Anybody else feel a chill in the air?
I’ve been trying to avoid thinking about things in the old way, but it’s hard outside that context to understand how senior Russian leadership can simultaneously hold two such publicly and passionately conflicting beliefs:
Russia tested new missiles yesterday that a Kremlin official boasted could penetrate any defense system, and President Vladimir Putin warned that US plans for an antimissile shield in Europe would turn the region into a “powder keg.”
First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and it also successfully conducted a preliminary test of a tactical cruise missile that he said could fly farther than existing, similar weapons.
“As of today, Russia has new tactical and strategic complexes that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems,” Ivanov said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. “So in terms of defense and security, Russians can look calmly to the country’s future.”
So in that case, it seems like – from the Russian perspective, anyway – the antimissile deployment shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Unless the Russians’ problem is that the BMD system, which after all is designed to defend Europe from the threat of a small-scale attack by a rogue nation or non-national actor like, oh – and I’m just spit-balling here, Iran, say – might actually work.
But why should they care about that?
So add another ice cube to the geopolitical freezer of jailed political opponents, petrochemical coercion, inflamatory language and murdered domestic and overseas critics. Oh, and mere petulance, too.
–
Russians have a traditional dread about encircling enemies, a cultural predisposition with strong historical roots which the rapid pace of NATO enlargement into the territory of the former Warsaw Pact has done little to allay. And perhaps it is not so unusual for a proud people forced by history to give up their cherished status as a superpower to use whatever leverage they can on the world stage – though energy policy is a blunt weapon which has been still more bluntly wielded. And even conceding that Vladimir Putin’s reputation at home has been enhanced by the order he created out of a post-Yeltsin chaos it’s still possible in these our modern times to hope that strong leadership and authoritarian thuggishness need not go hand in hand.
Russia has always been torn between the East and the West, between Europe and Asia and balancing between the two can seem a tempting and potentially rewarding strategy – but with a beady-eyed endworlder coming closer and closer to realizing his infernal visions, the center can be also a dangerous place to stand these days. Choices are called for and distinctions must be drawn.
It will be a long and difficult process to fully integrate Russia into the West, with many painful structural changes required all the way around.
Best to get started.
Me? I much prefer Poland’s Deputy Foreign Minister’s take:
?
Me? I much prefer Poland’s Deputy Foreign Minister’s take:
“From a technical point of view, we cannot convince them. They ignore, they neglect our arguments, and they are saying that any kind of a military installation on the territory of Poland, Czech Republic – that means on the territory of new member NATO states – is not acceptable for them,” Waszczykowski said. “That means they have a psychological problem, a kind of mental problem preventing them from accepting that the two nations are really sovereign – are not part of Soviet or Russian domination any more.”
As a connoisseur of irony (uh oh, is this going to spur another round of defining irony?) I find it, interesting, that Russia should be whining about countries on their border with MR/IRBM’s and poor helpless Russia is without because of the INF Treaty – never mind the fact every single one of those missiles is based on Russian-proliferated designs and technology. Guess you can tell I’ve no lost love for the current crowd in Moscow…
- SJS
I keep thinking of the Cold War reigniting every time I hear Putin and his cronies.
The problem that Russia has, as is duly noted, Poland and the Czech Republic are no longer satellites for their attempt at being their once inflated self.
I confess to commenting on the issue at FreeRepublic thusly….
The GOP needs a [Iraqi] pullout like Russia needs a Putin.
The history of Russia is a pendulum swinging between reform and repression. The only question is the degree of the arc.
Putin is leading a thugocracy. The KGB domesticly won the cold war. In the good ole Soviet days, there was a dynamic tension of internal power between the KGB, the military, and the party. The party no longer exists. Their military is defanged, and the KGB has become the mafia. Does he want to resuscitate the military? Probably only as much as it takes to be able to bully the Poles.
Putin says a lot of things. Like all politicians, we need to watch what he does.
