Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Nixon-to-China Moment for Our Time, Squandered
It is a bipartisan article of faith within the American foreign affairs establishment that Vladimir Putin is our implacable foe, and that the Russia-China axis is a natural alliance of two powerful, like-minded despotisms set on global domination. This axiom, a toxic byproduct of our recent domestic political meltdown, is as unquestionable as it is wrongheaded and short-sighted.
In the American imagination, still laboring under a post-Cold War hangover, Russia looms large as a font of hostility, anti-Americanism and illiberal ideology. And indeed, there is little question that the Putin regime is authoritarian and hostile or indifferent to Western values like human rights, individual liberty, and law-bound, accountable government. There is also little question that Russia’s intelligence services have been spectacularly successful in exploiting our political divisions and sowing havoc and discord in our domestic politics. And, Putin continues to poke Uncle Sam in the eye, witness for example, Russia’s most recent meddling in Venezuela.
However, some sober perspective is in order. While Mr. Putin is surely an SOB, his regime is not nearly as wicked as others that we do not demonize to nearly the same extent and is in every respect an improvement on the Soviet Union. Russia is not a rogue state, and Putin’s hostility is mostly a reaction to American meddling in Russia’s backyard stretching back across Democratic and Republican administrations to before the turn of the century. Most recently, the U.S. and our European allies actively supported the overthrow of Ukraine’s legitimately elected government and its replacement by one hostile to Moscow. Moreover, since April of 2008, it has been NATO’s explicit policy that Ukraine and Georgia would become members of the alliance. This remains NATO policy today, though this fact is almost never mentioned by the mainstream Western press. Following on the heels of two earlier waves of eastward expansion, which brought NATO’s frontier to within 80 miles of the Saint Petersburg suburbs, these stunningly provocative policies would be a bridge too far for any Russian leader. Like every other country, Russia has legitimate security interests along its frontiers, and most especially where its bloody historic heartland is concerned. American and European leadership would have been wise to respect those interests.
Consider what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. On this question, we need not speculate, as the historical record is quite clear: the United States reacts with fire and fury when confronted with similar provocations in its backyard. When in 1917 Germany attempted to entice Mexico into a hostile alliance, the United States declared war and dispatched the Kaiser’s Empire to the boneyard of history. In 1962 the United States came close to global thermonuclear war with the Soviets when they took their interference in Cuba a step too far. Russia’s reactions to NATO’s and America’s interference in Ukraine and Georgia have been relatively restrained by comparison.
The fact of the matter is that Russia is a relatively weak and declining power that spends less than one-tenth of what the United States does on defense, and is able to punch above its weight only by cannily deploying asymmetric strategies that maximize its strengths in cyber-warfare and intelligence operations. Russia has little military capability to seriously threaten Europe, and even less demonstrated intention to do so. While we obsess over Putin’s meddling in our elections and squander our resources on pointless distractions like prying Ukraine loose from Russia’s sphere of influence, we lose sight of the one central fact of our time – that we are in the early stages of conflict with China, a conflict that has the potential to dwarf all of America’s earlier great power confrontations.
China is well on its way to becoming a major peer competitor of the United States. Currently China’s per capita income level is comparable to Mexico’s, and the size of its economy stands at roughly $13 trillion, compared to approximately $20 trillion for the U.S. China will match the U.S. in nominal economic terms when its per capita income grows to the level of Argentina. If its per capita income were to match Taiwan’s, the Chinese economy would be 72% larger than that of the United States. Since economic power equals military potential, China represents an unprecedented strategic challenge for the United States. Because China faces serious internal constraints, it is far from clear that it can ever reach Taiwan’s income level. But nobody knows where China’s growth limits lie. What is clear is that China has already left the United States in its rearview mirror in terms of industrial capacity, is gaining on us in aggregate economic terms, and has not yet reached its full potential.
