- NOVEMBER 21, 2009
-
Fear of a Weak Russia
If Moscow's failures continue, the world may soon become a much more dangerous place.
BY DONALD K. BANDLER , JAKUB KULHANEK | AUGUST 5, 2009
The reaction from the American defense establishment to news that Russian submarines have been operating off the U.S. coast has been fairly nonchalant, bordering on smug. The submarine operation is widely seen as a rather feeble show of strength by the Russian military after a series of embarrassments over botched missile tests and undistinguished conduct during last year's war with Georgia.
COMMENTS (14)
More...
Russia's weakness -- military, political, and economic -- is fast becoming conventional wisdom in Washington. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal before his trip to Georgia and Ukraine, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden even suggested that a weakened Russia might work to the advantage of the United States. His words, of course, were primarily meant to reassure the skittish leaders in Tblisi and Kiev, who fear that a thaw in U.S.-Russia relations might lead Washington to abandon them. Whether he was speaking for President Barack Obama or not, Biden also sent an unequivocal signal to the Kremlin that it should not take any "reset" for granted and that the White House will not be intimidated by Russian aggression.
But before the new administration gets too comfortable, it's worth examining whether a weakened Russia is really in anyone's interest. In fact, an unstable Russia might prove far more dangerous. For the sake of argument, we present the following not-so-unlikely scenario in which Russia undergoes a series of political and economic upheavals. Consider it less a prediction than a worst-case course of events for how Russian weakness could mean trouble.
***
It is 2011. The ongoing global financial crisis has proven far more damaging to the Russian economy than predicted, and the Russian ruling elite's once unshakeable optimism for a quick recovery is long gone. Russian companies are going bankrupt in droves, and there are massive layoffs. As a result, a rising number of protests are reported all over the country. Due to unpaid salaries and massive unemployment, ordinary people lose their inhibitions and openly challenge the government. Public outrage is mostly directed at President Dmitry Medvedev and liberal members of the government. In a desperate attempt to quell riots, troops are deployed to regions with the most unrest.
Things quickly get out of hand. In the city of Omsk, troops open fire on unarmed rioters, killing nine. The Omsk incident deals a decisive blow to Medvedev, who is forced out of office by powerful Kremlin clans that fear the imminent collapse of the Russian state. Appearing emotionally shaken, the president delivers a terse resignation speech in a televised address on Dec. 15, 2011.
NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP/Getty Images
Donald K. Bandler had a 28-year career in the State Department, serving as special assistant to President Bill Clinton, senior director for Europe in the National Security Council, counselor for the 1999 NATO Summit, and U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus. Jakub Kulhanek is currently a graduate student with the Center for Eurasian, Russian, and Eastern European Studies at Georgetown University and a research fellow at the Association for International Affairs in the Czech Republic.
all you have to do is figure out a new source of energy...
...for europe and the US, a source that replaces oil.
because it looks like the whole works is in a world of hurt from peak oil, and as the price of oil rises in response to growing oil shortages, russia is gonna be sitting prettier and prettier.
...there's always our fallback position...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22nuclear+primacy%22+%22first+strike%22+russia&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
This is a fully plausible scenario, and a frightening one at that, but if you would allow me, I would like to present an alternative scenario that is just as likely but that result in a whole different Russian future.
It is mid-2011 and Iran successfully carries out its first nuclear weapons test, possibly with off-the-books assistance from its long-time ally, Russia. President Ahmadinejhad publicly declares the test a great victory for the Islamic Republic and its people and immediately the alert level throughout Middle East rises. This results in a spike of global oil prices and a worldwide panic. Israel, faced with a direct nuclear threat to its security, mobilizes its troops and rashly launches a mass campaign of airstrikes against known Iranian nuclear facilities. The airstrikes destroy numerous Iranian facilities but fails to completely neuter the Iranian nuclear program. Having been attacked, Iran responds by mobilizing its military and launching ballistic missiles at Israel. The Israeli-Iranian War officially begins in October 2011 and sees catastrophic casualties on both sides. The United States is invariably drawn into the conflict on the Israeli side while Syria joins the Iranian side with the other Middle Eastern powers declaring cautious neutrality. As part of its established war strategy, Iran blockades the Straits of Hormuz and reinforces its commitment by sinking an American supertanker, causing a massive environmental disaster.