Can’t help noticing a strange little irony . . .
Perennially paranoid Russia, ultra-protective of the beloved Motherland, has lost her former buffer of Soviet satellites. Worse for her, we are putting missiles there.
It seems to me a long time ago we (or at least the Mob) lost Cuba. Soon thereafter, Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba ?
Can’t help noticing a strange little irony . . .
Perennially paranoid Russia, ultra-protective of the beloved Motherland, has lost her former buffer of Soviet satellites. Worse for her, we are putting missiles there.
It seems to me a long time ago we (or at least the Mob) lost Cuba. Soon thereafter, Khrushchev put missiles in Cuba – and we reacted quite rightly and forcefully, but narrowly avoided a possible nuclear holocaust. (And we have recently learned how much more a precipitous crisis that was, than we earlier were led to believe.)
Of course this time it is different. Our missiles are “defensive” and not “offensive.” Nor was there back then a wild card, third party, beady-eyed crazy man in the equation, like now.
In the old days, Ahmadinejad could have been quietly ‘eliminated’ by the CIA…. No, wait… we tried that with Castro a number of times and failed miserably. Have we learned from the past?
It’s a complex world and the stakes are high, with no room for capriciousness or recklessness. And the answers are no longer simple, intuitive responses. But they are evermore important.
fliterman:
Point of historical record – we had deployed Thor IRBMs in Turkey and Jupiter MRBMs in Italy before Khrushchev sent the missiles to Cuba.
Additionally, there is utterly no offensive capability to the proposed GBIs going into Poland – and they most certainly are not nuclear. Primary purpose is improve the Pk vs missiles launched from Iran against the mid-Atlantic/NE US & Canada with defense of Europe an ancillary benefit. That point has been made directly and clearly to Putin and senior Russian officials in person. Putin is flogging this dead horse as a thinly veiled pre-text to justify the substantive upgrade to nuclear forces and to seek a way to set aside the INF Treaty.
BTW, Ivanov is someone else to keep your eyes on as he is the putative heir to Putin in the upcoming Russian Presidential elections…
- SJS
1n 1991 on board the good ship USS America, when word came through about the coup in Russia-a nameless wag ( well I know his name…) posted a banner in Strike Ops that said-”We’re back in business!” As you can guess it was forced to be taken down the next day.
Looks like we need to go find it again. At least the Cold War came with beer and peanuts.
Putin is just trying to show that he is not the West’s lap dog. If he could ever get through some real reform in the armed forces, Russia could be another power that we will have to compete with.
SJS ?
SJS – You are correct about the IRBM’s in Turkey. But as I recall (off the top of my head without checking) I don’t think the Soviets were yet aware we had deployed them until after the Cuban Missile crisis. Is that correct?
Your other points as to the exact capabilities of the GBI’s are well taken, as is your comment on Putin’s posturing.
Skippy-san – Your Cold War nostalgic anecdote is extremely telling.
There is a natural and pervasive wish among many – both here and in Russia – to return to the better known and more ‘stable’, Cold War balance. Indeed, our national defense, our military-industrial complex, our economy, and our national psyche are totally geared toward conventional warfare and a stable, nuclear MAD deterrence. It has been that way for many decades. We are conditioned.
Now terrorism, insurgencies, and asymmetric warfare have upset the applecart of many. Moreover, they have rendered much of our existing and future, expensive, high-tech. weaponry irrelevant. Worse, this asymmetric warfare threatens the viability of old, stalwart defense contractors and their many employees (not to mention also, their fat-cat investors
). And worst of all, we have never shown we understand how to effectively conduct counter-insurgency warfare, much less ever successfully done so.
Our actions to date in COIN have been abysmal.
It is little wonder that many – both here and in Russia – wish our unwanted insurgency warfare would just disappear, so everyone could just get back to what they know and understand – the old Cold War?
