The Sum of all Fears: Russian Expansion and its Geopolitical Ramifications

Getty

The world is at a precipice of a new Cold War embroiling the Russian Federation with the United States of America. Since its inception after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian bear has clawed its way through Ukraine and Georgia, and has thrown itself into conflicts in the Middle East and diplomatic spats with Europe. As during the Cold War, the Russians are labeled as a direct threat to US strategic interests, a label which has not been printed since 1991. However, despite the saber-rattling between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Americans have yet to understand the complex relationship between the American Eagle and the Russian Bear. Both powers competed in a complex historical drama that unfolded over the course of 40 years: The Cold War. The foundation, therefore, will be laid as to why the Second Cold War is about to begin, and why “duck and cover” will become the new nuclear strike drill.

History of Hatred?

The relationship between the United States and Russia has not always been characterized by a geopolitical game of cat and mouse. The US once had cordial enough relations in the 1800s to purchase the entire state of Alaska from Russia in 1867. Relations soured, however, the moment the Soviet Union emerged from the ashes of the Russian Empire. The United States has always been relatively anti-communist, starting with the First Red Scare of the 1920s, which created a rift between the two nations. The rift would not yet be mended until 1944, when the Third Reich launched Operation Barbarossa and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In an instant, two ideologically distant countries became allies, with a common enemy uniting both camps as comrades.

The United States saved the Soviets from collapse through the Lend Lease Program in 1941, providing $11.3 billion worth of food, trucks, ammunition, and planes to combat the Nazi advance. When the dust settled, over 27 million civilian and military deaths were incurred on the Eastern Front, on top of the billions of dollars of economic potential lost through scorched earth tactics committed by both sides. When the war concluded with the defeat of Hitler and the atomic bombings, the once Allied powers were split between the Communist USSR and the capitalist imperial powers of the USA, UK, and France. Europe was split between East and West, with much of Eastern Europe falling under the Iron Curtain, developing repressive communist regimes ruled by the Kremlin. The West, led by the United States, created new capitalist democracies in Greece, Italy, and Germany to combat communist influence in Western Europe. As fascism faded, a new conflict engulfed the globe, dividing the world into two camps, one dominated by the United States and one by the Soviet Union, with both sides engaging in international proxy conflicts in a winner-take-all elimination battle which became the largest geopolitical crisis of the 20th century. 

That’s old news, what about today?

After the Soviet Union fell in 1991, the United States was in a precarious position with the new Russian Federation, unsure if the successor state of the Soviet Union was a friend or foe. With the first democratically elected Russian president in history, Boris Yeltsin, in charge, the West and Russia had an amicable relationship. Yeltsin agreed to dismantle parts of the former nuclear arsenal, and brokered treaties establishing economic relationships with the post-Soviet Socialist Republic states.

However, Yelstin was not the star-spangled politician the West hoped he was going to be. Yelstin was truly powerless in the face of Russian conglomerates and the mafia, and his attempted reforms of market liberalization and economic liberation crashed into the antiquated Soviet command economy, leading to an economic malaise lasting much of the 1990s. The United States was more than pleased witnessing the flailing of the once powerful Russian state, and the US enjoyed unbridled control over the New World Order. Everything was working in favor of the United States and its Western allies, until one man changed it all… 

Vladimir Putin: The Father of Russia

Putin completely transformed Russia’s domestic and foreign policy, replacing Yeltsin’s ineffectiveness with strongman rule, and began to repair the Russian economy in the process. A massive emphasis was placed on the military, and the Russian military began a new age of revival not seen since the middle of the Cold War. Putin rebuked Yeltsin’s pro-Western policy and became somewhat of an enigma to Western strategists, establishing ties with dictators in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. He also involved the Russian military in the Syrian Civil War and made incursions into the former Soviet territories of Ukraine and Georgia. While there has been a painstakingly slow de-escalation in the region, as of April 2021, Putin is renewing strategic pressure on Ukraine, amassing over 120,000 Russian soldiers on the border, the most troops seen in the region since the Russian annexation of Crimea. To further exacerbate the crisis, the Russian government is also making moves into the Arctic and the Mediterranean, threatening traditional US military doctrine in both regions.

