akin to say the Warsaw Pact accepting Mexico as a member.

[TGS]

You're onto something here. What NATO has done is roughly akin to say the Warsaw Pact accepting Mexico as a member.

Roughly. As rough as the feelings of sympathy that nyeti gets when Diane Feinstein drops her ice cream cone.

Russia has a habit over the last century of not just exerting political and economic influence, and supporting such through military aid (like the US)...but also conquering entire countries and putting them directly under their control.

Big difference. The West has typically been defensive to Russian aggression since WWII, not to other way around. Russia doesn't need a damn buffer zone, because it's just an excuse for them to take other countries afterwards and claim, "oh, but we need a buffer zone."

The Russians are an enemy to all of the West. They never stopped being that when the Iron Curtain fell. Reestablishing another Iron Curtain is not my idea of good international politics. There is no legitimate national security or political reason for Russia to invade other countries for the purpose of a buffer zone, considering the instability and threat of invasion isn't Europe > Russia.

[LittleLebowski]

Roughly. As rough as the feelings of sympathy that nyeti gets when Diane Feinstein drops her ice cream cone.

Russia has a habit over the last century of not just exerting political and economic influence, and supporting such through military aid (like the US)...but also conquering entire countries and putting them directly under their control.

Big difference. The West has typically been defensive to Russian aggression since WWII, not to other way around. Russia doesn't need a damp buffer zone, because it's just an excuse for them to take other countries afterwards and claim, "oh, but we need a buffer zone."

The Russians are an enemy to all of the West. They never stopped being that when the Iron Curtain fell. Reestablishing another Iron Curtain is not my idea of good international politics. There is no legitimate national security or political reason for Russia to invade other countries for the purpose of a buffer zone, considering the instability and threat of invasion isn't Europe > Russia.

NATO started doing this long before Russia started invading other countries. The analogy holds true considering that NATO's mission had been gone for how long before Putin started his current policy of expansionism? Personally, I don't feel threatened by Russia. I don't want my money nor my kids fighting Russia.

[Jay Cunningham]

The Russians are an enemy to all of the West.

That is an absolutely unwarranted and outrageous statement.

The Soviet was an enemy to all of the West. Remember those guys we allied ourselves with in WW2? Good ol' Uncle Joe, Roosevelt's BFF? The Bolsheviks were an enemy to all of The West. They ritualistically slaughtered the Tsar and his whole family, they are responsible for the secret police (CHEKA), and they instituted the artificial famine which led to the death of millions of Ukrainians. The Bolsheviks. The Soviets.

Not "the Russians".

If you've been led to believe that leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were all ethnic Russian, you need to check the ledger.

[MDS]

The Russians are an enemy to all of the West.

That's a pretty broad statement. Good faith question here, just trying to follow your thinking. Who are "the Russians?" What goals do they have that preclude those of "all of the West?"

ETA: didn't see Jay's post before writing the above. I'd still like to understand the underpinnings of this adversarial perception of Russia. My own perception is that they threaten our global hegemony in their sphere of influence, and so we have an interest in reducing their sphere of influence that runs counter to their obvious interest to increase that sphere. I therefore challenge anti-Russian sentiment by challenging our desire for absolute global hegemony. But if there's another reason to hate "the Russians," I'd like to know it!

[David S.]

You're onto something here. What NATO has done is roughly akin to say the Warsaw Pact accepting Mexico as a member.

Or say, Cuba.




You and I have been listening to way too much Dan Carlin. Kumbaya, dammit.

[TGS]

That is an absolutely unwarranted and outrageous statement.

The Soviet was an enemy to all of the West. Remember those guys we allied ourselves with in WW2? Good ol' Uncle Joe, Roosevelt's BFF? The Bolsheviks were an enemy to all of The West. They ritualistically slaughtered the Tsar and his whole family, they are responsible for the secret police (CHEKA), and they instituted the artificial famine which led to the death of millions of Ukrainians. The Bolsheviks. The Soviets.

Not "the Russians".

If you've been led to believe that leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were all ethnic Russian, you need to check the ledger.

Feel better?

Before you jump the shark again, let me rephrase my statement: Russia is an enemy to the West.


That's a pretty broad statement. Good faith question here, just trying to follow your thinking. Who are "the Russians?" What goals do they have that preclude those of "all of the West?"

ETA: didn't see Jay's post before writing the above. I'd still like to understand the underpinnings of this adversarial perception of Russia. My own perception is that they threaten our global hegemony in their sphere of influence, and so we have an interest in reducing their sphere of influence that runs counter to their obvious interest to increase that sphere. I therefore challenge anti-Russian sentiment by challenging our desire for absolute global hegemony. But if there's another reason to hate "the Russians," I'd like to know it!

Here's some quick articles. I bet there's some good material on Foreign Policy....though you probably won't agree with it, given the nature of the website involves the US interacting with other nations. Also, retired Adm. James Stavridis has been pretty vocal on Russia's threat, and would be a good source to look up for my point of view.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/02/why-putins-russia-is-the-biggest-threat-to-america-in-2015/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21643220-russias-aggression-ukraine-part-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter

[Malamute]

The Soviet was an enemy to all of the West....