But insurgency and terrorism are here to stay. And threaten Russia and the US equally, and mortally. The nostalgia for the old Cold War must be abandoned. Russia and the US must unite in a common cause against this new and growing threat.
But given our long adversarial histories, and belligerent proclivities, along with a desire to return to more ‘logical’ times, that will be a tall – but essential – order.
Engaging the wrong ‘enemy’ is always disasterous.
Filterman, I’ll bet you’ve been called a supercilious twit before. Consider the motion seconded. Your blanket statements are idiotic claptrap, and display an invincible ignorance of the historical military facts of the past sixty years. Were you asleep at the end of the cold war?
What do you know about COIN besides the acronym? What do you know about the conduct of this war, or any war? We have fielded the best military force in our history. The men out there are smart, and making good decisions. If we can keep the media and the congress out of their business, we’ll accomplish our objectives.
In fact, the Soviets were only too well aware of them. They were quietly w/drawn as part of the stand down from Cuba primarily owing to deployment of the Polaris-equipped SSBNs and as a private quid-pro-quo between the Kennedy Administration and Khrushchev. The Kennedy administration’s public face on the matter was that there wasn’t a quid-pro-quo, however. That was revealed sometime later.
- SJS
Once upon a time in the 80s and early-mid 90s when I was a bright eyed and bushy tailed PhD student getting to know all things Soviet I thought that once the Russian people were liberated from Communism that we would see the first flowering of a truly free Russia for the first time in its history. I was fortunate to have teachers who hadn?
Once upon a time in the 80s and early-mid 90s when I was a bright eyed and bushy tailed PhD student getting to know all things Soviet I thought that once the Russian people were liberated from Communism that we would see the first flowering of a truly free Russia for the first time in its history. I was fortunate to have teachers who hadn’t succumbed to the dominant academic trend of Soviet studies since the early 70s, that argued that the Soviet Union was fine and dandy; an economically and social advanced society where the Communist party enjoyed broad popular support and that socialism had solved the nationalities problems of Eastern Europe (yes, friends, this was the scholarly consensus – people like Richard Pipes and Robert Conquest were considered fringe cold warriors). Instead I was taught that Communism was an evil, but also, that it was the primary source of our entire problem with the Russians (this was not meant to deny that there were not pathologies in Russian political culture, but my instructors argued that those didn’t really explain the peculiar virulence of Leninism and later Stalinism).
I fear I don’t think that anymore (and as a someone whose primary research had been shifting from the Soviet Union to Poland when I was a grad student I had been trying to ignore all the Polish historians who had been making the case that Russia as Russia was a problem). I agree with filterman that it is wrong to think that our tensions with Russia will look like the Cold War – the new Russia is a different animal to be sure. But I am afraid that I don’t buy the idea that we necessarily have common interests simply because both we and Russia face problems like terrorism or insurgency (I presume filterman is referring to Chechnya). Russia has been playing a very nasty game in the Caucuses for over a decade (ask any Georgian), has engaged in political assassinations abroad, and has a thoroughly corrupt and aggressive thugocracy/klepocracy firmly in the saddle, with enough petro-dollars not only to buy off enough of its own population to achieve stability but also to leverage influence in Europe.
We need to realize that the Russians are neither our friends or worthy (or reliable) partners in the struggle with terrorism (God help me but frankly the French are much more reliable and even, gulp, more trustworthy). We might have situations where we need to cooperate, and I certainly have not one ounce of nostalgia for the Cold War (nor think the Russians represent the kind of global military-ideological threat that the Soviets did) but one need not desire Cold War “stability” and perpetual Russo-American conflict to recognize that the new Russia is much more like Iran – a thoroughly selfish and reflexively hostile regional power with local hegemonic pretensions which it might be possible to identify common interests, but which needs to be carefully watched and quietly and softly hemmed in/restricted when it seeks to assert local hegemony. And this in spite of all the slack we cut them for years after the Cold War (when, far from using our victory in the Cold War to humiliate Russia we and the Germans did everything – including floating lots of loans and providing a great deal of aid – to help them out, even while leaving potential friends like the former Soviet Republics and satellite states hanging out in the breeze for over a decade before allowing them to join NATO). We have tried to work with the Russians and the answer of their elites (and it must be added much of the Russian people) to cooperation has been growing hostility and a consolidation of an aggressive and corrupt government. We should attend more to our friends in the regions around Russia and not worry so much about stepping on their toes (or going out of our way to gratuitously offend them either).
