Where are these Russia hawks?

Tue, 01/06/2009 - 1:08pm

The Washington Post's Walter Pincus has an analysis of Robert Gates recent articles and media appearances. He writes:

A longtime Russia analyst during his years with the CIA, Gates today sees Moscow as less of a threat than do many inside and outside the U.S. military establishment.

Pincus is referring to statements like this one, from Gates' piece in the new Foreign Affairs:

Russian tanks and artillery may have crushed Georgia's tiny military. But before the United States begins rearming for another Cold War, it must remember that what is driving Russia is a desire to exorcise past humiliation and dominate its "near abroad" -- not an ideologically driven campaign to dominate the globe. As someone who used to prepare estimates of Soviet military strength for several presidents, I can say that Russia's conventional military, although vastly improved since its nadir in the late 1990s, remains a shadow of its Soviet predecessor. And adverse demographic trends in Russia will likely keep those conventional forces in check.

Good point, but do "many inside and outside the U.S. military establishment" really disagree with it? I find it hard to believe that even those who think the military is neglecting conventional threats by focusing on counterinsurgency would argue that Russia today is a comparable threat to the Soviet Union.

If there actually is a real debate about this, I'm glad Gates is the one in charge. Here's hoping he and his colleagues continue the recent strategy of basically ignoring Russia's pointless military posturing and focusing their attention where real damage can be done.

Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Joshua Keating | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Hear, hear... but...

by Curious observer on Tue, 01/06/2009 - 5:34pm

I don't know about the U.S. military establishment, but among the Washington intelligentsia it seems Gates is in a distinct minority. Both the neocons and the liberal internationalists despise Putin. Just look at Mr. Rothkopf, speaking for the "Superclass," as he spews venom elsewhere at your site, urging Obama not to go wobbly.

I for one can't get exorcised over Putin sending a few generals and warplanes to Venezuela and Cuba. Seems like a pretty mild response to Washington putting NATO on his doorstep, tearing up treaties, installing missile defenses. Seems mild anyway, compared to Khruschev putting missiles in Cuba because America put missiles in Turkey.

There Goes the Straw Man Again

by Fern on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 5:16am

There's a difference between seeing Russia as a thorn in America's side or a serious destabilizing force and seeing it as a reincarnated Soviet Union. I've heard of plenty of people worried that Russia is becoming the former and no one arguing that they are the latter. Pincus is trying to create controversy where there is none.

Furthermore, Curious Observer, the commenter above, grossly minimizes Russia's aggressive behavior, and totally ignores Russia's actions with regard to Eastern Europe. NATO is only a threat to Russia if Russia attacks a member country. There is no credible reason for Russia to believe that NATO will be the aggressor. Same thing with the missile defense systems. It's a defensive, not offensive, program. A rational response would be to shrug and say "fine by us if you want to waste your money defending against attacks we don't plan on making," (i.e. the reverse of Reagan's strategy) or to bolster their own defensive posture. Some of Russia's posturing in response to NATO and the missile defense have been downright bizarre, not to mention scary to the people in the countries they've directly threatened.

Through the other party's eyes

by Curious observer on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 2:31pm

Fern appears unable to stand in the shoes of the other side, always a dangerous thing when discussing foreign policy. We haven't suffered devastating invasions from the west in two successive centuries. Russia has. It's pretty well ingrained in the cultural DNA by now. Of course they're going to see NATO expansion as threatening, especially when Bush 41 and Jim Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev it would never happen.

Actually, I'll stir the pot here and say I'd be OK even if Russia became a reconstituted Soviet Union. Near as I can tell, the only countries the Soviets invaded were ones that had already gone communist and were threatening to turn back. Washington's pattern of invasions seems rather less predictable.

[Disclaimer: None of this is a defense of Vladimir Putin, who's about as power-drunk as they come. But if Nixon could deal with a guy who killed 35 million people, certainly Obama ought to be able to deal with Putin by means other than hectoring and belittling and tearing up treaties.]