So I got a chuckle out of this remark by President Obama:
"Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness," Obama said.
I liked that. Putin surely didn't like that dismissal of his strength. Don't inflate Putin by talking about Russia like they are a rebuilt superpower. They are not:
A failure to engage at this point would cause countries around Russia's periphery, from Estonia to Azerbaijan, to conclude that with the United States withdrawn and Europe fragmented, they must reach an accommodation with Russia. This will expand Russian power and open the door to Russian influence spreading on the European Peninsula itself. The United States has fought three wars (World War I, World War II and the Cold War) to prevent hegemonic domination of the region. Failure to engage would be a reversal of a century-old strategy.
The American dilemma is how to address the strategic context in a global setting in which it is less involved in the Middle East and is continuing to work toward a "pivot to Asia." Nor can the United States simply allow events to take their course. The United States needs a strategy that is economical and coherent militarily, politically and financially. It has two advantages. Some of the countries on Russia's periphery do not want to be dominated by her. Russia, in spite of some strengths, is inherently weak and does not require U.S. exertion on the order of the two World Wars, the Cold War or even the Middle East engagements of the past decade.
Yes, Russia is a smallish military threat. But that doesn't mean Russia is not a threat that has to be faced. Yes, China's growing power makes them the biggest threat for the future and most potent potential threat we might face today. And yes, jihadi terrorism is the biggest day-to-day threat we face today.
But Russia is the biggest active geopolitical foe we have. And operating in an arc that starts at the North Pole and heads south to the Baltic, goes across to the Black Sea, and continues curving through the eastern Mediterranean and across the Middle East to Afghanistan, Russia's "regional" ability to harm us is a very real threat that must be faced.
I've noted our interest in preventing the vast economic and scientific (and potential military) power of Europe from falling into the hands of a hostile power (which is why I oppose the European Union).
Remember, as I've written before, Japan in 1941 was a regional power that was much weaker than us. So too was Germany in 1914 and 1939. A mere regional power is a real threat, however, if it threatens our interests in their region.
Heck, in important ways, even the Soviet Union in 1975 was a regional power--albeit in the region from the Atlantic to the Pacifc, dipping down to the Mediterranean Sea. But their somewhat global reach was in many ways a peacetime capability that would have been shut down in war by our superior Navy (with our allied navies), leaving any Soviet forces outside of Russia and contiguous areas isolated and ripe for defeat, just as Germany lost their overseas possessions even as they approached victory within Europe.
Russia makes claims in the Arctic Circle, threatens the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; makes threats to Poland; threatens Ukraine's independence; bolsters the murderous Assad regime in Syria, provides diplomatic muscle for Iran; opposes Europe-based missile defenses; and has their grip on our northern supply lines to Afghanistan.
I don't think much of Russia's ability to harm our interests east of that arc, even though Russian territory extends to the Bering Strait at Alaska. (Although yes, Alaska is a front line state when you remember that Russia's arc of trouble making begins in the Arctic Circle.)
So base our policy toward Russia on reality and not fantasies of "reset" or visions of a soul visible in Putin's eyes. But do it quietly. There are a lot of things we can do to meet that military threat.
And once again, our Army needs to stay in Europe in reasonable strength. (See page 15. And I'll note again, I have no idea why Military Review credited me with a PhD. I never even hinted that I did. Remember, Doctor Dignified is not a doctor. He has a master's degree--in history.)
And help make Ukraine a hard target for Russian military aggression. Whether or not Ukraine joins NATO, we have an interest in making sure Ukraine can fight Russia effectively and at least make Russia pay a high price for future aggression.
Yes, Russia is a regional military threat. But don't make that assessment an excuse for doing nothing to restrain them because there are bigger threats--like terrorists with nukes, as the president said--to worry about. This is an old left-wing strategy to avoid confronting foes, remember.
UPDATE: I've heard conservatives say that President Obama calling Russia a "regional power" will just enrage Putin. Oh, please. What was the president supposed to do? Stand on stage wetting his pants begging the Russians to keep their troops in the barracks?
But that's me. I saluted President Bush 43's "bring it on" reaction to a question about the potential for a Baathist insurgency in Iraq. What was he supposed to do? Act afraid? Was the criticism that absent that comment the Baathists would have gotten used to a Shia- and Kurd-dominated government?
So as long as the president's comment wasn't the totality of our policy, I have no problem with keeping the problem in perspective: serious but not desperate.