Not "the Russians".



At this point, I dont think we can entirely separate the current Russian gov/leadership from Soviet ideas. I dont think all "Russians" universally believe or follow his ideology or hate the west, but Putins mindset is more Soviet than constructive or friendly towards the west. They talk openly on Russian TV and radio about nuking the US into radioactive dust, nuking Yellowstone as an "answer" to the problem of the US. They get open applause when such things are brought up. Its by no means a "just leave us alone" ideology.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-tensions-with-west-rise-russia-increasingly-rattles-nuclear-saber-1428249620

[MDS]

I bet there's some good material on Foreign Policy....though you probably won't agree with it, given the nature of the website involves the US interacting with other nations.

First, let me remind everyone to keep it civil. Let's refrain from discussing each other, stay focused on the ideas. In that spirit, I won't respond to the absurd implication that I'm against any interactions with foreign nations.

Now, I'm actually an avid reader of FP, and I agree with about half of their opinions and analysis. Their Russian coverage is pretty typical of other open sources I've perused, in that there's this unquestioned, foundational assumption that Russia and the US are natural adversaries. I haven't seen a convincing analysis that shows our differences aren't artificial and fairly superficial. Doesn't mean the bad blood doesn't exist, just that our critical interests aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'll take a look at these articles and report back. Right now I've got to get more model rocket stuff with the boys. :D

[TGS]

First, let me remind everyone to keep it civil. Let's refrain from discussing each other, stay focused on the ideas. In that spirit, I won't respond to the absurd implication that I'm against any interactions with foreign nations.

Now, I'm actually an avid reader of FP, and I agree with about half of their opinions and analysis. Their Russian coverage is pretty typical of other open sources I've perused, in that there's this unquestioned, foundational assumption that Russia and the US are natural adversaries. I haven't seen a convincing analysis that shows our differences aren't artificial and fairly superficial. Doesn't mean the bad blood doesn't exist, just that our critical interests aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'll take a look at these articles and report back. Right now I've got to get more model rocket stuff with the boys. :D

Oh, we absolutely have overlapping interests which we could try and exploit to build a better relationship, such as Islamic terrorists, or open ocean piracy.

However, it's hard to do so when Russia goes invading other countries, and along with everyone in the world except such freedom loving nations China, Iran, and North Korea we agree to participate in economic sanctions against them..along with margianlizing their oil industry....which really hurts their economy, and causes them to use rhetoric about how everything is US aggression in the first place.

Not to mention their active cyber warfare against the US, and any prior Soviet country that attempts to align itself closer with the west to improve their lives....self determination does not jive well with Russia.

[LittleLebowski]

Not to mention their active cyber warfare against the US, and any prior Soviet country that attempts to align itself closer with the west to improve their lives....self determination does not jive well with Russia.

Do you know that we are actively conducting "cyber warfare" against everyone? I mean, what do you think we are doing against Russia and China if we hacked Angela Merkel's cellphone? Cyber "warfare" is actually just modern day espionage. It's what we do. It's what every powerful country does. You might as well rail against the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service for spying upon us and then of course, someone will point out that the CIA is doing the same. This is the 21st century.

[TGS]

Do you know that we are actively conducting "cyber warfare" against everyone? I mean, what do you think we are doing against Russia and China if we hacked Angela Merkel's cellphone? Cyber "warfare" is actually just modern day espionage. It's what we do. It's what every powerful country does. You might as well rail against the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service for spying upon us and then of course, someone will point out that the CIA is doing the same. This is the 21st century.

Again, LL, another bad comparison.

I'm not aware of us conducting any unprovoked major bot net attacks on an entire country's financial system, which is just another example of Russia's aggression towards a former satellite moving towards western values.

[LittleLebowski]

Again, LL, another bad comparison.

I'm not aware of us conducting any unprovoked major bot net attacks on an entire country's financial system, which is just another example of Russia's aggression towards a former satellite moving towards western values.

You didn't say "bot net attack" hence me pointing out that we are doing the exact same thing to the Russians (cyber warfare) you rightly say the Russians are doing to us. However, are you unequivocally saying that the Russian gov't used bot net attacks against our "entire financial system?" Not say, Russian crime syndicates or just Russian hacker cabals/individuals?

[TGS]

You didn't say "bot net attack" hence me pointing out that we are doing the exact same thing to the Russians (cyber warfare) you rightly say the Russians are doing to us. However, are you unequivocally saying that the Russian gov't used bot net attacks against our "entire financial system?" Not say, Russian crime syndicates or just Russian hacker cabals/individuals?

Back up for a second.

1) Bot net attacks are a form of cyber warfare. I used the correct terminology, whether you want to omit certain actions from its bredth or not.

2) I never said our financial system. I actually said it was against a former Soviet satellite.