What’s more, like the old Soviet Union– but unlike Putin’s Russia – China presents a formidable ideological challenge to liberal democracy, a fact to which our intelligence community has finally awakened. The CIA publicly assesses that “Chinese leaders will increasingly seek to assert China’s model of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative—and implicitly superior—development path abroad, exacerbating great-power competition that could threaten international support for democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.” Beijing has been aggressively reshaping the international discourse in the area of human rights, seeking not only to block criticism of its own system but also to erode accepted norms and advance narrow definitions of human rights based on economic standards. China also seriously challenges our liberal establishment’s preferred “multicultural” model of state-building. China is an old-fashioned 19thcentury-style ethnostate whose leadership regards our obsession with diversity and multiculturalism with a mixture of amusement and contempt. The coming U.S.-China rivalry will be a contest, among other things, between two very different approaches to nation-building, whose outcome depends to a great extent on how we think of ourselves as a nation.
A quick glance at a world map suffices to make one thing perfectly clear: a Russian-Chinese alliance is not in America’s interests. Eurasia covers more than 36% of the earth’s land area and contains nearly 70% of the world’s population, as well as 70% of its energy resources and 75% of its GDP. China’s Silk Road Economic Belt project aims to tie the Eurasian landmass into a single economic zone. If successful, this strategy would threaten American economic dominance and dethrone the dollar as the world’s preeminent reserve currency. The emergence of a single hostile economic and political bloc dominating this vast landmass, from the South China Sea and Vladivostok in the east to the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas in the west, would be a geopolitical disaster for the United States. And yet, for some two decades, as presidents of both political parties sleepwalked through our holiday from history, we have heedlessly and inexplicably turned Russia into an enemy and driven it into the arms of China.
Let’s understand one thing: taking on both Russia and China, which appears to be our policy, is insane. There is still time to reverse our foolish course. However, to do so would require a bold diplomatic gambit that drives a wedge between Russia and China – a kind of Nixon-to-China moment in reverse. Richard Nixon’s surprise appearance in Beijing in February 1972 was a stunning diplomatic coup with far-reaching consequences – it hastened the breakup of the Communist bloc, tipped the balance of the Cold War in America’s favor, and helped launch China on a course of economic openness and reform. Today the situation is reversed – Russia is now the junior partner. But as in 1972, Russia and China have differences that can be exploited by a clever American foreign policy; and the U.S. and Russia have common interests including, notably, the containment of Chinese power.
The contours of a bargain with Putin are clear: reversal of the 2008 NATO policy of expansion into Ukraine and Georgia and internationally recognized neutrality for those two countries; recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea; and the easing and eventual lifting of sanctions. In return Russia would withdraw support for the Maduro regime in Venezuela and the Castro regime in Cuba and curb arms sales to Iran. These would be just the first steps leading to a long-term U.S.-Russian realignment directed at containing China. Knocking Russia out of the Chinese orbit would serve as a strong signal to other Asian countries that jumping on the Chinese bandwagon is not their only option and that balancing with the United States against a rising Chinese colossus is a viable – and preferable – alternative. In addition, breaking up China’s domination of Eurasia would contribute to maintaining America’s economic dominance, including preserving the dollar as the world’s trade currency – an enormous boon for U.S. influence that China does not yet possess.
It is to President Trump’s credit that his instincts towards Russia are not ones of reflexive hostility. It is also to his credit that he recognized from the beginning of his campaign that China is America’s primary adversary — and he is to be commended for beginning to shift the establishment’s view of this subject. Unfortunately, the tragicomedy of our present political moment is that the two-plus-year-long Russian “collusion” circus and our near-pathological neo-McCarthyite demonization of Russia have ensured that no rapprochement is possible during the Trump administration. And even if it were possible, where is our Nixon? Where is our Kissinger?
America’s geographical distance from the world’s zones of conflict, which makes us virtually invulnerable to invasion or domination by hostile powers, encourages two kinds of thinking about world affairs: isolationist and messianic. Americans are unused to and uncomfortable with realpolitik, and it is our natural tendency to view world affairs through ideological lenses, rather than from the perspective of power relations. But in an era when for the first time in generations we face a rising global competitor and enormous budget deficits, a little cool-headed realism is necessary. Instead of frittering away our limited resources on pointless, non-strategic causes, we must husband them and concentrate on the core strategic challenge – containing China’s power. In this context, international realities dictate that a rapprochement with Russia is not only desirable, if historical precedent holds, it is also – eventually – inevitable. Tragically, our toxic domestic politics make it nearly impossible for the Trump administration to make this necessary pivot and undermines efforts to reorient America toward meeting the Chinese challenge. Allowing our Russia policy to be driven by hysteria and undermined by partisan domestic political squabbles is a serious self-inflicted mistake that we are likely soon to regret.
