Russia

Immediately after 9/11 it occurred to me that if USA allied with Russia then no force in the world would be able to compete with that alliance. There was a brief moment when that looked like it might happen when USA's military turned toward Arab terrorism rather than great power conflict and Russia was dealing with similar enemies (as was China) rather than being an inhibitor to American goals. That alliance didn't take shape.

Vladimir Putin was still fairly new at the job of Russian premier and when George W. Bush said that he felt that he could "trust" Putin, it brought down a firestorm from the Western intelligentsia. Rather than seeing a Bush-Putin accord as an overwhelming force, the critics saw a potential detente as a sign of Bush's stupidity in the face of Putin's cold calculation. Whether Bush actually took this criticism to heart is debatable (though I believe he probably he did) because USA's response to 9/11 was a unilateral move that shrugged off traditional American allies and enemies in a desire to go it alone. I don't think this was a response to Putin, rather I'd say it was triggered by France (in the Security Council) and Germany (in NATO) instead. I think Bush saw unilateralism as a preferred option anyway, as going in with UN and/or NATO approval would've limited USA's military capabilities, would've put Syria (a Security Council member at the time) in the chain of command, would've put Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds at odds, and might've sparked a militaristic movement in Germany, which would only have complicated the task of tracking down al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, Putin fought Islamic terrorists on his own instead of in concert with the Americans.

The way Bush backed away from a potential Russian alliance was indicative of the general American opinion of Putin. Presidents are American political animals that aren't terribly close to foreign leaders so they are reliant on military and intelligence advisers to shape their perceptions (and/or their rhetoric). The Pentagon's initial perception would've been that Putin was the iron fist behind the velvet glove of Yeltsin, that Putin was a return to the norm of Russian dictators after a brief period of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. That Putin is nothing but trouble has remained the American attitude for the last 20 years. Bill Clinton had no interest in dealing with Putin, George Bush had a moment of wanting to make Putin an ally but that passed quickly, and Obama was resolved to keep Putin at arm's length (*) for his entire tenure in office. And that's just the Oval Office response. Think of all the high level advisers during that time who saw Putin as the #1 threat to American interests in the world: Madeline Albright, William Cohen, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Admiral Mullen, Robert Gates, General Shalikashvili, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, and I think we can comfortably add General Mattis, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton to that list, as well.

I listened to two Russian author interviews recently that left me with a coupla details about Putin that have stayed with me: 1) when Boris Yeltsin was grooming Putin to succeed him back in the 1990s, Putin actually wanted to be made the CEO of Gazprom instead; Yeltsin refused to hear it but Putin didn't really want to be the leader of Russia; 2) all Putin has ever wanted to is to be down with the President of the United States; he thought he had that with Bush after 9/11 but that honeymoon never really got started before Bush was done with him (and virtually all other foreign leaders). I bring these details up because Donald Trump represents a clear difference from previous administrations. And though Trump is surrounded by Generals, he is clearly a guy that shrugs off advice when it suits him.

Trump, a non-politician, has met Putin in social company before. And would he have been paranoid of Putin? No. Quite the opposite! Trump probably sees Putin as a failure, a guy that's never really accomplished anything, a guy whose power has steadily eroded since he first appeared. Trump would respect Putin for being a really rich guy who has a firm grip on the Russian electorate, but a guy's whose foreign influence keeps shrinking and is hardly a threat at all. Trump would pity Putin for getting stuck with Russia when he really wanted a Gazprom (isn't Trump in the same situation now?Could've been a media tycoon instead he's stuck running the country). Since Putin came to power NATO and EU have grown right to his border, numerous former Soviet states are homes to Islamic Jihad, China is poaching central Asia, the Americans keep banging on North Korea, Turkey is pushing back in the Black Sea, Iran is pushing back in the Caucuses, Ukraine fell from his grasp and is now just a quagmire (**), and outside of Syria, he has no allies and no prospects for the future. Why on earth are we so afraid of him? He's done nothing but get smaller since he took power, yet we continue to act like he's Genghis Khan leading hordes to our doorstep.

Russia is naturally isolated. The terrain and the climate are harsh and the population is self-reliant and hearty. Diplomatically they continue to get even more isolated to the point where to me the danger is that Russia descends into a North Korea-like state where weapons and tough talk are their only exports. The difference is that Russia is a mighty nation that already has a nuclear arsenal--and knows what to do with it! And a population of 150 million people that have lurched toward becoming a productive middle class since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ehhh....okay....not sure Russia has really embraced the potential of free markets to give people opportunities free from gov't interference but a steady diet of embargoes and sanctions isn't helping the Russian economy. Yeah, the society is still riven by inequality, the electoral process is clearly a joke and there is only the slightest burgeoning of a free media, but it feels like more people have more control over their time and money than in the Soviet days. Russia could've collapsed into pure chaos and instead has soldiered along fairly well considering the West hasn't been any more helpful than any other time in history.

