And we get what? This is Clinton we’re talking about, not Chamberlain. Russia’s got to give us more than just promises to behave better.
nm
We get Russia to take a less aggressive posture in Eastern Europe. But that’s not going to happen as long as the United States projects military power in or close to former Soviet states. Again, we’re not seeing this any more objectively than the Russians are. We assert that Ukraine is a free state and has the right of self-determination, which is fair enough. But we also maintain military power and presence on Russia’s doorstep. Americans obviously don’t fully appreciate the threats that Russia has faced over the centuries, including Napoleon and Hitler’s attempted invasions. Russia sees America as, at minimum, a power that wants to exert influence in a region that is much closer to Russian interests than American interests, which understandably raises suspicions. Again, if the tables were turned, if Russia started using military bases in Cuba, Mexico, and Central America, we would be alarmed. If the Russians wanted to put missiles and missile defense systems in these areas we’d be really, really alarmed.
More than that, the United States, quite simply, is not in a position to demand much of anything. Sure we could declare all-out cyber war and threaten the existence of the regime and the entire state. Have our great leaders considered what would happen if the Russian military gets blacked out and then fears a missile strike, thus believing it has no choice but to act preemptively? Beyond the fear factor would be the outrage factor. There is the possibility Russians, from those in office to those on the street, would demand retaliation by any means necessary. Again, we’re not going to intimidate Russia. This is a country that has had tens of millions of its people slaughtered in and starved by war, and these experiences have shaped them. They are actually educated reasonable people, but all people have a tendency to become less reasonable when they believe that they are being bullied, cornered, and threatened with harm. They’ve endured crippling sanctions and Putin has only become more popular. Sorry I know we want to beat our chest but the fact is, this strategy isn’t working. It’s having the opposite effect – making them more determined and more desperate.
And that’s extremely dangerous because this is not some third world undeveloped banana republic we’re dealing with here. This is not an oil dictatorship that’s been weakened to the point of impotence by international sanctions. The Russians possess pretty potent weaponry and both the logistical means and psychological will to employ them.
They won’t take a less aggressive posture in Eastern Europe. This isn’t about fear of attack by Putin, it’s about national prestige and respect. You’re right that having troops in Eastern Europe is a provocation to him, but it’s because he wants to “make Russia great again”, not because he actually fears NATO aggression. We’ve seen guys like Putin 100 times, just usually not leading countries with nukes. Usually they are doing things like invading the Falkland Islands or trying to attack Iran.
No, “national prestige” is your attribution – that’s not necessarily what motivates Russian behavior in fact.
This is where the current administration thought it stood in 2009-2012. Obama laughed at Romney for suggesting that the Russians were an adversary and told Putin that he would have more flexibility after the election. I don’t think it’s worked out as hoped.
Presumably the Russians are pleased with how things have gone policy-wise; they have a free hand in the Crimea and Syria, and a new arms market in Iran. These aren’t huge prizes, to be sure, but they haven’t really had to give up much of anything in return. I can’t imagine that they expect much likelihood of Clinton disrupting their little successes, either. She’s the one that brought them the reset button, after all. I don’t think they will see much incentive to deal.
I’d note that one sure way we can reassure them is to elect Donald Trump.
In fact however they are an oil and natural gas dictatorship whose economy has been weakened to impotence by both lowered prices and international sanctions. Is it merely “dismal”, or “free fall”, or just “tumbling”? Not sure but it is dire straits in any case.
In short Russia is in deep shit and is “not in a position to demand much of anything.” Putin will act the bully because that is what he perceives as making Russia great again but he knows that Rusia is actually in no position to take a solid punch.
A cyber counterattack specific to Putin’s (and his cronies’) corporate interests that hurts only moderately but demonstrates that we can and will play tit for tat back is exactly what is required.
Attempting to appease Russia would be stupid.
We can do a embargo of all Chinese goods, freeze their assets, a lot of things. I suggest the embargo.
Well, you mean not issuing any work visas to China wouldnt hit them? Of course it would.
Thank you all for commenting. It’s been a very interesting discussion :).
What if Russia hacks the election? What would be a proportionate response to throwing our system into chaos?
Russians can and will endure hardships, and they will escalate. My point is, I think it’s wise to understand what we’re trying to achieve and to make sure that we’re in agreement that our objectives are worth achieving. More importantly, are we truly ready for an escalation. I am skeptical on both fronts. That, by the way, doesn’t suggest capitulation to Russian aggression. There needs to be a way to give something to Russia and something to ourselves and our allies. There needs to be a way to get these things will allowing both the US and Russia to save face.