Published in Foreign Policy
Sounds like a report of the 1930s British and French intelligence services regarding the state of the Soviet military. As a result, they could not possibly see the value of the Soviet military. World War 2 was the result.
How much are you willing to rely of defense estimates to avoid World War 3?
And in 1939 and 1940 and the first half of 1941, Russia received massive help from Germany to build an industrial infrastructure.
It’s more than that. Russia is used to ruling Ukraine. There are large numbers of Russians in Ukraine. Ukraine has the lowest living standards in Europe. Ukraine is a traditional invasion path to Russia. When was the last time the US was invaded through Cuba? One of the reasons the Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia and not Ukraine is that living standards in Russia were much higher than in Ukraine. One of the reasons ethnic Russians in the Baltic states aren’t so keen on being in Russia is their standard of living would be much lower.
There are several fatal errors in this post. It is difficult to know where to begin. Lets start with the nature of the Russian regime.
The Russian side would never ever follow through on their end of the bargain. It is also an asymmetrical deal. Once we recognize the annexation of Crimea we will never be able to effectively withdraw our recognition. Even if Russia canceled an arms sale to Iran they can turn around and sell to them again the next year, once the cost of our objections to the sale have risen. Russian support for the Maduro regime, even if decisive, can continue unabated as the support all become “mercenary” support outside the control of the Russia state. What would change Russia behavior here we just gave them everything they could possible want. Because of their modest support for Iran, Venezuela and their aggressive behavior in their near aboard. Once they get everything they want you think they will change their fundamental behavior. No chance!
What does internationally recognized neutrality even mean? If you want Ukraine and Georgia to be neutral you know how you can do that? Put them in NATO. Anything sort of that will not make Ukraine and Georgia neutral and Russia will not treat them neutrally. You know who wants normal relationships with Russia? Who wants to be friends with Russia? You know who would like to give Russia a great deal of respect in international affairs and stability in the region? Ukraine and Georgia. You know who prevents those relationships from being normal? Russia. Ukraine and Georgia are seen as being hostile to Russia because they are independent, that was an act of aggression against Russia that the Russians have a hard time forgiving.
So I am supposed to see this as realistic foreign policy? Give Russia everything they want, get nothing in return and then think that Russia will start to behave as a good and faithful ally. What a joke. Seriously, what would be the Russian motivation for better behavior in this situation? They would calculate that America needs Russia more than Russia needs America why not exploit that fully for Russia’s benefit?
Hang,
Yes, it would be quite interesting to watch people who despise the military try to create a viable defense force. I don’t think they are going to get that far. Their sheer incompetence will become much too evident.
Regards,
Jim
Yes, but total capitulation to Putin is what all of his apologists demand of US foreign policy. At every point in this relationship Putin has been the unmitigated and unreasonable aggressor. I spit on the the whole concept of a Russian Backyard, by what right do they claim such dominion over other nations? Being adjacent? The fact of the matter is NATO eastward expansion was not an aggressive move by Western Nations, it wasn’t that America ran East it was that all the formerly brutalized peoples of Eastern Europe freed from the shackles of Russian tyranny ran West. We welcomed them into the international order, because they deserved to be welcomed in like all reasonable liberal democracies. Had Russia not decided to go down its current autocratic/fascist rout they too could have joined NATO as a partner in peace and prosperity. They chose belligerence and aggression. But, it is our fault?
Such is the hubris of liberal democracy.
You know who doesn’t want to be in the Chinese orbit? You know who doesn’t want and fears deeply Chinese domination of Eurasia? Do you need three guesses? Here they are, Russia and Russia and Russia.
The OP seems to give the impression that Russia’s main motivation it to oppose the US and the West and that Russia is reacting to Western “aggression”, you know like treating independent countries as independent is highly aggressive, and so Russia seeks to be China’s junior partner in an anti-western alliance that could become powerful enough to challenge us. This is not what motivates Russia at all.