Putin’s Endgame

Putin is a cunning adversary for the United States, which is already in a tough position over civil unrest, COVID-19, and inconsistent foreign policy. Ukraine is traditionally a US ally, and NATO has a variety of contingency plans against various forms of Russian aggression. Vladimir Putin has to analyze Western reactions and response, and therefore has three choices in his national strategy, with each having their own pros and cons:

1. Nothing

This is classic Putin and Russian strategy overall. The sabre-rattling is exactly what Putin wants, striking fear into US military strategists while worrying the European Union and Ukraine over believing that Russia might restart the incursion started in 2014. Putin can potentially use the build-up as a bargaining chip for the new oil pipeline in the Baltic Sea, connecting Germany to the Russian petroleum industry. Societal factors dictate that the Russian people tend to support Putin’s foreign policy decisions, so this is the most likely scenario. Also based on previous engagements, such as the Syrian Civil War, this is a plausible scenario. Plus, Putin enjoys being in the international spotlight, and sabre-rattling keeps the US on its toes and Russia in the spotlight.

2. Repeat of 2014

If Putin wants to test the reaction of the new Biden administration, he could simply occupy the regions of Ukraine that are already occupied by pro-Russian separatists. The Russians have the manpower to occupy parts of Eastern Ukraine and the city of Luhansk, and have a slight edge of weaponry over the West if NATO deems it necessary to engage the Russians. The Russian military has superior S-400 anti-ballistic/anti-air missile systems, new submarines, and a massive new nuclear torpedo able to wipe out a coastal city and create a nuclear tidal wave leaving the area uninhabited for centuries. However, it is critical to note that the geopolitical fallout from the failed withdrawal of Afghanistan has led to the questioning of US commitment to its NATO and non-NATO allies, especially Ukraine. In turn, the catastrophic failure in Afghanistan has led some in the upper echelons of the Russian to believe that because the United States abandoned its allies in Kabul, with“a similar situation awaiting supporters of the American choice in Ukraine.” Given the fact that the Biden administration did not react to the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, a Russian intervention into Ukraine seems like a gamble that Putin may be willing to take. Besides, it is likely that the Russian people would back the decisions of President Putin, as they supported the annexation of Crimea with an 80% approval rate. Based on the potential interconnectivity of the Russo-European petroleum economies, the EU may only protest any Russian decision, leaving Putin with a diplomatic win. Based on the reactions of 2014, if sanctions are the only repercussions, Putin could more than likely take the risk, as there is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

3. Invasion

While no one wants World War III, 2021 is a box of surprises. Putin has enough troops and advanced weapons to advance into coastal/eastern Ukraine and defend against an American invasion force. The NATO alliance will most likely get involved, but even if they do, there are no treaty obligations to defend the Ukrainian state from a Russian invasion. With American patriotism waning over the years, it will also be unlikely that President Biden would actually send troops to aid Ukraine, and sacrifice American lives, as shown through the actions taken during the abandonment of Kabul. While Putin has the support of the Russian people, only several fringe ultranationalist hardliners actually desire a head-on confrontation with the United States and Europe, and going down this path will undoubtedly lead to a loss of popular support. Regardless of the power of his new superweapon arsenal, the alienation of the EU and the United States will decimate the Russian economy and create enough instability and loss of popular support to cause civil unrest within the Russian Federation and lead to the potential ousting of Putin. Playing his cards right, he will not directly invade Ukraine or any other claimed territory, however, as Batman says about the Joker: expect the unexpected.

Money runs the world, and the military

Military aggression cannot function without having the funds to do so, and the people supporting the actions of the military. Russians generally support Putin and his policies, with over 40% of the population viewing Putin’s policies, specifically foreign policy, as one of the best achievements of the regime. According to a RAND analysis of the future of the Russian military, “From the perspective of societal support, Russia’s current policies appear quite sustainable. The population supports the government, its foreign policy, the development of the military, and the necessary public expenditures to that end.”

