Irrelevant Criticisms of Russian Expansionism Indicate How Foolish Anti-Russian Strategists Have Been — No Wonder President Putin Is Running Wild

14 November 2014

Lots of dumb pronouncements — from spoiled children in the school yard

These days a lot of people are whining about Russian President Putin’s exercise of provocative eye gouging.

A representative example of Russian behavior, and our Western mentality’s reaction to it, is this one from Australia:

In recent days, four Russian warships have entered international waters off the northeast Australian coast to coincide with Putin's visit to Australia for the summit that brings together the leaders of the world's 20 biggest industrialized and developing economies. Australia, in turn, sent three warships of its own to monitor them.

The Russian embassy said on Friday that Russia's Pacific fleet was testing its range, and could be used as security for Putin.

[Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott said:]

"One of the points that I tried to make to President Putin is that Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity ... instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union."

The Australian Prime Minister’s statement is so geopolitically and historically irrelevant that it borders on making no sense

Great Powers do what they do. They push their influence around, until it runs up against something that stops it.

Criticizing Putin for wanting to recreate the former Soviet Union’s range of influence, when the Russian Federation still has the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, is like whining about the fact that a bigger gorilla should play nice with the inconsequential ones around it.

I am not singling Prime Minister Abbott out — Australians usually make more sense than most of the rest of us

The United States has been indulging in the same kind of boohooing, ever since Putin decided to push NATO’s aggressive extension of its own influence back with Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

What was laughably in the news this morning is this illustrative gem of American hypocrisy in relationship to the People’s Republic of China:

China raised the thorny subject of U.S. military spy flights during talks that led to agreements this week on reducing friction between the two militaries, but was told U.S. missions in international airspace and waters would continue, the U.S. military said.

The closed-door conversations underscore China's sensitivity to surveillance by U.S. P-8 Poseidon spy planes and other aircraft, especially off Hainan Island, home to a major Chinese submarine base. A Chinese intercept of a P-8 plane in international airspace off Hainan in August was described as dangerous by Washington.

This is America’s intentionally provocative surveillance of China. Not to mention our eagerly undertaken imperialistic forays into Afghanistan and the Middle East — and a lot of other places — whenever we are in the mood to make money from waging unending war.

One cannot rationally blame Putin for thinking:

Heck, I might as well do the same thing — I got ‘da’ bombs.

In response to President Putin, use some brain

Good strategists recognize that all nations use their power, as best they can, to take what they think they want.

Wise counter-punchers ask:

(a) whether the adversarial taking or expanded influence disturbs “our” interests

and

(b) whether “we” are in a power position to counter the moves that we object to.

For example, the United States has long decided that it can pretty much do whatever it wants, in most places, because no one else can muster sufficient force to completely close us out.

But that Big Boy tactic cuts two ways.

For example, we are not in a strong enough military position to prevent Russian aggression in Ukraine. Nor are the Australians in a position to move Russian ships out of nearby international waters.

Sometimes it is best to mold one’s language to avoid provoking others and to prevent being maneuvered into positions that will probably lose us face. (To use an Eastern Hemisphere concept.)

Why America’s whiny hot air may be about to get crammed up our metaphorical behind

President Putin has apparently decided that the economic sanctions imposed on the Federation — in response to its aggression in Crimea and Ukraine — are not enough to prevent him from creating a countervailing strategic position by doing more of the same.

Here is how this reasoning goes:

Russia took Crimea and extended its influence in Ukraine, so as to reestablish some of the sphere of influence it lost when the Soviet Union disintegrated.

The West objected by imposing painful economic sanctions.

Putin probably now reasons that he should escalate his aggression, so as to force the West to recognize that a land war on Russia’s borders is not really in the cards — and — that it might be wise for the West to whittle down its existing economic retaliation.

In effect (colloquially):

I’ll take your sanctions and raise you an armed confrontation, with nukes in the background. Pussy.

What is NATO going to do if (and probably when), Russia rolls into Ukraine?

More self-righteous whining?

More apparently only partially effective economic sanctions?

More blather about the responsibilities of civilized Russian power?

I imagine that the United States’ hypocritical calls for better Russian behavior infuriate the Federation leader. Given how many innocent tens of thousands of people the United States has killed, while pushing its allegedly anti-terrorist agenda, he probably thinks that we are not really in a position to play the saint.

KGB payback, so to speak.

We do not know what this is going to play out — which is arguably part of the “up the ante” strategy’s strength

When our Russian adversary is possibly:

borderline crazy,

and

we are complacently accustomed to beating up on significantly less powerful nations —

the consequences of American imperialistic overreach along Russia’s borders may suddenly become clearer to us.

The emotional lure of this tactic probably ranks high in President Putin’s mind.

How satisfying it would be (he drools) to force the Americans into slinking off, with their “pussy” tail between their legs.

Arrogance — a chronic American weakness

We Americans underestimate the determined resistance we engender in people, whom we are trying to control. It was that way in Vietnam and everywhere major since.

Just because our self-selected adversaries are militarily weak does not mean they do not have the courageous determination to take painful bites out of our hide.

Ask yourself which nation has had the most experience in resisting invaders at the highest cost in lost lives?

Russia.

That is probably the unquantifiable strategic ace that President Putin is counting on. The United States, in contrast, has never been tested by an invader with genuine clout. American losses during our Civil War are proportionately trivial compared to those the Soviet Union (and its Russian component) experienced during World War II.

The moral? — Effective strategists don’t whine, they think about Reality’s constraints

Acknowledging the specific strengths and limits of context-based national power is something Americans are bad at. Unless our goal has been to foment perpetual war.

I am curious to see how President Putin plays his hand. China will be watching, in its subtly effective way.

If Putin and his generals are clever, we strategically boorish Americans may be about to experience another painful enema.

The bottom line is, it is a bad idea to mess with even a weak hegemon’s sphere of influence. President Putin probably thinks that the United States has underestimated Russian strength.

It looks as if we are going to find out. Which is (of course) how the world’s major wars, and extended playground fights, generally get started.

PeteFree.com

Irrelevant Criticisms of Russian Expansionism Indicate How Foolish Anti-Russian Strategists Have Been — No Wonder President Putin Is Running Wild