I think the fear is outweighed by the pride. It’s Russian nationalism, and Putin’s government just uses the “fear” as a way to discredit the U.S. in the eyes of the public. That is, it makes up stories about U.S. subterfuge to justify extra-diplomatic actions.
It’s really more about Putin’s ego and the Russian public’s desire to see itself as a major player again.
It’s more about internal Russian self-image issues. It’s NO “cold war,” and I don’t know why people are calling it that. It’s just Russia puffing it’s feathers. The U.S. knows that in the end all this behavior will do is just ultimately undermine Russia’s economy and this whole thing will probably blow over in a few years.
Why did Germany want to have another World War after World War I? Why did France want a Second Empire after the first one was destroyed? Did that make any sense?
The countries that won the last war are happy with the outcome and the resulting status quo. But the countries that were defeated want to come back and try again. It usually takes about a generation and that’s the period Russia is now entering.
Uh huh. I’m pretty sure the phrase “…and this whole thing will probably blow over in a few years,” was uttered many times in the 1920s, and somehow, despite famines, wars, and fiscal mismanagement so bad that the USSR had to sell off natural resources at pennies to the dollar just to keep people fed, the Soviet Union still managed to hang on for almost seventy years. Putin is perfectly happy to let people freeze and go hungry in order to rebuild the Russian strategic arsenal (they’re hard at work right now developing and deploying a new generation of ICBMs and SLBMs) and reestablish the kind of buffer zone that they had during the Cold War. It’s easy to be dismissive given how fast the Soviet Union came apart like a cheap gold watch, but remember that it wasn’t because they were insolvent (which they’d effectively been since the 1960s); it was because Gorbachev acknowledged that they were insolvent and disestablished the authoritarian system which prevented anyone else from saying so or the Warsaw Pact “client states” from declaring autonomy and going their own way. The state then and now has nothing to do with ideology or money; it is about power, security, and the Russian ambition to be respected and feared.
I am not an expert on foreign policy, but I strongly suspect Putin and his supporters are simply betting that the West’s disapproval will blow over in short order. There aren’t any steps the West is willing to take that will do more then temporarily annoy Russia. After a few months, the desire to seal some deals with someone in Russia will overpower any remaining sanctions. Putin did this because he could. Same reason the US invaded Iraq and Afganistan. The US had their justifications, Russia has theirs. The accuracy and relative strengths of those justifications are very much secondary in importance to the ability to do what they want. As far as restarting the Cold War, don’t be silly. Congress isn’t going to spend more money on the military over this. Russia is going to spend money regardless of Crimea. I am sure no one expects Europe to spend any money on their militaries. Can’t have a Cold War if no one plays.
That’s my take, as well. I think Russia is counting on no one else in the world willing to go to World War III over this. We’ll see how far they’re willing to push it, though. Hopefully they’ll realize there are lines over which they can’t cross (or more accurately, that the rest of the world can’t let them get away with crossing) without serious repercussions.
Definitely. I’m curious why the US didn’t learn from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Administration got lucky in the Egypt and Libya, and got it’s nose rubbed in it in Syria, so, they are betting that their Russian experts in the state department are more right than their Syrian experts, and trying to act all bad in the Ukraine thing. It makes me wonder what the US would do if the Russians started trying to dictate what the US should do with the secesh talkers here (yeah, I know).
Don’t the Russians have an equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine?
Well, there is the Brezhnev Doctrine, used as a post hoc rationale for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia to repress the 1968 Prague Spring liberalization movement. Although no longer in place (having been replaced by the so-called “Sinatra Doctrine” which was instrumental in the breakup of the Warsaw Pact) it would be relatively easy for Putin to dust it off, knock off the Communist trappings and put his own spin on it, and thence we’d have the “Putin Doctrine” justifying invading adjacent nations before NATO takes them over.
With regard to Russia becoming a superpower, it is true that it will never enjoy the same economic status as Germany or the UK, much less the US. But quite frankly, it never did, even at the height of post-WWII Soviet expansion. It became such a power in the vacuum left by WWII, and there is a similar, if less dramatic vacuum today with the economic fallout and general dissatisfaction with how things have turned out in Eastern Europe. With a new generation that was not subject to the ills of Communism but has experienced the rampant corruption of quote-capitalism-unquote it isn’t surprising that there is significant support for military action and the annexation of other nations.
And even in the restricted, post-Soviet economy Russia still maintains significant industrial capacity to build military arms, both conventional and strategic, and in fact has been on a tear recently to modernize and expand their ICBM and SLBM forces, deploying new systems and deployment modes including a new road mobile missile. That their capabilities and quality control are second-rate is immaterial; they can still build up enough of a force to crush the relatively unprotected neighbors and keep NATO commanders from contemplating counteraction, especially when the NATO military forces are operating in a budget restricted environment and the US military is still recovering from two massively costly wars. The CIS may not be able to expand to the borders of the Soviet Empire, but it can certainly take back enough territory and flex enough might to be legitimately considered a military superpower.
That seems to be a big part of the problem. The US/West sees the expansion of democracy, human rights and free markets as the best way to ensure stability. The more nations there are in NATO & EU-style unions, the less chance of war. Russia sees it as imperialist expansion of the Western Empire’s power and control over the world.
I can see Russia’s point of view, but I think they’re on the wrong side of history, and we really aren’t out to get them.
I’m bumping this thread because, though just 3 years old, it is so fascinating that no one here (including me) even considered the possibility that Russia may take (c)overt action against the US in any form, much less in a US Presidential election, compromising the US President himself and casting true doubts as to the elections legitimacy.
And we all missed it as we assumed we were safe. Nemo was the closest and even he didn’t name the danger to ourselves, but only hinted at it: “the countries that were defeated want to come back and try again”… against the country that defeated them. But we seemed to assume that Putin wouldn’t dare attack us, that it would be the same proxy fights and arguments, nothing direct.
So we now have the answer - this is why you restart the Cold War: so you can get another try at the assholes who beat you in the first one.
Because he has done the same in other countries? Because he knows that America, sans Trump, will have no choice but to respond? Because he doesn’t want to take credit for it? Because he never really thought beyond election day, and got cold feet when he learned his “puppet” was elected? Because he didn’t do anything and is at the mercy of rogue elements in his clique?
It’s a sort of a cargo cult thing. Russia was one of the world’s two most powerful countries during the Cold War? So start a new Cold War, and Russia will be just as powerful again.