While the coffers of Russia’s economy are not nearly as large as the United States, the Russian military is rapidly expanding with more funding being allocated per year, and new economic relationships with China, Iran, and Western Europe are signs of a self-sustaining Russian economy that is not directly tied to the United States. Russia also holds a unique position of economic control over the oil and gas industry in Europe, which Putin has exploited in new infrastructure projects alongside China. Therefore, Putin is attempting to shift trade hegemony from the United States towards China and its allies, which happens to include Russia.

The United States is experiencing the adverse effects, with public confidence and trust in the military dropping from 70% to 56% in 2018, and with many respondents believing the United States should take a more active role in international politics. While the Biden administration is taking active strides to reassert American hegemony, the growth of foreign militaries and proxy conflicts is a serious strategic concern that the Biden administration has yet to act upon. The foreign policy decisions enacted in Afghanistan have marked a disturbing precedent in US commitments abroad, and considering that Biden has not enacted policy regarding Iranian nuclear expansion, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and Xinjiang, the outcome of American policy in Syria, and most prominently, Russian aggression in Ukraine, there is a stark concern in further escalation in global conflicts. While the American economy has supported its massive military, it may not be enough to combat the growing threats abroad. Russia has the unique position of having high public support for military advancements and prowess, while the United States is going through a weaning of military support and intervention, which may work in favor of diplomacy. In this battle of attrition, the Russians have the advantage, in both the diplomatic and military scenarios.

As Americans, should we care?

 Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, in a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, said that “Moscow continues to invest in its strategic nuclear forces, in new capabilities to enhance its strategic deterrent, and that places the US homeland at risk.” The Russians are building up their armed forces to achieve parity with the United States, which sounds eerily familiar to the Cold War, with both sides engaging in mutually assured destruction. The Russian Poseidon Torpedo, which was designed to destroy cities like New York, Boston, or Los Angeles, and the submarine Belgorod, which can carry six of these torpedoes, is already worrying American strategists. Furthermore, the Russian military is currently developing a new missile, dubbed Skyfall, which according to Ivan Konovalov, a prominent Russian military expert, “has an atomic reactor that allows it to remain in the skies for months and even for years until time comes to change nuclear components. Its unpredictable flight routes make this missile an [extremely] effective weapon, because no foreign military will be able to predict the time it switches from patrolling to attacking,” Therefore, combined with the global tensions of Iran’s nuclear expansion, Chinese aggression, and Middle Eastern instability, alongside Russian military growth, leaves America without a doubt in the position of a new Cold War.

Conclusion

One cannot mention geopolitical conflict without mentioning the United States and Russia. As of this moment, however, the Russian Federation has become a threat not seen since the days of the Soviet Union, with advanced military technology and a desire to utilize them to conquer former Soviet territory and expand Russian influence abroad. US foreign policy has yet to be tested against this threat, and American and Russian strategists are on edge over the actions of the other, with the Second Cold War already upon us. The flashpoints for a diplomatic dispute range between the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the Syrian Civil War, the expansion of Iranian nuclear capabilities, and the economic/military expansion of China. Putin has become strategic partners with all the nations listed above, which threatens the geopolitical strategic position of the United States.

As Americans, first and foremost, we ought to be more involved with foreign policy decisions and take these choices into consideration when electing government officials. While the Biden administration has yet to truly engage the Russian Federation through diplomatic channels. America does need to address Russian expansion into Ukraine and the alignment of international pariahs toward the Russian state. There must be a push for President Biden to search for peaceful de-escalation initiatives with Russia and its allies, to ensure that a conflict does not occur in 2021 and beyond. In sum, Stephen Cohen, an American expert on Russian policy, summarizes the need for a shift in American foreign policy: “We desperately need in this country a discussion of American policy toward Russia. We can’t keep saying an untruth, that this new Cold War is solely the fault of Putin. We need to rethink our policy toward Russia.”