Notwithstanding Putin’s recent threat to aim nuclear missiles at proposed early-warning systems in Europe, how exactly is Russia currently viewed by the US?
Is Russia still considered a full-fledged, hostile military threat? But (and correct me if I’m wrong) aren’t most of America’s nuclear weapons (and most of Russia’s) not in active status? I seem to recall reading something once about how Bill Clinton changed the targets of most American nuclear missiles over to the Sargasso Sea. And also, so much cooperation goes on between the two countries (science, space station, industry, oil, etc.) that Russia hardly seems to be looming on the horizon as a serious threat to America.
But if Russia isn’t a military threat, they’re certainly not allies, as the US has no formal military alliance agreement with Russia. It seems that the status between the two countries is sort of ambiguous – neither overtly hostile nor particularly friendly. Is this assessment correct?
The USA watches everybody regardless of size, but every country does that. There is no air of doom hanging over our heads as we think of the USSR with glowing unease.
I don’t know about politically, but I work in the defense industry and the sense I get is that the biggest military threats to this country seem to be Russia, China, and the Middle East, in that order. Regardless of the situation in the Middle East, our military is still poised to fight World War III against the Soviets in Europe (though that’s starting to change a bit).
I don’t get it-Russia is not an enemy, or potential enemy. Why? Russia is rich in natural resources (oil, uranium, coal, platinum, etc.) which the West needs. Plus, after 7 decades of communist mis-management, russia needs infrastructure development-highways, water and sewr systems, transportation, communications systems, which the West can supply. Granted, there is friction over NATO and the role of russian arms exports-but that is minor.
I’d say the USA had better look to have some friends in the world-we have burned a LOT of bridges!
The trouble is that any authoritarian country–even one with a few trappings of democracy like Russia–can turn on a dime depending on the whims of the leader, or depending on who ends up as the new leader. So Iran is our friend, ruled by the pro-American Shah. Except tomorrow the Shah gets overthrown and Iran is now our deadly enemy.
Since Russia is not a liberal democracy, the potential for radical shifts in foreign policy is present. If Russia decides to invade Estonia tomorrow, we’re going to be fighting Russia tomorrow.
Right, but Putin has been riding off of nationalist forces within Russian politics who want to see a Russia return to the spotlight of nearly all world affairs. The most effective way to do this, as Iran and North Korea have proven, is to be against the USA - if nothing else, this gets media coverage and attention. So even though war is clearly not in their interest, they’ll disagree with us as often as possible over all sorts of stuff.
I’m not sure what your point is. The Security Council is notoriously fractured and plagued by vetoes. Nearly whenever the US wants something, either China or Russia vetoes it, and vice-versa.
Modern Russia, or rather, the Russian Federation, may not exactly be an enemy, but they’re further from being a friend than a French waiter. Why (despite the reasons you list)? That’s a bit of a long story, but not a particularly complex one.
There are two things to understand about the fundamental Russian character; one is fear of invasion, and the other is inferiority. Between the two, you have a particularly neurotic character this is difficult to befriend. The first comes in that Russia (in her various incarnations) has been invaded by foreign forces time and time again. Russia, from the Tatars and the Mongols through the modern Napoleonic French and Nazi-era Germans, have invaded and attempted to control the Slavic peoples of Russia, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland, and what are the current various Baltic Republics from time immemorial. The Soviet Union, while ostensibly a nation based upon the tenants of Marxist Communism and Comintern, was in hindsight, entirely dedicated to providing Mother Russia a buffer from invasion. The Russians want to be under the control of no one, and as a culture (even the ostensibly athestic one of the Soviet Era) consider themselves to be the successor to Rome and Constantinople: the “Third Rome”.
On the second, the Russians–despite their manifest input into literature, science, mathematics, philosophy, et cetera–never had the kind of overseas empire that most major European nations enjoyed at some point, or the world spanning protectorate that the United States employed in the post-WWII environment. As a consequence, there’s some sense that Russia is considered an inferior world power, and an accompanying impulse to demonstrate their capability. As such, they can’t “befriend” another nation until they’ve either cowed it or been honored to be asked support, a lesson Fidel Castro used to his significant benefit in facing off with the much more powerful United States. This explains the extreme Soviet response (tantamount to a major militiary invasion) to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968 (both initially mirroring the European Revolutions of 1848 which brought modern democratic principles to the feudualism and imperialism of European powers of the day).