3) I think it's pretty naive to assume that the Russian government wasn't behind such an action. If you want proof, then I'm going to disappoint you because there isn't any, and never will be. You know, that whole black ops/covert/espionage thing.....

[LittleLebowski]

Back up for a second.

1) Bot net attacks are a form of cyber warfare. I used the correct terminology, whether you want to omit certain actions from its bredth or not.
I wasn't saying it is not cyber warfare. My point is that we, the US, conduct cyber warfare every day against everyone.

2) I never said our financial system. I actually said it was against a former Soviet satellite.
You're absolutely right. Sorry I missed that.

3) I think it's pretty naive to assume that the Russian government wasn't behind such an action. If you want proof, then I'm going to disappoint you because there isn't any, and never will be. You know, that whole black ops/covert/espionage thing.....
Again, I missed that second sentence. However, I still don't count Russian cyber warfare against say the Ukraine as something American needs to be terribly concerned about.

[TGS]

Yes, of course we conduct cyber warfare.

That's incredibly broad though. If I criticized the North Korean government for murdering and imprisoning tens of thousands of subjects within a weekend, would you then respond, "Well yeah, but our security services kill people everyday, and just last weekend built a prison camp for a thousand children"? No, because it'd be wrong to compare the detention of illegal immigrants and lawful self-defense shootings of LEOs to the mass murder and slavery of political dissidents.

Just the same as its disingenuous to compare our cyber warfare actions against those of Russia, and insinuate that Russia's no worse than us.

[MDS]

Yes, of course we conduct cyber warfare.

That's incredibly broad though. If I criticized the North Korean government for murdering and imprisoning tens of thousands of subjects within a weekend, would you then respond, "Well yeah, but our security services kill people everyday, and just last weekend built a prison camp for a thousand children"? No, because it'd be wrong to compare the detention of illegal immigrants and lawful self-defense shootings of LEOs to the mass murder and slavery of political dissidents.

Just the same as its disingenuous to compare our cyber warfare actions against those of Russia, and insinuate that Russia's no worse than us.

Still haven't read the articles you posted, but this seems like you're harkening back to moral superiority as the cause and justification for these interventions.

I'm not trying to nail you down, dude. But come on, if our reason for war and mootw are based on a good-guy/bad-guy dichotomy and an urge to shove our values down other people's throats, let's just say so. Then we can discuss why we're so selective about which oppressive regimes we hate, which ones we love, and which ones we blissfully ignore.

If not, then let's stop confusing the discussion by injecting non-sequiturs about North Korean death camps vs. American "alien processing facilities."

[Jay Cunningham]

What about our BFFs, the Saudis?

[MDS]

TGS, thanks again for those articles. The boys decided to play instead of building their new model rockets right now, so I had time to peruse them. Admittedly, I didn't read every word of all of them, but I do feel like I got a strong sense for the picture each was trying to paint.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/02/why-putins-russia-is-the-biggest-threat-to-america-in-2015/

I agree with this article pretty well. It plainly states that Russia's actions in the Ukraine only look like expansionist aggression to US eyes, but are in fact motivated by Russia's perception of existential threats from the US. "Putin describes the Crimea as a birthplace of Russian culture, and his government has repeatedly warned against the expansion of Western economic and political influence into a region historically regarded as Moscow’s sphere of influence." And Russia is in fact a dangerous adversary, because "sanctions sometimes provoke precisely the opposite response from what policymakers hope. In Russia’s case, that could mean a threat to America’s survival."

Not sure why you think this article supports ongoing intervention, could you clarify that?


http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

This article isn't far off, though it ignores a lot of context that could help interpret the facts it reports. My view of Russian military exercises in areas that are traditionally thought of as European or American sphere of influence is that it's a simple how do you like it when the shoe's on the other foot? Buried in the article is a line that captures my thinking: 'Gortney said the Russian air patrols, in part, are designed to "communicate its displeasure with Western policies, particularly with regard to Ukraine."' I would add that it communicates not only displeasure, but also an ability and willingness to step up military posturing in lockstep with Western posturing...with attendant military possibilities.

This article only supports ongoing intervention if the facts are taken out of context, and placed in a new, illusory context of a natural, intrinsic animosity between Russia and the West.


http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21643220-russias-aggression-ukraine-part-broader-and-more-dangerous-confrontation

This article has a slant much more in line with what you've been arguing. The points are not invalid, and in fact I was fascinated by the following: 'Russia’s approach to ideology is fluid: it supports both far-left and far-right groups. [...] Far-right groups are seduced by the idea of Moscow as a counterweight to the EU, and by its law-and-order policies. Its stance on homosexuality and promotion of “traditional” moral values appeal to religious conservatives. The far left likes the talk of fighting American hegemony.'

There's a lot of detailed understanding about the mechanics of this adversarial dance. No one is questioning that there is such a dance. Malamute wrote above about Russian crowds cheering the image of Yellowstone as a nuclear wasteland. No doubt, America and Russia are geopolitical adversaries.