While the Middle East is engulfed by war, a different crisis develops worldwide. With the blockading of the Straits of Hormuz, the destruction of oil infrastructure in Iraq and Iran, and having reached peak oil, oil prices climb to hundreds of dollars a barrel. Russia, possessing the world's second largest oil reserves, suddenly becomes the world's biggest oil supplier and finds itself once again awash in petrodollars. With the US occupied with developments in the Middle East, Russia becomes the dominant force in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. In late 2012, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Russia all join an "economic prosperity bloc" where oil-rich Russia becomes the dominant partner. The Russian media attributes this swift reversal of fortunes to Vladimir Putin's stellar statesmanship who wins re-election to the presidency. As president, Putin exerts more and more pressure on Russia's fellow bloc members and by 2015, all are de-facto Russian satellites. With a commanding share of the worldwide energy supply, Russia and President Putin are also now free to bully Georgia and Ukraine politically and militarily into compliance. With its much sought-after "sphere of influence" and rapid economic recovery due to its new oil preeminence, the Russian future begins to look much brighter and much stronger...
your whole scenario still plays, even without iran's testing, developing or planning nuke weapons.
and israel has made it clear that it intends to attack iran.
what course of action do you suggest?
DO NOT LET ISRAEL ATTACK IRAN...Obama needs to do everything possible, both diplomatically and politically, to stop Israel and Egypt from doing anything stupid. Personally, I subscribe to the "let Iran have nuclear weapons" school of thought. As unpopular a decision as this is currently, it would be far less damaging then giving Israel the green light to start a war it would regret. Assume Iran develops a nuclear weapon, even three or four. Israel has a nuclear arsenal of anywhere from 30-50 warheads. President Ahmadinejad is possibly crazy, but not stupid. To carry out a nuclear attack against Israel would result in perhaps one or two Israeli cities being destroyed with numerous Iranian cities being destroyed in retaliation. It would also draw the wrath of American forces stationed in bases around Iran and ultimately, the end of the Islamic Republic. There is no plausible scenario that has Iran coming out on top. Ahmadinejad does not want war, he wants a trophy, something to prop up his regime's claim of legitimacy. Nuclear weapons provide just that. However, the fear that Iran would sell nuclear weapons to terrorists is a more legitimate fear but ultimately unpredictable. I could go on and on but I would rather just summarize my platform as this: Obama must stop Israel from attacking Iran. To let them do so would take the whole world though the looking glass, and the other side sucks...
First of all, nice to see a mostly civil discussion on foreign affairs on an Internet site ...
I consider myself staunchly pro-Israel, yet have severe reservations about an attack against Iran. As has been rightly posted, it would be messy, without any guarantees of success, and could very reasonably trigger a greater conflict.
But we would be remiss not to weigh the alternative. True, the Iranian regime, like any other, cares more about grasping power than engaging in any religious delusions of apocalyptic terror. They simply would not trade in the destruction of their country for an open war with Israel, which would surely deliver a nuclear retaliation if Iran ever bombed them.
Iran, lest we forget, is the number one state sponsor of terrorism as considered by the state department. To ignore this -- and the fact that they fund and arm Hezbollah and Hamas -- is very dangerous. The country, put simply, cannot be allowed to gain nuclear weapons, especially since it would be only a matter of time before Egypt and Saudi Arabia do the same.