The motivating influence in Russian politics is “Russian Greatness”. From the Russian point of view Russia is one of the mainsprings of European civilization, Russia is the bulwark against the Oriental hordes that periodically ride out of the East to consume the West. It was Russia that turned back the Islamic tide and freed Eastern Europe for Islamic domination and slavery. Ukraine fell to the fearsome Oriental barbarian hordes, it was Russia that freed them from that dominion and then sent conquering armies East to tame those same hordes protecting the whole world from them.
It was Russia that found a weak barbarian people in the Caucasus who begged for protection from their fellow Christian. These barbarians, the Gruj (Georgians), offered Russia everything except their 1,000 year old monarchy and their internal laws to Russia for protection. Russia in their great benevolence then betrayed the Georgians twice, starting wars for Georgia then removing their troops, and then 1801 when the Georgian King died out of sheer kindness the Russians took the whole country over and turned these people into a colony and civilized them. Did the Georgians thank the Russians for this? NO! They tired to free themselves five times and succeeded twice! The sheer ingratitude of the Georgians should be world famous but is it? NO. Instead people treat Georgia as if it should independent and free of direct Russian rule. How do ideas like this even form? It is from ignorance at best or perhaps from a desire to not acknowledge how great Russia really is, at worst. No normal person would think Georgian should be free….
Notice American aggression in there as a factor? No.
I can’t speak the accuracy or inaccuracy of the content, but purely as a rant it’s pretty great.
To continue from 38. How does Russian Greatness get turned against America, to the extent that it is turned against America?
First it was the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union from the around 1924 when Stalin took power and accelerating during and after World War II came to be seen internally as a new and better Russian Empire. The Communists were constantly trying to prove they were better leaders then the old Czars, to prove that by overthrowing the Czars they had advanced the Russian people and even Lenin, a far more ideological Communist than Stalin, allowed Stalin to get away with invading Georgia in 1921 even though Georgia was an independent and fully Communist country, which according to Communist theory meant that Russia was incapable of going to war with Georgia. Lenin new that agreeing that the old Russia Empire needed to shrink was death politically, combined with his own belief that any deviation from his rule was not true Communism all this very early example of Communist Imperial aggression. Stalin learned his lessons of that invasion very well indeed.
Back to “Russian Greatness” when Gorbachev lost thread of Communist legitimacy, Gorby thought there was a certain amount of moral legitimacy Communism but the only legitimacy the regime had was its monopoly on ruthless, limitless violence, he lost the Soviet Union.
That was a huge blow to the sense of Russian Greatness that many Russians had. Look at all the nations leaving Russian domination, how can that be, the ingratitude, how could these people not realize how lucky they had been to be conquered by Russians! But they could deal with it at first because it was clear to most people that what was holding back the Russian people were the incompetent and incredibly corrupt Soviet/Communist leadership.
Who most suffered this insult was the Russian dominated Red Army. Without civilian control or consent and commencing with the coup against Gorbachev the Red Army launched its own foreign policy. The Red Army had long laid down security plans if there were ever ethnic revolts against Soviet rule and they implemented them, starting wars in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and sowing unrest and war farther east as well though Army’s ability farther east was limited.
In this chaos groups like the Ingush, Chechans, and various Dagestani tribes were armed and trained to go fight in Georgia. In the mountains war raged as various tribes like the Tush, Batsi, Pkhovi, and Khesevar fought for Georgia and inside Georgia proper Civil War raged. In 1993 the war was dying down and the Ingush launched a war on the Ossetians, followed by the Chechans declaring independence and the Dagestani became de facto independent while still acknowledging Moscow.
The Ossetians defeated the Ingush but the Chechans beat the Ossetians and the Russians and even old enemies like the Tush now helping them.
This massive unrest in the South, caused by the Red Army, had profound impact on Russian politics.
But Airbus wants it. And German car manufacturers will want it. That’s why it could succeed.
AfD and other Euro-sceptic parties may very well morph into a pro-EU party if they can gain control of it or gain a piece of it. That may be what the EU learns after Brexit, much like what the British Empire learned after the American Revolution. Co-opt the colonists and the skeptics.
So it may not be out of the question.