What's missing, though, is an understanding of what's under that dance. A good start is to think about the question someone asked above: is Russia gunning for imperial glory, or looking to reestablish that ancient buffer zone? But the issue is much more complex - whether expansionist or buffer-zone-ist (sp?) we have a Kremlin with some apparent internal struggles, and an economy that's not keeping the people as happy with their leaders as their leaders might like. These are the questions I'm alluding to, when I ask if we have to be so anti-Russia all the time.

Sure, the regime is oppressive. The people are often on the government's side in large part because of lies and propaganda. But are the interests of liberating oppressed people be better served by continuing to antagonize those people? Or could we respect their space and their sphere of influence, engage in mutually beneficial trade, and allow the rubbing of cultures (which is inevitable in this internet age) to do the slow work of breaking down barriers? More to my point, is the need to keep Russia out of Ukraine so urgent, that we're willing to risk so much? I get that we're entangled in many ways now, but why are we so eager to intervene in the Baltics when we've got so many pressing issues at home and elsewhere in the world?


http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21643189-ukraine-suffers-it-time-recognise-gravity-russian-threatand-counter

I really liked this article, even though I cringed at gratuitous barbs like "he seems certain to get what he wants there : a wretched little quasi-state in the Donbas" - I wish they're replace the hysterical phrase [I]wretched little quasi-state with some more objectively descriptive words. There's clearly an anti-Russia bias, and there's not a real explanation of why. Implicit in that bias is a very romantic notion of what motivates the West. Consider: "Mr Putin plays by different rules; indeed, for him, there are no inviolable rules, nor universal values, nor even cast-iron facts [...]" There's a long and well-analyzed body of evidence showing that these are exactly the rules the US plays by. Again, I just loathe the internal inconsistency - if not outright dishonesty - of moral or ethical arguments in geopolitics.

But whatever. I can put that aside, and in fact I don't know why I don't read more of The Economist. The article states the obvious: that Russia wants to destabilize Western institutions as much as we want to keep Russian institutions as weak as possible. Our patronizing attitude after the Cold War spawned a lot of butt hurt, and though I'm not well-versed in that period enough to say for sure, I can't imagine there wasn't a better long-term approach. But that was all foreplay, and things are now getting serious, this adversarial relationship is getting very dangerous. Russia's going to get what's fair (a buffer zone periphery) because we don't want nuclear war, either, and Russia seems willing to risk nukes if it means protecting their sovereignty. By the same token, they're not going to cross the line into invading Europe because is also willing to go all the way to protect its sovereignty as well. So we'll do a little dance for a while, find some kind of equilibrium, and each side will stay just shy of truly threatening the sovereignty of the other.

But here again, there is a core unstated assumption, that as sure as the sun rises in the east, our military must rush to intervene wherever Russia flexes. My question is, why don't we let Europe and Russia figure out that equilibrium (mostly) on their own? Then, if against all odds major war does break out, it'll stay (mostly) on the continent. We can weigh in towards the end, being careful to avoid threatening such critical interests that we're liable to get nuked. If Russia really does nuke Europe, well, all bets are off and that's where my whiskey, tobacco, and ammo come in. But the lesson from the Cold War is that people don't want to trigger that if they can help it, so we should be able to find a middle path. (Not that I'm confident in our ability to find that path...)

So there's a lot to gain from delayed intervention. Now let's come at it the other way. What will early intervention buy us? Do we really think Russia will stop working on its peripheral buffer zone because of some US troops nearby? On the contrary, I suspect this would embolden Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian people. Do we really think these maneuvers will make nuclear war less likely? Again, on the contrary, it can only serve to make Russia even more nervous about our motivations and the threat to their sovereignty. So what do we gain from early intervention, and would that be lost by a policy of late intervention?

[Kyle Reese]

https://youtu.be/2zssIFN2mso

[Wondering Beard]

So we'll do a little dance for a while, find some kind of equilibrium, and each side will stay just shy of truly threatening the sovereignty of the other.


The problem is that there isn't much of an equilibrium to be had. The Russian political culture (going back even to the early tsars) is rather paranoid. To oversimplify, their thinking is that they must take from you while you are weak, because if they are weak then you will take from them; naturally, when you get stronger after they have taken from you, you take some back when they are weak thus confirming their original outlook and setting up a self fulfilling prophecy. This is central to how they (both leaders and population) understand politics at a very primal emotional level, to them this is how the world works. They see power as a pie and in order to feel safe they reflexively think it's better to have as much as possible of that pie.

For the US gov't, and Americans in general, it's not how we think. To us, "live and let live" and establishing some sort of balance is how we approach international politics (even internal societal ones. e.g. "good fences make for good neighbors").

Now that doesn't mean we should go intervening everywhere and every time Russia starts acting aggressive but it does mean we need to be ready to smack some knuckles (metaphorically of course and it doesn't require the use of the military most of the time) just so things don't get out of hand.

Russia and the US see a very different reality when they look at the world and it's not going away any time soon.