Open conflict, Cold War-style, is not the threat we are up against. Nuclear-armed rogue terrorists, those who operate out of fanaticism with nothing to lose, is the greatest national security threat to the United States and to our allies, who we are obligated to protect.
how do you stop israel from attacking iran?
there's no evidence of an iranian nuke weapons program, but that hasnt stopped israel's pressing, and it hasnt stopped the main media's parroting israeli propaganda.
and lack of evidence certainly didnt stop the iraq war, seeing as how an apparatus was set up to manufacture "evidence" of iraq's wmds.
why isnt the evidence of iran's weapons program turned over to the UN inspectors?
if the "evidence" is so shaky that the inspectors cant find the facilities, how are airstrikes gonna find those facilities?
Israel will bomb a bunch of "suspected" targets and claim success but will ultimately achieve nothing but validating Pres. Ahmadinejad's bellicose rhetoric and scoring a whole mess of negative PR. As for how we would stop them? I don't have any real good answers for that...Obama has done a lot recently to burn some of our bridges with Israel which has given them the room to act independently. Our influence over Israel has diminished so simply asking Israel not to attack Iran would not work. Possibly a moratorium on US arms shipments or US monetary aid to Israel? Maybe a relaxation on the US anti-settlement rhetoric in exchange for a guarantee not to attack? Threaten to freeze Israeli and Egyptian assets in the US in the event of an attack? None of these options are great but they are the only ones that I can come up with off the top of my head...
if bombing iran wont accomplish anything...
...why would israel bomb iran?
this is an absurd :)
The only real problem I can see with the scenario is that Putin's claims for invading Georgia proper would be pretty transparent - everyone would know that he meant to topple the Georgian government. It's not like the war from last year, where Saakashvili (after several years of talking about reclaiming lost territories and so forth) made a move to re-take South Ossetia, and got heavily spanked for it.
The reaction to Russia's response last year was extremely tepid, including among its erstwhile allies (the Chinese, for example, were cold in reception to Georgia's actions). It would be much worse in this scenario - Russia would be more or less isolating itself.
Plus, I can't see Putin trying to start a war with Georgia to distract from home weakness and turbulence in Russia proper. They didn't do that with Chechnya, for example - more likely is that Russia does a massive show of force in Ingutsehtia, and bombs the place into oblivion.
New generation of leaders take mantle of leadership, with the slogan change, they quickly do away with Orthodox leadership practice aimed at promoting personal freedom. Leadership waves sweep the entire globe, new ties are fostered new stronghold established based on loyalty, humanity, development, autonomy and economic and political democracy. The Crisis is that there will be two centers of power, which was least expected however this will be the coming of age of an all inclusive consensus on global issues and no danger can one nation pose to the entire globe.
I guess it doesn’t take Vice-President to make a guff. Even Foreign Policy is not immune from making really bad mistakes like publishing this “article”!
Since when have you changed your policy and started publishing of pulp fiction pieces? What is next – a chick-lit novel?
Let me guess how such future piece would read: “After carnage in Omsk and Medvedev’s resignation Obama grabs the telephone and calls Putin. The new/old Russian President invites Barack Obama to his resort in Altai for an informal summit. There Putin suddenly bares his chest… (for the rest, see Brokeback Mountain script).
After his return to Washington Obama signs a multibillion aid package to Russia, and presto - Russia is saved again!
A weak Russia is better than a strong Russia
A strong Russia would cause more havoc in it's near abroad than would a weak Russia. Weak or strong, it has an energy advantage of Europe that it can wield as a political weapon. The best option for the US is to continue to embrace the Baltics, Ukraine, all of Eastern Europe, and Turkey.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/08/08/us_must_save_ukraine_from_russia_97035.html
Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?
BY EVGENY MOROZOV
North Africa's escalating soccer war
BY JOSHUA KEATING
How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit
BY WILLIAM MOSS
The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup
BY ROBERT HADDICK
What would George Marshall think of today's generals?
BY THOMAS E. RICKS
What does containing North Korea actually mean?
BY JAMIE FLY
How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit
BY JOSH ROGIN
November/December 2009
-
Feature
-
Feature
-
Opening Gambit
About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE