Poking the Bear

Despite harsh words, stern faces, and economic threats by the West, Russia has not backed down in its claim on Crimea or its actions in Ukraine. More than a few people have been asking why Russia has been able to thwart Western efforts to curb its recent aggressive actions. Russia's obstinacy is frequently presumed to be because the West has been too diffident and dithering in its response and should take a harder line and act more aggressively. The error the those people are making is that they are underestimating Russia's resolve and resiliency. Basically, the reason Russia is able to thumb its nose at the West is because, unlike Libya, Iraq, and Iran, Russia is a scientifically advanced country. It is a developed country with a large and diverse economy that is deeply entwined with Europe's and has natural resources that are much in demand around the world, not the least of which is natural gas. It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. It can make life miserable for the U.S. around the world. It believes itself immune to Western military intervention because it has a potent military that, if unable to beat the West, can certainly bloody it. As if all that weren't enough, it can also incinerate the U.S. and Europe if it has to.

 

Certainly the West has economic leverage with Russia. The European Union is Russia's largest trading partner and accounts for nearly $300 billion in trade. The EU is the most important investor in Russia. It is estimated that up to 75% of foreign direct investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States. The problem, however, is that EU imports from Russia are dominated by raw materials, in particular, oil (crude and refined) and natural gas which cannot easily or conveniently be replaced by other suppliers. Any significant rupture in trade could easily throw Europe's fragile economies into a tailspin and cause unrest.  An economic struggle with Russia would come down to a contest of whose economy would buckle and whose population would take to the street first, Russia's or Western Europe's. The question then is how much economic turbulence Western European nations are willing to accept for the sake of Crimea and making a point with Russia. If recent history is any guide, Europe has shown little stomach for economic austerity and even less for foreign adventure. It is doubtful, to say the least, that Europeans would cheerfully tighten their belts further, let alone muster the will for any military adventure in the East, especially if one looks at the track record of Western adventures in Russia.

 

 

The U.S. and its allies have become accustomed to being able to bring wayward nations into line through a combination of economic actions, military threats, and political maneuvering. Despite the impressive results those actions have achieved around the world, it is unlikely such actions would cause Russia to yield in Crimea. Crimea is too important to Russia economically, politically, and more importantly, psychologically to surrender it. The favored, i.e. bloodless, measures that have proven effective in bringing other nations around are unlikely to work with Russia. Russia is simply too big, too powerful, too important, and has too many options to be bullied.

Throughout history, the Russian people have endured suffering and hardship in defense of their nation unimaginable to most in the West. They did so for czars, despots, and tyrants, not because they felt beholden to their government or their leaders, but because the Motherland called them to. Consider what they endured under Stalin. Despite the horrors of the 1930's, Russians still fought and died by the millions against Nazi Germany. So far the West has been careful in its response by carefully targeting unpopular "oligarchs" and politicians for sanctions. In frustration with the results, it is considering expanding sanctions. But it had better be very careful. If the West errs by overplaying its hand and thereby forcing Russians to choose between their country or their standard of living we risk rousing the Russian people and in doing so making the world a more dangerous place to live in.

The West should take a stand and lecture Russia. After all, it has an reputation to maintain. What the West should not do is get carried away by its rhetoric and step into a conflict that no good will come from.

Clinton's Blunder

Hilary Clinton recently likened Russian activities in Crimea to those of Hitler's early expansionism in Europe during the 1930s. In doing so, Clinton made a blunder of epic proportions. Clearly Clinton has not paid much attention to the war on the Eastern Front in WWII. If nothing else, Clinton failed to appreciate the effect of WWII on the Russian psyche. The "Great Patriotic War", as it is known in Russia, was fought on a scale unimaginable to most in the West. From 1941 until the end of the war in 1945, the USSR bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe. The war on the Eastern Front claimed between 21-28 million Soviet lives, most of them civilians (the U.S. Army, by contrast, lost 141,000 dead in the battle for Europe). The Battle of Stalingrad alone cost the Russians well over 1 million casualties, including 40,000 civilians. Over the course of the war, millions of Soviet civilians were executed or sent to perish in Nazi labor camps. Crops were burned or confiscated leaving untold thousands to die from starvation. Villages, towns, and cities were destroyed leaving tens of thousands more to die from exposure during the harsh Russian winters. The war in the East was fought with a savagery unimaginable to the comfortable Western mind. It was a war of annihilation.

For Clinton to compare Russia in any way to Hitler and Nazi Germany is an outrage to the millions of Russians who died fighting Hitler. If Clinton was searching for an analogy to shock people into action she would have done better to choose Stalin to make her point. But she didn't. She chose Hitler because Hitler is always an easy target. By doing so she made a statement sure to mobilize the Russian people into a unified indignation. The only way Clinton could have done worse would have been to claim that Israel's settler policy is analogous to Hitler's call for "Lebensraum". Even then, she would not have done much worse.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is boosting its NATO presence in eastern Europe to bolster the defenses of U.S. allies in the region as a response to Russia's actions in the Crimean Peninsula. To that end, a Defense Department official confirmed that the U.S. will "augment" NATO's mission in Baltic countries. The U.S. has stationed four F-15s to the Baltic Air Policing rotation, a loose collection of NATO and local air forces policing the Baltic region, and plans to send more forces. "This action comes at the request of our Baltic Allies and further demonstrates our commitment to NATO security," the official said. In doing so, the U.S. is expanding its sphere of influence further eastward into territory long considered by Russia to be its prerogative.

Some have taken to comparing the recent series of events in Ukraine with the events that led up to WWII. It is nothing of the sort. If anything, it is like WWI where a complex web of treaties and political miscalculations led to a local conflict blossoming into a world war that no one wanted. By taking on further obligations in Eastern Europe, NATO increases the chances of a conflict with Russia. We should also be careful of fanning the flames of nationalism, which is what we are doing whenever we support a tribe, a religion, an ethnicity, or a race in its struggle for autonomy and self determination. Nationalism has caused more wars, violence, and suffering in Europe than any other factor except, perhaps, religion which itself can be considered a variety of nationalism. Clinton's choice of words will only exacerbate tension in Crimea and elsewhere in and near Russia. Russia increasingly feels beleaguered. It is not a good time to humiliate or insult it. Crimea is not Kazakhstan, Moldavia, or the Baltic States. It has been part of Russia for over 300 years. It is a jewel in her crown. It is one of her children.  Like any mother, "Mother Russia" has always been disinclined to part with her children. The nearer those children are to her, the more dear they are. She will not give up Crimea without a struggle.

Remember the U.S. once had a region that sought to break away. I am sure everyone remembers how that turned out.