[Jay Cunningham]

For the US gov't, and Americans in general, it's not how we think. To us, "live and let live" and establishing some sort of balance is how we approach international politics (even internal societal ones. e.g. "good fences make for good neighbors").


Do you really believe what you wrote above?

[Wondering Beard]

Do you really believe what you wrote above?

I really should have taken more time to write out that paragraph.

Do I believe the US gov't makes (and has made) its policy guided by a "live and let live" approach to international politics? no, absolutely not.

What I was trying to convey (and did badly) is that Americans, as a population in general, do not see the world as a pie of which we need a huge share in order to feel safe but rather do not see a pie at all. Instead we tend to see at a minimum a place in which cohabitation is a fine thing (so long as you don't "step on our toes" thus the fences comment) or at a maximum a place where we extend our interests all over in order to grow wealth (preferably ours). As a result, most Americans who enter international politics start off with that sort of vague cultural attitude in mind. Whereas the Russians start off with the vague cultural attitude of "if you win something, I must have lost something" and vice versa.

What I mean to present is how differently Americans and Russians see the reality of international politics.

[MDS]

WB, that's a lucid explanation of what I think is the main confusing element here - the idea that Russia and the US are natural-born adversaries. Personally, I don't buy it. But it's a point on which reasonable people might disagree.

Meanwhile, here's an entertaining look (https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/16/kremlin-nato-putin-ukraine-crimea/) at how Russia might be thinking about continuing this dance that leads to a new equilibrium.

[Wondering Beard]

If you look at a map, Russia and the US are certainly not natural born adversaries as far as I'm concerned (China is more likely to be one in my opinion), more like natural competitors and often allies. I think Russia and the US are more likely to have interests in common than not.

However, and this is the sticking point, the map is not the terrain as the expression goes.

The Russian gov't and to a great degree the Russian people do see us as natural enemies. This is where historical political culture becomes important. It is ingrained in Russian culture and history that if I gain an advantage then you have, by definition, lost something important. As far as they are concerned there is a finite pie that is constantly cut and recut and the only way to get a sufficient piece of pie is to have huge one *. I would argue that going back to the original Rus invasions of Eastern Europe, the people, and most certainly the rulers of these lands, have thought that way. Frankly, they had good reasons to do so. From the more or less constant wars between the city states of that area (e.g. Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow and so on), through the Mongol invasions, the deadly internal politics of tsarist courts, the invasions of (in no particular order) Swedes, Poles, Teutonic Knights, Turks, Prussians, French, Germans etc..to today, paranoia has to reign. While some may argue that Lenin was more of an idealist, Stalin and all who followed (included Yeltsin and Putin) absolutely believed that if they don't take, someone will take from them, no exceptions. As a result, if the US is the dominant power it's because they took from Russia. The very internal politics of Russia function this way; anyone who rises in wealth and power must be controlled or eliminated by the state because instead of being a potential boon to the country (like a Steve Jobs and Apple or a Walmart for us in the US) he is a rival to state power, more specifically whoever sits at the center of state power.

As a result, if we say to Russia "you want a sphere of influence? fine, have at it, it's no skin off our backs, and in the meanwhile let's do business", the people in power in Russia will think "aha! they are weak and we have an opportunity to get a greater piece of the pie for our own security". These different understandings of geopolitical reality, these disconnects, are inherently destabilizing and ultimately very dangerous to us** because if we don't respond firmly (which certainly does not always mean militarily -preferably it means very rarely militarily) then we lose the trust of people and countries who, rightly or wrongly. rely on us which, in turn, tends to empower those who are truly dangerous to us (Iran under the mullahs for example, even though Iran and its people ought to more naturally be an ally than not). Russia's instincts (and to a great degree China's) tends to think about international politics in terms of acquiring more control while American instincts (US gov't instincts being somewhat different) tend to be about obtaining and maintaining wealth.

Dealing with Russia is exceedingly tricky. To oversimplify, it's as if we were dealing with an individual whose gun is always in hand (sometimes hidden, sometimes out in the open and sometimes it's a working gun while other times it's a piece of junk but it' s awfully hard to tell) and who is going to view our actions far differently than we intend them to be, but even if we shoot them, we can't kill them without being irremediably hurt ourselves in the process.

I wish it were different, I have no prescription for what is truly the best thing to do. With Russia, things are always on a knife's edge, even if it's sometimes dull.



*This is how politicians naturally think no matter what country they're from. If I get elected to a post, you didn't; if I get an agency high level job, you didn't; if I control X amount of territory, you don't. To anyone whose livelihood is politics (from a country's dictator to a local city councilman) power and riches is a finite pie; if I get some, it's from other people's share and vice versa; therefore if I get rich and powerful or my people and/or country get wealthy and powerful it's because I took and keep protecting my slice from others who want it. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there is no pie, there never was. Wealth and power come from human ingenuity and creativity. All advances in personal safety and well being, in technology, in living standards, come from the capability to exchange, to trade, to creatively use and find new uses for the material and energy that is already in place and the only limitation is not who has which slice but how to minimize the costs.