And lest it be argued that such a policy is likely to deepen Russian hostility to the US it is worth remembering that Soviet reform under Gorby happened when the west was led by Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl and Mitterrand, none of whom were by any stretch of the imagination pro-Soviet. We simply cannot assume that the Russians will match our watchfulness and carefulness with suspicion and hostility – there is no simple trade off between the West protecting itself and the Russians getting “defensive” – if anything, when we act like rubes instead of grown-ups we likely as not encourage the more aggressive and corrupt anti-Western elements in Russia. Where the Russians need to cooperate with us in areas like terrorism they will out of self-interest, but they frankly do not share our values and do not wish us well or hope for the success of the global order we are trying to protect.
PS: SJS is quite correct about the Turkish missiles – Khrushchev at times could get quite emotional and angry about them and saw the Cuban missles as a way of teaching us a lesson.
Ho-humm. We’ll just spend them into a different form of government, again. BTW, them Rooskies are below ZPG due to booze and malaise. In 50 years they’ll cease to exist..Same as the 1/2 life of their nucs.
This’ll come to pass Putin or no Ras-Putin!
Mr. Curp-
re “Where the Russians need to cooperate with us in areas like terrorism they will out of self-interest, but they frankly do not share our values and do not wish us well or hope for the success of the global order we are trying to protect.”
Between that and their pathologies, Sir, big Concur-right on-right on!
b2
I can understand Russia’s reaction to the missile defense installations in their former satellites. Sure, that’s a wonderful place for defending a shot from Iran, but it’s also a great place to nail Russian ICBM’s in the boost phase, where it’s so much easier. Since MAD seems to still be the fallback they have to be concerned about a first strike scenario. Playing devils advocate here, consider that Desert Storm was well telegraphed, but was still a first strike from our part that demonstrated that there were, shall we say, some holes in the Soviet doctrine for air defense. I’d have given big money to hear what the Soviet military was saying about that… So from their standpoint we’re crowding them and they have reason to be concerned about our military abilities. Politically we appear to change our minds and policies about every 15 minutes, so that isn’t going to be a stabilizing factor. I’m sure they don’t consider us friends or allies, and we’re no longer a reliable (predictable) enemy to them. I’m not saying we should necessarily be doing anything different, but Putin’s reaction to the missile defense system is a predictable if unintended consequence.
Pogue,
Fair enough, but the problem is that we have provided them with ample proof that we wanted to work with them and help them – bringing them into the G-8, providing economic aid, delaying incorporating the countries of East Europe into NATO, ignooring their quasi-genocidal war in Chechnya, etc ad nauseum.
Yes, there is the possibility of a US first strike, and I suppose the French or Brits also have the capability to devestate Russia with their nukes (or for that matter a French first strike against us could do a lot of damage, non? We are rightly unafraid of such a first strike from the Brits or the French, just as they know (in part from the excellent intel that they have received via their still too numerous spies) what are our intentions and yet they are still speaking as if we are seeking a credible first use strategy to wipe them out.
I’m sure you are right that there is an element of Russian paranoia here, but roll that around a bit in your mind – if they really are paranoid, this reflects their own warped sense of their self-interest and an international order which included selling a good deal of hardware to Sadaam and shilling for him in the U.N. in the run up to the war, in supporting the Serbs, selling weapons and trading with Iran, etc. They are doing what an enemy would do, and even talking like an enemy would talk, and pursuing quite brutal policies against pro-western countries all along their borders, be they Estonia, Georgia or Poland. I don’t want to push them too hard, but there is a point where any relationship is about give and take, and I think any fair minded assessment would show that we have given an awful lot to a former Russian enemy that has so far contributed precious little to real internatioanl stability and done an awful lot of mischief as well.