I've always kinda liked Putin because I think he's tried to navigate through the post-Soviet economy in a manner that allows a middle class to develop, that allows people to get educated and make the most of their economic opportunities. And if that strikes you as a rosy-glass observation, take a look back at Russia's history--there are no Abe Lincolns, no George Washingtons, not a single Gandhi in 1000 years of history! Russians have had a steady diet of iron-fisted tyrants and Putin strikes me as the most progressive leader they've ever had. Putin has a firm grip on his domestic constituency (as shown by his recent "landslide" re-election) but in terms of foreign policy he's at the mercy of global markets that are mostly unavailable to him or simply not in his favor.

The recent National Defense Strategy paper that signaled a move away from international terrorism and back to a focus on great powers (meaning Russia and China), takes us back to a potential alliance--in the long run. Making enemies is, for USA, the first step to making friends. When we fight an enemy, we beat the enemy, then we re-build a friend (***). That's the American way. But in this case we don't have to make war with Russia. Russia is in desperate need of friends, all we have to do is ally with them.

Now the news is filled with stories of Europeans expelling Russian diplomats and recalling their own from Russia in response to the attempted murder of a former Russian spy living the UK. (****) An already isolated Putin is about to get even lonelier. I don't see this as a good policy. Isolation leaves Russia with only military options and pushes them to ally with those that bedevil the West. We're allowing vague talk of Russian spycraft to cloud our judgement. We're letting domestic political memes to shape our foreign policy agenda. Instead of using Trump to make peace, we're encouraging him to make war. Instead of the Brits covering up spy stuff--which stays hidden 99% of the time--they're using it as political ammo.

The idea that the West can bully Russia into belching up another Yeltsin seems foolhardy at best. Putin's guaranteed to last another five years and though there is talk of his potential retirement, if he feels Russia is under attack, he'll stick around. Or worse: he'll be replaced by Putin 2.0.

Mikhail Gorbachev ain't walking through that door, folks. If we keep pushing Russia we may just push them into full fledged paranoid nihilism. Are we ready to topple all of civilization over some fucking Facebook ads? Putin still craves respect from the West. And the potential for war is all he's got left. It's going to get worse before it gets better--and I think it will get better. But not any time soon.


(*) During the 2008 election I thought the only clear advantage McCain had over Obama was Putin. I thought Obama was too green and Putin might eat him alive. I think Obama had a similar feeling and basically stayed away from Putin as much as possible for 8 years seeing him as nothing but a fox seeking a hen house.

(**) In the West we see Putin's aggression in Ukraine as a sign of his thirst for dominance. I'd suggest it's the exact opposite: he used to control Ukraine, he used to wake up every morning knowing that Ukraine was all his, then that fell apart and now he has to send in troops just to keep it half-together. That's not power, that's the erosion of power. And isn't Syria the same way? Syria was a reliable ally for decades but in the last 5 years or so, the place has fallen to shit and Putin has to exert all his energy just to keep it from completely shattering. That ain't how Bill Belichick wins games.

(***) And the flip side: we never went to war with Brazil, for example, we've just subtly bullied them for 200 years so we don't see them now as an enemy or an ally. We see Africa as a charity rather than an investment because we've never feared it enough to make war with it or needed it enough to co-opt it. We still don't know what to do with Cuba because, outside of two weeks in 1962, we've never thought about besting it and thus don't know how to be friends or enemies now. Our wars shape our peace.

(****) This may come off as incredibly naive but what the fuck do I care if spies kill each other? The initial reports I saw said that he was retired but lately I've seen more that say he was still in contact with British agencies, so was he working on something that makes this attack meaningful? Indeed, why would the British gov't even acknowledge his existence or his attempted murder--isn't outing a spy in public a crime?--so what is significant about this guy? If this is just old fashioned spy-vs-spy payback, then why are embassies around the globe removing diplomats? So should we assume that this guy was...say...spying on Russia...in which case, back to my previous question of why the fuck do I care if spies kill each other? This is either much deeper than it looks or just a lame excuse to get pissed at Putin, either way we're not getting the full story. (And isn't the guy's current condition awfully similar to how Yassar Arafat and Ariel Sharon both went out? Should the conspiracy theorists be digging up those bodies, too?)