** Trying to convince Russia that indifference doesn't mean weakness ends up being understood, at best, that the US is naive and thus ripe to being taken advantage of and at worst, that the US has some nefarious plan that endangers Russia's survival. There is a basic absence of common ground to build on.

[MDS]

Yep, I understand. I just disagree, is all. I think we and the Russians are more alike - that the Russians are less "must grab pie while getting is good," and Americans are more so - than what you describe. I think the animosity feels so natural because for, what, three generations? At least two. Anyway, for a long time Russia had this explicit goal to rule the world. And since the US was honestly the only country in a position to stop them, we started thwarting them, or trying to, at every turn.

Russia couldn't have taken over back then, and they certainly can't expand forever now. So why are we so hellbent on war?

[Josh Runkle]

I think we and the Russians are more alike - that the Russians are less "must grab pie while getting is good," and Americans are more so - than what you describe.

While you both make great arguments, I've got to strongly agree with this quote.

Frankly, I think the people making the real "war" whispers are actually the people trying to restore America's economy and "status" in the world...not the Russians. Putin makes some outrageous statements, to be sure, but I feel this is more of a case of who is highlighting and repeating those comments, rather than who is making them.

[ranger]

Maybe Putin is rattling sabers so that the Russians are not focused on their internal issues. Or, maybe that is us?

[MDS]

Maybe Putin is rattling sabers so that the Russians are not focused on their internal issues. Or, maybe that is us?

Ooh! Is there a choice C, all of the above? To me, one of the more interesting intricacies of all this is how the domestic politics make the game just exponentially more complicated. Putin has a lot more freedom of action because his people would more or less have to physically revolt, but he is still very, very constrained by internal dynamics.

[TGS]

TGS, thanks again for those articles. The boys decided to play instead of building their new model rockets right now, so I had time to peruse them. Admittedly, I didn't read every word of all of them, but I do feel like I got a strong sense for the picture each was trying to paint.



I agree with this article pretty well. It plainly states that Russia's actions in the Ukraine only look like expansionist aggression to US eyes, but are in fact motivated by Russia's perception of existential threats from the US. "Putin describes the Crimea as a birthplace of Russian culture, and his government has repeatedly warned against the expansion of Western economic and political influence into a region historically regarded as Moscow’s sphere of influence." And Russia is in fact a dangerous adversary, because "sanctions sometimes provoke precisely the opposite response from what policymakers hope. In Russia’s case, that could mean a threat to America’s survival."

Not sure why you think this article supports ongoing intervention, could you clarify that?



This article isn't far off, though it ignores a lot of context that could help interpret the facts it reports. My view of Russian military exercises in areas that are traditionally thought of as European or American sphere of influence is that it's a simple how do you like it when the shoe's on the other foot? Buried in the article is a line that captures my thinking: 'Gortney said the Russian air patrols, in part, are designed to "communicate its displeasure with Western policies, particularly with regard to Ukraine."' I would add that it communicates not only displeasure, but also an ability and willingness to step up military posturing in lockstep with Western posturing...with attendant military possibilities.

This article only supports ongoing intervention if the facts are taken out of context, and placed in a new, illusory context of a natural, intrinsic animosity between Russia and the West.



This article has a slant much more in line with what you've been arguing. The points are not invalid, and in fact I was fascinated by the following: 'Russia’s approach to ideology is fluid: it supports both far-left and far-right groups. [...] Far-right groups are seduced by the idea of Moscow as a counterweight to the EU, and by its law-and-order policies. Its stance on homosexuality and promotion of “traditional” moral values appeal to religious conservatives. The far left likes the talk of fighting American hegemony.'

There's a lot of detailed understanding about the mechanics of this adversarial dance. No one is questioning that there is such a dance. Malamute wrote above about Russian crowds cheering the image of Yellowstone as a nuclear wasteland. No doubt, America and Russia are geopolitical adversaries.

What's missing, though, is an understanding of what's under that dance. A good start is to think about the question someone asked above: is Russia gunning for imperial glory, or looking to reestablish that ancient buffer zone? But the issue is much more complex - whether expansionist or buffer-zone-ist (sp?) we have a Kremlin with some apparent internal struggles, and an economy that's not keeping the people as happy with their leaders as their leaders might like. These are the questions I'm alluding to, when I ask if we have to be so anti-Russia all the time.

Sure, the regime is oppressive. The people are often on the government's side in large part because of lies and propaganda. But are the interests of liberating oppressed people be better served by continuing to antagonize those people? Or could we respect their space and their sphere of influence, engage in mutually beneficial trade, and allow the rubbing of cultures (which is inevitable in this internet age) to do the slow work of breaking down barriers? More to my point, is the need to keep Russia out of Ukraine so urgent, that we're willing to risk so much? I get that we're entangled in many ways now, but why are we so eager to intervene in the Baltics when we've got so many pressing issues at home and elsewhere in the world?