I was fortunate while a student at Navy to have a poli sci prof who also was a Pole – as his father had been one of the WWII Polish officers murdered by the Soviet Army in the Katyn forest, he had decidedly unromantic view of his ancient neighbor to the east, a view only partly colored by the totalitarian ideology of the day.
David – I don’t disagree. I just think it’s worthwhile to remember the other guy doesn’t think the same way we do and it’s a good idea for us to be aware of that. Did we invest in Russia because it supported our own (and their own) interests or because we were afraid of what the new Russian government might do and wanted to buy them off. My opinion is that while there is some truth to both statements I tend to put more weight on “enlightened self interest” than “dealing from weakness.” I wonder how Mr. Putin looks at it?
First of all, for you Pan Lex (“Pan” and Panstwo are Polish honorifics, sort of like Senor), a heads up on one of the best new books on Polish-Soviet relations. It?
First of all, for you Pan Lex (“Pan” and Panstwo are Polish honorifics, sort of like Senor), a heads up on one of the best new books on Polish-Soviet relations. It’s by Timothy Snyder, Sketches from a Secret War about Poland, the Ukrainians and the Soviets from WWI to the 50s and is well worth your time.
And Pan Pogue your point is well taken about the need to consider how Mr. Putin looks at things, but remember, this is someone who joined the Soviet security services in the bad old days, and those services were (and likely remain) bad news not only for us but for the democratic aspirations of those Russians who have them. I know he knows what we want to hear, but Putin and his friends’ views of things are a very mixed and pretty ugly grab bag of chauvinism, technocracy and cynicism. We did help them out in the 90s due to a considerable degree out of enlightened self-interest (they were leaving nukes – nukes – without sufficient safe-guards and protections – which to my mind does not suggest a terribly responsible power).
It is worth considering how much enlightened self-interest is a culturally specific concept that has emerged from deeply democratic cultures, where for all our sound and fury, we take it for granted that fellow citizens have rights and that we all have mutual responsibilities. “Win-win” is not a concept that informs Russian political culture (or, may I add for good measure, that of China, though something like it might be present in certain parts of the Arab world), and I am interested in us really thinking outside of the box- not just asking how would we feel/what would we think if we were in their position, but more importantly realizing that because they are not us, the key task is figuring out what they feel and why.
They do the math quite differently to the north and east, and I think we get tripped up all the time thinking that history and culture don’t matter so much just because on the whole Americans have the historical literacy of fruit flies. Is their main concern in defending MAD because they are honestly afraid of a US first strike (they were reading our internal government discussions on these issues all the time) or because they have plans and designs in Eastern Europe that might bring about a crisis, or they just like our European friends living under an Iranian ballistic missile of Damocles? I don’t know but I think we have to get a deeper grasp of our own and others cultural and political pathologies so that we realize what it looks like when we are tempted to start going loopy and learn to recognize what others loopiness looks like as well.
Pogue:
Have to make a quick reply for now, but the GBI’s going into Poland (and that is still not a done deal) are not/not a boost phase interceptor. Additionally, even for mid-course intercepts, the geometry is not there to intercept ICBMs out of Russia headed for the US – and we have, in excruciatingly minute detail, shown that to the Russian civilian and military leadership. They choose to follow old ways and pound this dead horse for domestic consumption and it is (again) to their long term detriment. No surprise there…
- SJS
I second B2′s take:
Rampant chronic alcoholism and Khamstvo [boorishness, especially and particularly towards long-suffering Russian women] are their Achilles’ heel. Until that starts to change, their society can’t succeed. They can only hurt themselves and us –badly.