Agreed, Russia does not want to be China’s junior partner. But Russia also does not want to be the West’s junior partner, and that is what the West has been demanding that it be if it is to have a normal relationship.
Russian ideology was set at the time of Ivan the Terrible and it has remain unchanged ever since, whether tsarist, communist, or whatever Russia is today. It sees itself as the Third Rome and as you state Great Russia. Muscovy withstood the Mongol onslaught. As a result it saw itself as being chosen by God. James Billington gives an excellent account of this in The Icon and the Axe. (BTW, Ronald Reagan appointed James Billington Librarian of Congress, and he was an excellent choice.)
There are only three realities that face the people of Eastern Europe: German domination, Russian domination or band together and avoid both German and Russian domination. They have chosen German domination and were hoping the US would mitigate it as a result of Nato. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that there will be no mitigation. And the noose will become increasingly tight and they will have no room for maneuver.
Russia does not want that fate. Britain does not want that fate. Switzerland is now fighting very hard to avoid that fate.
And this isn’t aggression? I’m still laughing.
To continue from 40. With several new terrorist/independence movements and the Russian State looking like it might shrink further people were roiled. Also nearly all Russians suffered at the thought that Russia used to squish and eat small people like the Chechans, Ingush, Georgians and Dagestani with hardly thought and now they were winning battles against Russian troops, killing Russian civilians and declaring independence. Who turned the world upside down? How could Russians, Russians!, of all people lose fights like this? There had to be some reason…
Meanwhile Yeltsin is looking for some other basis for his country other than Communism and he turns to free markets and aid from the West. The West in good faith tries to help Russia to transition to a market economy but it is not easy. The strongmen that broke up the Soviet Union were not democrats nor did they understand what “free markets” even meant. If Russia’s leaders didn’t know what it meant the people knew even less.
Having traveled over a good chunk of Eurasia and the Former Soviet Union they think most wealth creation in the West happens by some form of magic. Hard work, by Americans, and private property and labor mobility, education, creativity and entrepreneurship don’t even factor into their thinking. This is of course changing today, but slower than most think, but even in the aughts it was a widely held view.
Because of this the transition to free markets was so badly handled, the entire Russian political class had operated for decades on the basis of corruption and the people themselves were not sure what to do to make a market economy work the Russian people suffered greatly and tragedy stalked them again like it had not since WWII.
You know who got rich though, Westerners got rich from Russia, people who worked with Westerners and politicians that were allied with Westerners. You know who got poorer and more desperate good Russian people. This could burden could be endured if it was making Russia great again but it was not. Muslim scum in the south were breaking free and then the great betrayal took place.
Russia tried to defend her client Serbia, who were fighting Muslims, and Albanian Muslims. Serbia had been freed from Muslims by Russia, Russia and Serbia had fought together in WWI and in WWII, everyone knew Russia protected Serbia. But now the West, the same West profiting from Russia, stood in the way of Russia troops from protecting the Serbian. Not only that but the West came in to save Muslims from Christians! Insanity. Why because of the mass slaughter of civilians? Give me a break that IS how power works. I will explain it slowly for Americans. The Serbs are Americans and the Muslim are the Lakota Sioux. Get it now prissy Western know it alls? Get off your high horse.
Continued from 43.
So now the West that has profited from the fall of Russia and gained power from humiliation of Russian people now humiliates Russia again in Serbia in front of the whole world, by lifting up Muslim Scum and Albanian bandits over good Christian/Communist strongmen. Who does that? What madness consumes the West that they would pick the Bosnian Muslims, the Croatian fascists and Albanian Bandits over good Christians?
Well domestically thing must improve right? No, corruption increases, rich people begin running the country for their own benefit, Chechans are still free, Dagestan still ignores Moscow, Azerbaijan is defiant, Armenia is brought to heal and Georgia still festers but seems to have learned their lesson. If the Chechan are crushed maybe Russia can turn a corner and get things moving again.
No, the Chechans win again. Russia loses again. Something is making Russia weak, something is keeping Russia from living up to their full potential. What could it be? Maybe democracy and Western influence these ideas of Liberal democracy are foreign to Russia maybe it is this cancer that is weakening Russia, it can’t be that Yeltsin is a corrupt Alcoholic it has to be the Western influence, so maybe we need to move in a different direction.