I really liked this article, even though I cringed at gratuitous barbs like "he seems certain to get what he wants there : a wretched little quasi-state in the Donbas" - I wish they're replace the hysterical phrase [I]wretched little quasi-state with some more objectively descriptive words. There's clearly an anti-Russia bias, and there's not a real explanation of why. Implicit in that bias is a very romantic notion of what motivates the West. Consider: "Mr Putin plays by different rules; indeed, for him, there are no inviolable rules, nor universal values, nor even cast-iron facts [...]" There's a long and well-analyzed body of evidence showing that these are exactly the rules the US plays by. Again, I just loathe the internal inconsistency - if not outright dishonesty - of moral or ethical arguments in geopolitics.

But whatever. I can put that aside, and in fact I don't know why I don't read more of The Economist. The article states the obvious: that Russia wants to destabilize Western institutions as much as we want to keep Russian institutions as weak as possible. Our patronizing attitude after the Cold War spawned a lot of butt hurt, and though I'm not well-versed in that period enough to say for sure, I can't imagine there wasn't a better long-term approach. But that was all foreplay, and things are now getting serious, this adversarial relationship is getting very dangerous. Russia's going to get what's fair (a buffer zone periphery) because we don't want nuclear war, either, and Russia seems willing to risk nukes if it means protecting their sovereignty. By the same token, they're not going to cross the line into invading Europe because is also willing to go all the way to protect its sovereignty as well. So we'll do a little dance for a while, find some kind of equilibrium, and each side will stay just shy of truly threatening the sovereignty of the other.

But here again, there is a core unstated assumption, that as sure as the sun rises in the east, our military must rush to intervene wherever Russia flexes. My question is, why don't we let Europe and Russia figure out that equilibrium (mostly) on their own? Then, if against all odds major war does break out, it'll stay (mostly) on the continent. We can weigh in towards the end, being careful to avoid threatening such critical interests that we're liable to get nuked. If Russia really does nuke Europe, well, all bets are off and that's where my whiskey, tobacco, and ammo come in. But the lesson from the Cold War is that people don't want to trigger that if they can help it, so we should be able to find a middle path. (Not that I'm confident in our ability to find that path...)

So there's a lot to gain from delayed intervention. Now let's come at it the other way. What will early intervention buy us? Do we really think Russia will stop working on its peripheral buffer zone because of some US troops nearby? On the contrary, I suspect this would embolden Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian people. Do we really think these maneuvers will make nuclear war less likely? Again, on the contrary, it can only serve to make Russia even more nervous about our motivations and the threat to their sovereignty. So what do we gain from early intervention, and would that be lost by a policy of late intervention?

Mario,

I think the answer to your question on "why do these articles support intervention" is actually answered quite well in the few posts afterwards, discussing Russia's habit of paranoia.

Some countries have certain traits in international relations. The Israelis have the habit of acting like a cornered cat, simply because they have zero defense in depth....thus preemptive, proactive kinetic actions are always going to be a major point.

North Korea is the epitome of an 18 year old named "Candy" whose gag reflex is as absent as her father figure, and takes to a grungy pole on the weekday off-hours to make shit money. In more candid terms, North Korea always plays the victim using crazy rhetoric within a convulsed reality only they can dream up, and then extorts money from other nations.

And then there's Russia, as explained.

Simply put, if the last hundred years aren't a reason to believe that Russian aggression is real, and that we should be concerned....I really don't know what else to say. In addition, today we have major economic competition between the US and Russia within the energy market. That alone is enough reason to be concerned, as economic sanctions over Russian aggression have severely hurt Russia's economy, as well as dangered Putins power as he rose in popularity due to riding an economic wave of improvement. His response has been to stir up nationalism, build up the military, and invade other countries.....all the while blaming us for all of their problems (nevermind the fact you could consider not invading other countries without provocation in the first place).

In the end, there really isn't any deep understanding needed for why we should be concerned about Russia, as the last sentence should say it all. It doesn't matter if we're natural born enemies or not, because Russia is picking a fight with us regardless.

[YVK]

What I was trying to convey (and did badly) is that Americans, as a population in general, do not see the world as a pie of which we need a huge share in order to feel safe but rather do not see a pie at all. Instead we tend to see at a minimum a place in which cohabitation is a fine thing (so long as you don't "step on our toes" thus the fences comment) or at a maximum a place where we extend our interests all over in order to grow wealth (preferably ours). As a result, most Americans who enter international politics start off with that sort of vague cultural attitude in mind. Whereas the Russians start off with the vague cultural attitude of "if you win something, I must have lost something" and vice versa.



There are American military bases set all over the world. No other country has the same rapid force deployment capabilities thanks to our carriers. The US has been involved in two wars lately thousands miles away from the shores, one of them in an oil rich country, and neither of them solved any particular problem. This is what the outside world sees, and that's what everyone, including but not limited to Russians people, brings into the conversation about "cohabitation and not wanting a piece of pie". When I talk about Crimea, they talk about Guantanamo. Etc.
As far as Russian people having an expansionist ideas, trust me, they don't give a shit.

[TGS]

YVK (and Suvarov), I'd love to hear your take on Russia's military aggression over the last year.