TOPOLs or Tuberculosis –take your pick. Toxic Russia’s got it all, for export.
Unfortunately, instinctive love of the Rodina does not translate into sane relationships with other countries or peoples.
“They do the math quite differently to the north and east, and I think we get tripped up all the time thinking that history and culture don?
“They do the math quite differently to the north and east, and I think we get tripped up all the time thinking that history and culture don’t matter so much just because on the whole Americans have the historical literacy of fruit flies.”
Boy you got that right.
The Force is strong with this Curp dude.
He’s a professor of history at Ohio University, Casca – I commented on a journal article of his once and he followed me home, much to the enrichment of the discussion here.
Aw shuks, gentlemen, t’weren’t nuthin but thanks for the kind words. After all the time I spent reading and working with some very good profs at the lovely University of Washington I would have a lot to answer for if I couldn’t develop a servicable analysis in my main area of study. I’m just grateful that lex and men like him keep these kinds of sites going so we ivory tower types can get some sense of life, the universe and everything from the perspective of those who have served.
..but on the bright side, this time we get to deploy EAST of the Thuringerwald.
Hold on there Curp! Be ye a Buckeye, or a Cougar?
Pan Cosca,
A cougar, hence if you harbor any wolverine like desire to crunch buckeyes, stay your claws good sir (a Habsburg statesman once said that diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggy’ while reaching for a rock…), and if you have heard of the current kerfluffels going on our way, say a prayer or two for us.
Hell, if you’re going to butcher it, make it Costco. Maybe I can get in on the will.
In the jump, Lex has you listed at Ohio State vice OU, a natural enough mistake from a boat schooler with too much salt water in his circuitry. I of course am an alum of that august university on the Olantangy.
Trouble in Athens? Don’t tell me they’ve discovered that OU is a diploma mill for the NEA? How else would a democrat get a diploma?
Or perhaps you’re speaking governmentally? I have averted my gaze since Taft decided to prove the he was every bit as stupid as was suspected, and the populi annointed Sherrod Brown a Senator. If Mike Dewine had any self-respect, he’d hang himself in the attic.
This all makes it problematic for the R’s in ’08. Damned hard to carry the state with the D’s in power, for they will use all their might to do what they accuse the R’s of doing.
Dear Pan Casca
My apologies for garbling your name (and you were referring to the Olentangy river, non?
).
Not to show too bad a case of regimental pride, but the history department at OU has done some very good work for a long time, so not every part of OU is quite as dicey as it might seem, especially from the very well heeled regions around the state capital, though academic quality is getting harder to maintain at OU that for a variety of reasons that I think best to chat about another day (foremost among them being I’m one year out from tenure and I’m already tempting fate uncloaking to the degree that I already have).
As to the Republican Party in this state, the only consolation is knowing that when the Democrats were trying to run for Senate an election or so back, they seriously considered putting Jerry Springer up to oppose Voinovitch. Still, it is worth remembering that the Dems only have the governorship and, how to put this delicately – with a governor who was not running as or against someone terribly capable. Also there is a Republican legislature, and in many ways this is a fairly conservative state, but, as you say, it will be running uphill to do well in the next election.
Heh, they never taught me how to spell. That’s all hit or miss.
Blackwell was a good man in a bad cause. There was no way to win in this cycle after Taft and Dewine had poisoned the well.
In all honesty, I didn’t follow the race that closely but was working off of the views of those who had and were underwhelmed by Mr. Blackwell – though I did vote for him on principal. And yes, you are also right that after Taft and Dewine even Lincoln would have had a hard time leading the Republicans in Ohio to victory. I just wish there was a deeper bench for both parties frankly since it is not a good thing for democracy nor does it add luster to the great state of Ohio when our varsity and theirs are not so strong. Robust state government matters – probably one of the best breaks to tyranny ever thought up – and yet there is little sign of it in Ohio.