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?