[YVK]

YVK (and Suvarov), I'd love to hear your take on Russia's military aggression over the last year.

TGS, do you want my personal opinion or my insight on Russian people's attitudes?

[TGS]

TGS, do you want my personal opinion or my insight on Russian people's attitudes?

I guess both would be awesome! I was orginally just asking for your personal opinion on Russia's aggression, and I guess if you could share your opinion on whether they present any danger (direct or indirect) to the US.

I don't know....I just want to pick your brain.

[LittleLebowski]

Voodoo_Man should also chime in here.

[YVK]

I guess both would be awesome! I was orginally just asking for your personal opinion on Russia's aggression, and I guess if you could share your opinion on whether they present any danger (direct or indirect) to the US.

I don't know....I just want to pick your brain.

The annexation of Crimea was a hugely popular move, somewhat dampened by the economic burden of it but then refueled by the 70th anniversary. We can talk about legalities of it and the international outcry and what have you but if somebody spent any time on the ground there in years preceding the events - (any time frame will do, from the commie times to nowadays), it would be crystal clear why. I have despised Putin and everything he stands for for about a decade now, but even I cannot mount a convincing argument against it, especially being a US citizen (again, a reference to the multiple military actions my country has taken in recent years to protect its interests). Because of that background, the Western sanctions have led to the unintended consequences of giving Putin some traction in the area of moral support by the population. This is unfortunate because he was losing some of it.


The eastern Ukrainian conflict is more complicated. It has been condemned by most thinking Russians but the propaganda machine is keeping general attitudes at bay. Some of Ukrainians being a despicable assholes themselves is easily exploited by the mass media. It is pretty depressing, actually.

Got to run, hopefully, this gives an idea.

[MDS]

Awesome, thanks for the insight, YVK

[Wondering Beard]

Yep, I understand. I just disagree, is all. I think we and the Russians are more alike - that the Russians are less "must grab pie while getting is good," and Americans are more so - than what you describe.

I could easily be wrong about the degree to which Russia (by which I mean the Russian state) is "must grab pie while getting is good" and without a doubt you have plenty of folks in the American gov't who think "must grab pie while getting is good." Still culturally, the Russians (people and folks who work in gov't) and the Americans (people and gov't workers) come to their views and solutions from a very different set of assumptions based on a very different history. That really matters when we're trying to decide what to do.


Russia couldn't have taken over back then, and they certainly can't expand forever now. So why are we so hellbent on war?

Well, I certainly am not and I am sure that approaches other than war can and should be used succesfully. But what has developed in East Ukraine has put plenty of people on edge, making things harder.

[Wondering Beard]

There are American military bases set all over the world. No other country has the same rapid force deployment capabilities thanks to our carriers. The US has been involved in two wars lately thousands miles away from the shores, one of them in an oil rich country, and neither of them solved any particular problem. This is what the outside world sees, and that's what everyone, including but not limited to Russians people, brings into the conversation about "cohabitation and not wanting a piece of pie". When I talk about Crimea, they talk about Guantanamo. Etc.
That's true. We got caught in these self fulfilling prophecies when we didn't have to.


As far as Russian people having an expansionist ideas, trust me, they don't give a shit.

I didn't think they did but rather that historically and culturally, there is always a worry to some group or country is going to come and take from them which influences the Russian state (not the population) to want to set its influence and power as far away from its actual borders as possible. Am I wrong in thinking that?

[YVK]

Historically the Russians, both the ruling class and the population, have been brought up in the delusion of a grandeur and such ideas are painful to die off. Many still feed off of that but the illusion is really hard to maintain despite $52 bln Olympics and such. The government probably realizes it the best. Its modus operandi of relationships with the neighbors have been based on energy prices and customs regulations manipulations for years; they can't possibly be that naive as to why nobody respects them. The action in Ukraine is both a temper tantrum and attention diversion, imo. They are afraid to admit economic incompetence, political living in the past, and never-ending and staggering corruption and they need an enemy to get the masses unified. Ukraine and the West are convenient.

Normal folks don't particularly care what territories Moscow rules and only few stupid ones care about buffer zones in the era of nukes. Some get annoyed with the fact that they live in an irrelevant country after being fed the notion of a superpower then and now, others (and most of them) just want to live well.

[Jay Cunningham]

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/49712


Putin speech

[PPGMD]

Well it looks like the Russians might not be satisfied with the Sudetenland.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-reviewing-legality-baltic-states-200136322.html


Russia is going to review whether or not it was legal for the Soviet Union to recognize the Baltic states as independent nearly 25 years ago, according to a report by Interfax.

A "source familiar with the situation" told Interfax on Tuesday that the Russian Prosecutor General's office began checking the legality of the recognition of the independence of the Baltics.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were Soviet republics until the dissolution of the USSR back in 1991.

[Drang]

Well it looks like the Russians might not be satisfied with the Sudetenland.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-reviewing-legality-baltic-states-200136322.html

I am shocked, SHOCKED!!!