In the post-Soviet era, Russia has lost much of her prominence in world affairs, despite her considerable natural resources and technical capabilities. Neither Soviet nor post-Soviet Russia ever had a coherent market economy to make it competative in the world marketplace, and as a consequence, it’s been hard for Russian leaders to demonstrate significance, a fact that pretty much broke the back of nascient Russian democracy under Boris Yeltsin. Putin has taken control by demonstrating strength–economically, militarily, and otherwise–even as the nations infrastructure continues to crumble. Modern Russia is what is was under the Tsars; a wealthy nation in which the populace is poor and lacking in opportunity. The Western powers–and the United States in particular–are held to blame for that on the political stage, and it’s not entirely fabricated out of whole cloth; when the United States had the opportunity to forment true democracy and economic development in the former Soviet republics its foreign policy languished. The Clinton Administration may or may not have accomplished many goals, but in the scope of long-term international affairs it fell far short of stepping to the plate. The current Administration has only aggrievated affairs by seemingly deliberately provoking Russia and giving truth to Putin’s claim of slights.
Regarding stratetic weapons, post-Soviet Russia has the largest active stockpile of nuclear weapons, many of which are still pointed at the United States (and others at the PRC), and no doubt ours at theirs, despite benevolency claims of the contrary. Changing SIOP (strategic integrated operations plan) is more difficult than changing cellular service prorviders, and there remains a suspicion that the whole collapse of the USSR thing is just some kind of deep-cover ploy, though an understandibly hyperbolic one. Certainly, there are plenty of ways a non-Western-friendly Russian leader could discomfit US/NATO interests, and Putin has already exercised many of them. (Putin himself is close associate to many “business leaders” in Russia who would be considered in most nations to be part of organized crime, though in modern Russia there is little distinction left to be made between the former and the latter.)
If Russia ain’t an enemy, they’re an associate that we look upon with deep suspicion, and vice versa, a situation not likely to change in the near future.
Russia might have it’s political problems, but it is definitely not an authoritarian country with a few trappings of democracy. I would say Russia is a liberal federal republic with roughly the same amount of mixed in authoritarianism as present day United States (which is not a terribly happy prospect, but I digress).
If Russia decides to invade Estonia tomorrow, we are going to be fighting Russia. If US decides to invade Estonia tomorrow, we might be fighting Russia, and mind you Russia has not exactly been the one invading random countries lately. I don’t see what this mental exercise proves. If I remember correctly, the last sovereign country Russia invaded was Afghanistan in 1979 and that was under a communist dictatorship which no longer exists.
While I take issue with what I consider the ridiculous term ‘random’ in that statement, from a Russian’s point of view they would probably not.
The bit in the OP about us & Russia de-targeting our ICBMs? This was totally a symbolic gesture. It wasn’t a bad thing, but it has no real practical meaning. They can be retargeted in moments.
Stranger On A Train gives a superb response. Basically its a huge culture clash.
What possible goal could Russia achieve by invading Estonia of all places? Is there some global expectation of Russia to invade specifically Estonia that I am not privy to?
The comment was made in context of our military actions. It’s true, we’ve only seriously invaded a couple of countries in the past decade, but if you consider all active military involvement then we’re a lot more likely to deploy troops to, or bomb something in, Estonia than Russia is.
Military conflict involvement:
US since 1991:
Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Liberia, Albania, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Russia since 1991:
Chechnya, Dagestan
What if we just count regions that do not directly border the power in question?
(Edit: Before somebody points this out, I’m fully aware Russia borders Estonia. My point is that invading somebody who you do not border is a more random act than invading somebody you do border)
US since 1991:
Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, Liberia, Albania, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Russia since 1991:
None that I know of.
I mean I’m open to correction, and I agree that calling Iraq and Afghanistan “random” is certainly debate material, but I what I meant was (and I’m sorry if I have not made myself clear):
Estonia is a random place to invade for either Russia or US, and given that Russia hasn’t really been invading anybody as of late, US is more likely to, out of the two.
Good analysis: I happen to think that the USA ought to be friendlier to Russia-especially because Russia is likely to displace saudi arabia, as an oil exporter. Is Putin planning to use russia’s oil waelth, in a bid to make Russia a world power? I haven’t seen the Russuans overtly challenging us. What are we antagonizing them needlessly?
And also, so much cooperation goes on between the two countries (science, space station, industry, oil, etc.) that Russia hardly seems to be looming on the horizon as a serious threat to America.