Enter Putin a strong man in the old style. Bringing in the Orthodox church and old Russian Czarist patriotism Putin puts some swagger back into the Russian step by brutally attacking and sacking Grozny and slaughtering vast numbers of innocents with an appropriate amount of rape and torture to make the Chechan pay for their dreams of freedom.
Not only did the West stay mum about it but George W. Bush sees into Putin’s soul and digs it! It is like Bush read this OP and tried to make it reality.
Instead of trying to restrain Russia W. Bush helps Russia kill their domestic resistance and destroy rebel/terror networks helping Russians kill enemies they never would have killed on their own.
Not only will America, under Bush, agree to current Russian borders it helps Russia crush doemstic resistance. Not only that but America applies pressure to Georgia to stop the tribes and people of Georgia who have helped Chechan, Ingush and Dagestani resistance to Russia. America succeeds at this! Wow, what a turn around Putin makes. Just a few years ago America humiliated Russia on the public stage and now America is helping Putin to crush his domestic opposition. Surely Russian and American partnership is heading into new levels of cooperation and trust that will only expand into the future.
That is not what happens though is it?
Hang,
It should be obvious by now that what the EU is most after, money (preferably other peoples money). If they can go on conning everybody about NATO and not spend the 2% GDP they will. However, their con is predicated on America supplying them with NATO security for free forever. Wait till the boring weasels in the EU discover just how much their European Defense Force is going to cost. Forget about it!
Tigers don’t change their stripes, leopards don’t change their spots, and weasels don’t become tigers or leopards.
Regards,
Jim
Russia has no choice in the junior partner their population is in decline, their economy is a joke and their military is only good against small countries or unarmed countries. Russian racism will drive them to the West their self conception as Europeans and main springs of European culture will never allow them to be a junior partner to China. Besides China does not treat their junior partners well, not even with a modicum of respect.
The West is their natural home and they will come to us, offering us concessions, we don’t have to give them anything except face saving measures that any country as proud as Russia will need. The OP says we should give away the store for nothing in return. No need to do that at all. Let Chinese actions and Russia racism drive them to us on our own terms.
Russia always has to deal with Chinese illegally taking lumber from Siberia soon it will be other resources as well, the Russian population in Siberia is 7 million and dropping fast. Why should give them rewards for bad behavior? They need us a 1,000 times more than we need them.
Continuing from 44: The good relations did not grow they soured because Russia was not interested in domestic security alone they Putin needed the Russian people to feel as if he was making Russia Great Again.
He could not do that through broad economic gains, because he does not know how to do that, Putin and his cronies are as corrupt as anyone that came before him though he tries harder than Yeltsin to get some of the money to the people in public works and the like. He tries to make the trains run on time an gas flow in winter and so corruption is more controlled than before and extreme looters, especially if they make a large number of people suffer from the looting can suffer severe consequences where in Yeltsin’s Russia it was more of a free for all.
With the economy not available for greatness Putin had to make sure that people felt Great again but showing Russia once again on the march in Ukraine, Georgia, Belarussia and the Baltics.
Obama was willing to over look Georgia and get down to business but he got nothing for that except more abuse. Russian behavior got worse the more conciliatory that Obama got. But we are asked to believe that if we codify and support all past Russian bad behavior they will stop it and help us against China this is naive in the extreme.
It is very important to realize that Russians understand how the individuals must be sacrificed for the sake of the State. If it will make Russia great, individuals Russians will stay poor.
In David Satter’s book It was A Long Time Ago, And It Never Happened Anyway he relates the story of Taras Shugaev. Taras was 25 years old and had drank way too much. His friends were tired of carrying him and laid him in a dumpster. A garbage truck accidentally dumped him into it’s bin and drove away with him. As the compressor came closer to Taras he called the Russian version of 911.
They were shocked at his situation and gave him helpful advice about yelling for help and banging on the wall with his shoe. Maybe he could call his friends and they could help find him? Taras tries all these things but he gets no response. Begging for help the operator tells him,
“I understand that he doesn’t hear you right now. But how can we find you? Should we stop every garbage truck in Funzenskaya and check them? Do you understand?”