Deep shit, eh? Well maybe so.
Let’s say the US cyber attacks Russia and Russia temporarily agrees to stop feeding Wikileaks. Okay, mission accomplished. Let’s say, however, that Russia decides, without warning to interrupt the flow of energy into Europe, sowing economic and a political crisis in allied countries. Let’s say it feeds a similar campaign of misinformation in Western Europe just as it has in our elections. There are rising nationalistic anti-EU, anti-American sentiments of political coalitions in these places. We could find ourselves dealing with American-friendly global governments today and anti-American fringe governments tomorrow.
What does it mean to “appease”? Again, do we really need NATO? Do we really need missiles in Eastern Europe?
Trivia question: Why did the Cuban missile crisis begin? How did it end?
Negotiations are the best response, provided that we have clarity on what we really and truly need to come away with and what we intend to achieve through negotiations.
Good lord, asahi, among your list of concessions you’d like to see the U.S. give to Russia, is there anything you left out as being too much of a giveaway? It reads like a list of “Here are the things we are going to give you, Russia, and I sure hope you think nicely of us in the future.”
I think the assumption here is that Russia is more willing to contemplate war than we are, but I don’t think that’s true. Nukes are the only real leverage the Russians have. Conventionally they don’t have a prayer against NATO.
asahi, your position seems to be that Russia has weapons that can essentially cause mutually assured if not destruction then serious major harms (from the nukes to causing economic crashes) and that they are just nuts enough to do it if we respond to any aggression by them in any way other than asking them what they want from us.
And let us be very clear: their economy right now makes Greece look stable. Another worldwide economic downturn is something they can handle less than most of the rest of the world. Not that Putin necessarily cares as long as he and his cronies have theirs and he can keep his citizens distracted enough.
I also think you are a bit confused. The reason for a response is not to stop WikiLeaks. It is because attempting to interfere with our electoral process is serious act of aggression that if tolerated invites additional greater future acts of aggression.
And the nature of cyber warfare isn’t to get anyone to agree to stop anything. If we do it right, they just stop.
Well yeah, that is what I’m saying. But I’m also saying that they probably have greater collective will to fight and they have a higher tolerance for pain. If we’re going to take the gloves off and fight an opponent that can inflict the kind of pain that Russia can, it has to be damn well worth it, and more importantly, there must be no other alternative. You’re seem to be saying that if Russia starts causing the collapse of our financial sector and wiping out your 401K and whatever other assets you own --** a very real threat by the way **-- you’re okay with it because you believe it’s inevitable. I don’t actually see it that way.
Let’s say Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton decide to engage Russia in cyber warfare and let’s say Russia not only refuses to back down but retaliates. They’ve already shown a willingness to tinker with our voting system, and they’ve done so repeatedly. They’ve asserted themselves militarily and politically in Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, and Ossetia. They’ve asserted themselves in Syria. What makes you think they’ll stop there? Whether it was neo-con Bush or a more flexible approach from Obama, Putin is making clear that Russia is going to defend its interests, just like the United States is defending its interests.
Russians are still overwhelmingly supporting Putin. They are blaming the United States for their misery, not Putin. Russians are not going to overthrow Putin. If anything, they will demand that he dig in and fight back harder. In fact there is the danger, just as there is here, that people on the street might demand an overreaction. Do you get that?
I’m not confused. You, like most Americans, are missing the real issue here, which is that the United States and the West are attacking Russia’s political power structure and have been intensively since 2014. We are threatening the legitimacy of their regime, and now they’re doing the same to us. We have money and political partnerships; they have hackers.
The key question is, why are we imposing sanctions? What are we trying to defend? Why are we defending it? As in Syria and Libya, do we know what or whom we’re defending? Have we asked these questions? Do we know the answers to these questions? Are Americans all unified in their commitment to an extreme escalation with Russia? I think we’d better know these answers to these questions before we start going toe to toe with someone that can actually fight back.
I think you’re dreaming. This is not cyber-war, this is not economic war. War is war. It stops when both sides agree that it stops. Americans are dangerously ignorant and naive about anything that happens outside their own borders, probably because we’re used to operating on the assumption that we can solve problems with economic sanctions and cruise missiles. That works against some states, but not all.