What's Russia really up to?

With ISIS and the Syrian refugee crisis on the news so often, it’s hard for some Americans to relate to the comments of General Joseph Dunford, the new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Testifying before the U.S. Senate during his confirmation hearing in July, he identified Russia – not Iran, North Korea, China or ISIS – as the greatest threat to US national security.

Many analysts and journalists have speculated on the motives of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Following the Russian incursion into Ukraine, the Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed piece titled ‘Is Vladimir Putin Insane?’  In it, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted as saying that Putin lives in “another world’.  Other pieces have described him as a tyrant and compared him to Hitler.   Meanwhile, General Lloyd Austin, Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East admitted to Congress that he was completely flummoxed by Russia’s military actions in Syria. 

Yet, I have seen very little said or written about Russia’s compelling national security interests as a key driver of their behavior.  As I see it, there are two geographic factors driving Putin’s and Russia’s behavior. 

Russia is a vast plain that is easy to attack from every angle, except the sea.  So, they have been attacked throughout their history from both the East and West.  Their compelling interest is to create buffers between themselves and potential attackers.

 That said, Putin knows he doesn’t possess the military strength stand up the US.  So, he exploits the vacuum we created in the Middle East to his advantage by becoming the enabler of Iran’s compelling interest.  The consolidation of Shia power from Iran through Iraq to Syria serves them as well as it does Russia, which gains a buffer zone to its south.  It also threatens both Turkey (a NATO member) and Saudi Arabia, an American ally and, like Saddam’s Iraq, an Arab nation ruled by a Sunni minority.  

As for Ukraine, Russia’s actions — from annexing Crimea to carving out a swath of land that gives them access to it — are driven by another compelling interest, access to the sea.  Like all nations, access to sea routes is essential to commerce.  Securing Crimea provides them with access to the Mediterranean.  

There was a bit of coverage about the Arctic Ocean when President Obama visited Alaska a few months ago.  Our Coast Guard has only one icebreaker to Russia’s 27 securing their access to the sea routes that open up as the ice floes melt.  

Americans tend to take our security for granted.  We are geographically too far from Europe and Asia to have suffered from the ravages of war in the last century.  Very few are aware that the US Navy has secured 100% of the world’s waterways since WW II.  We ensure peaceful commercial sea traffic for every nation in the world.

Now, we are reducing our military presence throughout the world and downsizing our navy.  Is it any wonder that Russia sees an advantage and takes it?  Their incursion into Ukraine tests NATO’s resolve while their support of Syria’s Assad advances a refugee crisis that tests the EU’s economic resilience. 

The Obama administration has been criticized in the press for lacking a cohesive foreign policy. Yet, there may be long-term benefit to the U.S. letting the Middle East and Russia be Europe’s problem.  Our so-called ‘pivot to Asia’ will have greater economic benefit through stronger trading and security relationships that challenge China.  Our Asian allies seem to care about that.  

Does Europe care?  Will they stand up for themselves?  They are already sounding like Chamberlain. 

WHO WILL LEAD?

The Russians are coming; the Russians are coming!

When I was a kid, we had A bomb drills in school.  The fear of a Soviet sneak attack was that great.  It was part of our national psyche.  My parents didn’t build a bomb shelter in the backyard but we wouldn’t have been alone if they had. 

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it revealed the weaknesses of an economic and political system that ignored sound principles of economic freedom and human rights.  We have had little to fear from Russia since.  Not only are they weak economically but also they are weak militarily. 

The Russian sphere of influence has shifted east and west for centuries.  It has never extended so far to the west as it did during the Cold War and it has never been so far east as it is now.  The Russians would like to change that. 

Toward that end, they have struck deals with countries like Ukraine, Poland and Germany to sell them oil and gas. And, they haven’t been shy about using their customers’ reliance upon them for energy as a means to influence international events.  Energy exporting nations in South Asia and the Middle East are their economic competitors.  So, they seek to extend their sphere of influence southward as well. 

By contrast, the United States is an economic and military juggernaut, a maritime nation whose integration into the global supply-chain (and our ability to keep it secure) makes it in everyone’s interest to be our ally. 

So, how does Russia end up taking us to school over the handling of Syria?  Or, to put it differently, why we are playing a weak hand when we have a strong one?

The U.S. has a conflict between ideology and military strategy.  Our beliefs – the why of what we know we should do – are based on human rights, the manifestation of which, at least in the case of Syria, is our opposition to weapons of mass destruction.  Moreover, we’ve been sensitized to the specter of mass genocide.  Many people – despite their opposition to war – think we could have prevented the death of hundreds of thousands if we had acted sooner in Rwanda and Bosnia.

So, there is constant friction between what we believe and what we do.  Firing missiles, dropping bombs and sending in the Marines is not the best way to promote human rights.

Our original strategy vis-à-vis Syria was to strike in a limited way.  It would not have had a big effect.  It wouldn’t have destroyed the chemical weapons and wouldn’t have toppled the Assad regime.  It would have been painful while it lasted but not debilitating to a dictator who is in the middle of a long war and who would easily be resupplied by his Russian allies. 