Yes what is the life of one man next to the garbage pick up schedule in Funzenskaya…
With that kind of attitude in the culture dictatorship is very tolerable and there is no price they will not pay to make Russia “respect” on the world stage. Russia will never be a reliable ally until there is a pervasive felt need among the people that Russia needs the US as an ally.
Russia is reacting relatively rationally to their own problems with the tools they have available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TRM67hA5A
They are going to invade the places they need to have in order to be militarily secure, and that’s a bunch of eastern European countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdOZEgaFIw
And absolutely none of them are countries we are going to get into a shooting war with Russia over. We know it, Russia knows it, and the EU knows it. The EU isn’t going to get into a shooting war with Russia over any of them either (they don’t have a deployable military even if they wanted too). The Russians know it, the EU knows it, those countries know it, and we know it.
You couldn’t even draft those armies, and everybody knows it. And there isn’t going to be a fire sale on vital national interests in the next 10-20 years to change any of that.
It is easy to tear things down but what would I do instead?
I dealt with the outline of this in comment 46 but let me expand on that.
Russia has problems they can’t avoid or side step. Demographically, militarily, economically there is no chance that Russia is going to grow more powerful as we head to 2050, they will only grow weaker and weaker.
Russia shares a border with China we do not. Russia has a resource and energy rich, sparely populated frontier with China and we do not. Russians are deeply, deeply racist about Orientals, we are not. Russians are deeply, deeply fearful of domination from the East and we are not.
Russia needs us as ally against China, we do not need them. True if China dominated Russia that would be bad for us but Russians won’t let the Chinese dominate them and will turn to us long before China can dominate them.
We need to not humiliate Russia but we should make them fail, quietly, everywhere we can, help countries around them succeed, wherever we can, and show people that when Russia helps you against the US things tend to get worse for you not better. We should not big them up or talk about a rivalry with them but ignore them as much as we can, speak with respect towards them when we have too and on the down low frustrate their interests. They will learn from this over time.
We have no need to give them anything until they offer us something even bigger and more useful then we would give them. Time will push them toward us without any concession being given to them.
Also China might not rise. They have terrible internal problems, economic problems and a soon to be shrinking population. They might not keep rising but collapse and if they don’t keep growing why are giving away the whole store to the Russians so they will ally with us against a non-threat?
Russia and China might tactically unite here and there to frustrate us but they will never have a partnership and China is so much stronger than Russia and Russia has so much more to fear from China than we do there is no reason for us sell our souls for an unreliable ally at best and more likely a treacherous one.
Independence is aggression! A thousand likes on this…
I am supposed to take these three choices seriously? You think Germany is about to or even can dominate Russia? Cooperation between these countries is not possible for what reason? Could they not all be allies and trading partners?
Why do you think that Ukraine being successful a threat to Russian security? Why does Ukraine prosperity need to mean that Russia starves? Russia could set up very nice deals with Ukraine that the Ukrainians would jump to make but Russia would have to give up on conquest.
Understanding that Russians feel as if they need to be aggressive and oppress other people is good but that does not mean we need to allow it.
How are you using the term rogue state? Russia has invaded two different nations three times since 2008, it has crossed the border into the Baltic republic and stolen people for interrogation in Russia. Russia has helped rogue regimes and strengthen defenses of places like Iran when it was supposed to sanction them. Russian mercenaries attacked US troops in Syria, how it is not rogue? Russia invaded and still occupies Crimea, Ukrainian territory outright.
The Zimmerman telegram was never taken seriously by Mexico and while it had great propaganda value for the Wilson administration it was a dead letter that played no real part in America going to war with Germany. No Zimmerman telegram and we still enter the war against Germany.
The Cuban Missile crisis was a hostile move, not defensive, with Castro begging the USSR to attack the US. Of course we reacted to it. NATO will never back a hostile move against Russia. If the 1.5 million Latvians decided to put together 60,000 soldiers or so and launch an attack on St. Petersburg you know how many NATO allies will join them ZERO. They will have simply committed suicide as a country. The Baltic Republics are not and will never be a military threat to Russia. The only problem for Russia with NATO is that they cannot invade the Baltic Republics when the urge strikes them.
That does offend some Russians but that is ok, those Russians need to be offended.