So, why do it?  Like most diplomatic moves played out on the world stage, it’s a gesture.  A gesture to express our unhappiness. 

Unfortunately, the result was to send a signal it doesn’t really matter if we are unhappy!  Our military power should be feared but our diplomatic waffling undermines our intentions. The outcome has been to hand Russia an opportunity to appear to be our equals (or perhaps our superior) by brokering a solution that allows us to back down in the face of popular opposition. 

Our President seems unable to decide if he wants to be George W. Bush or Jimmy Carter and is, therefore, ineffective at being either.  Nations with a strong interest in becoming reliable allies in the region – from Azerbaijan to Turkey to Poland – may now see us as unreliable partners.  The image of Russia forcing us to back down and appearing to be our equals for the first time since the Cold War is bound to have an influence for a very long time. 

International diplomacy is a game of carrots and sticks.  We should reserve our carrots for those who mirror our values and reserve our sticks for those who pose a serious threat. 

The economic and military power of the United States provides us an opportunity to LEAD.  Our values, our economic and political systems are based on human rights, economic freedom and the rule of law.  Promoting these values and helping our allies develop liberal institutions to implement them will lead to global stability and prosperity.  Our long-term national and economic security depends upon it.

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Does Syria matter? It matters to Israel… It matters to Russia… It matters to Iran

General Martin Dempsey

Syria was in the news again last week.  You may not have noticed.  What, with  more important news like a royal baby.  In case you missed it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented the Senate Armed Services Committee with a three-page letter outlining America’s military options vis-à-vis Syria. 

Aren’t we all a little war-weary?  We still have troops in Afghanistan (105 casualties this year).  We have spent over $1Trillion on two wars and have yet to come to grips with either the social or financial impact of thousands of wounded warriors coming home.

So, why is the Obama administration wringing its hands over Syria?  Is it conceivable that we would add it to the list of countries where we have intervened militarily?

Syria, a former Soviet ally, serves as the western anchor for a potentially powerful Iranian coalition. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab running a Shia nation from a minority position, was an obstacle to the formation of that coalition.  Now Iran, whose paranoia was fed by having thousands of U.S. troops amassed in nations bordering them to the east and the west, has an opportunity. 

Stir Russia into the mix.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s sphere of influence contracted.  Russia now seeks to extend its influence to the Middle East and Southern Asia without using its military.  They have taken advantage of a financially weakened Europe by both making it dependent upon them for energy and by acquiring assets throughout the continent.  It is not in their interest for energy sources outside its control to be available to Europe.

International diplomacy is a game of maintaining a balance of power among competing strategic players.  The smarter of them will take advantage of world events to tip the balance in their favor.  Russia sees opportunity in an alliance with Iran by supporting the Assad regime in Syria.

The U.S. is typically an unsophisticated player on this stage.  Our geographic isolation and domestic concerns place international affairs way down the list on the matters that concern most voters.  Following a major military engagement, we hear the same old aphorisms.  “America can’t be the world’s policeman.”  “Someone else should step up.”  “We have problems here at home.”

The result is inconsistency and the risk is that potential allies do not see us as reliable partners.

Diplomacy – like nature – abhors a vacuum.  We have seen what happens when we don’t become involved.  Yugoslavia and Rwanda come to mind. 

And, it may be that our adversaries in the region see us as creating a vacuum by virtue of our inability to form a cohesive, consistent, successful foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The rush to fill the void may heighten the risk of war.

It’s in America’s interest to limit both Iranian and Russian power.  And, it must do so without considering its military power as its first option.  The U.S. can only afford to support those countries that take responsibility for their national security interests themselves.  We cannot be the first source of that security.  We need to develop a low-risk strategy that doesn’t rely upon knee-jerk military responses.

The entire world knows that the U.S. has neither the political will nor the resources to occupy and govern an Asian nation.  However, we can provide support through arms, training, air and sea power.  Coupled with trade, a sustainable alliance of this nature allows our allies to be secure in the idea that we will not abandon them.

So, what are our diplomatic options?  How do we create an alliance that will serve our interests and tip the balance of power in our favor?

The Caucasus region is where both the Russian and Persian empires converge with Turkey (the empire that collapsed as the Soviet empire emerged).  The nation at the nexus of that convergence is Azerbaijan.  A hundred years ago, half the world’s oil was produced in Azerbaijan. 

But, even when the royal baby isn’t in the headlines, we don’t hear about Azerbaijan, a tiny nation that has become a centerpiece of Israeli foreign policy.  Its government has longstanding grievances with Iran – over control of bordering territory primarily.  A secular Muslim nation (hard to come by), it accuses Iran of supporting Islamist, anti-government factions within its borders.

So, Azerbaijan has formed a substantial trading relationship with Israel, selling it oil and acquiring weapons and military materiel in exchange.  The U.S. should leverage this relationship for its benefit. Israel has “stepped up” as we have stood down.  It is imperative that we continue to support their efforts. 

Now that the royal baby has been named, maybe we can start paying attention to something that matters.

WHO WILL LEAD?