While the Congress, and Democrats in particular, continue to assail Russia from the comfort of Mother America's bosom, Europe is facing an entirely new threat. Russia is already fighting a kinetic war on European soil using illegal weapons and pre-cold war tactics. The Russian attack on ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, using an illegal and highly toxic nerve agent, signifies to the world that Russia is not playing by the old rules.
For those who need some background, Mr. Skripal worked as a British spy in Russia until he was discovered in 2004. He was jailed and later traded back to the U.K. as part of an old fashioned "spy swap," like you'd see in a Cold War movie. This Bridge of Spies kind of transfer of prisoners had been the norm between the Allies and Russia for more than 50 years. Spies of any value were rarely put on public trial, or even acknowledged as spies. They were either shot or debriefed and traded for something of equal value.
Mr. Skripal was serving as a spy more than a decade after the Berlin Wall fell. Russia and NATO were no longer sworn enemies, but rather cautious acquaintances, still deciding whether to be good neighbors. Vladimir Putin was not yet in power and America was still dealing with the effects of 9/11.
Now, fourteen years later, Mr. Putin apparently decided to kill this irrelevant, 65 year old man and his daughter. Every Western intelligence agency reported yesterday that this was an attack, by Russia, on British soil, using a banned weapon. These agencies reported that the attack was almost certainly approved by Vladimir Putin, something he has only partially denied. This marks a new chapter in East-West relations, and the implications should be unnerving to everyone.
First, the Russian government and its military simply do not fear significant retaliation. Like casting a blind eye to the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, Russia has once again shown that it does not consider any weapon to be too brutal to use. Russia could have used any weapon. Why not a gun? Why not kill him with an axe or a knife? Why did it have to be a nerve agent? It was to make a point. No law will restrict Russia from pursuing its own interests, using whatever means it deems necessary to effect that interest, and it will strike wherever and whenever it chooses.
It is difficult to imagine a more brazen approach. A chemical weapons attack on an American citizen in New York, for example, would almost certainly earn the perpetrator a twenty year war with the United States - that is, if it turned out that a Middle Eastern country were the perpetrator. Britain's response so far has been to expel 23 known Russian agents from the U.K. This tepid reaction shows one thing for certain, we are far more afraid of Russia than Russia is of the West.
Mr. Putin is testing the West's resolve again, just as he did in Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. This is yet another probing action, designed to illicit a measurable response that the former spy-master can then use to plan his next move. His next move may be to invade the rest of Ukraine, move into another Eastern European country, or sanction the use of chemical weapons to wipe out any further resistance in Syria. We just don't know, but we need to be on guard.
We also know from this attack that Mr. Putin is not afraid to use kinetic, terrorist like force on a Western ally. Chemical weapons, like the nerve agent used in this attack, have been banned for almost a century. State actors using chemical weapons risk global condemnation as well as military retaliation. American military doctrine has been entirely focused on the "mass destruction" part of "weapons of mass destruction." Russia, however, has been focused almost exclusively on the limited use of these weapons. In a publication released two years ago, Russia announced its plans to use nuclear weapons in a "limited" capacity in the event of a war against NATO in Eastern Europe. NATO yawned, secure in the belief that no such war could ever really happen.
Of course, no war can really ever happen...until it does. Russia has demonstrated that it is not only willing to use weapons of mass destruction, but that it knows how to use them in a "limited" capacity - like an assassination. Meanwhile, NATO generals are still fighting the last war.
The United States and its allies have spent the last 25 years preparing for and fighting wars in the Middle East. Russia was an afterthought, as was China. Even when Russia invaded Soviet Georgia, the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, chose to do nothing. When Russia annexed Crimea, the Obama administration belittled the invasion as "contrary to Russia's interests," as if we dictate to Russia what its interests are. When Russia invaded the Ukraine, again, nothing, notwithstanding that we had guaranteed the Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for its agreement to give up its nuclear arsenal. My guess is that they regret that decision now.
Western leaders, including NATO, have consistently underestimated Putin and Russia, disregarding them as "thugs," and "foolish." All the while, Putin has humiliated the West. Contrary to what our leadership may think, Russia is not a "regional power," with a small economy and a decaying military.
Russia has a land mass larger than all of Europe. It has a population greater than Germany and France combined. Its conventional military assets double those of NATO if you were to exclude the United States. Russia has strategic resources in oil, gas, coal and ore that exceed anything in the rest of Europe, and it has strategic alliances with our global rivals that provide it with anything it cannot make on its own. Russia has an enormous, albeit dormant, industrial base. Russia can grow its own food.
Most importantly, however, the Russian people are hardened. There is a reason Vladimir Putin is so popular in Russia. The average Russian enjoys far more wealth than a decade ago, which isn't saying much. But, as the EU debates how many refugees should be allowed to take advantage of state benefits, Russians have been singularly focused on rebuilding their nation. Scarcity is not now, nor has it ever been, a foreign concept to the average Russian. We think that Apple, Facebook and Google make us superior, but we had a similar misconception about Western industry leading up to both World Wars. We have a tendency in the West to overestimate our importance to the world and we have consistently underestimated the resolve of our adversaries. The next war may start in cyberspace, and Apple may give us an advantage but, like all wars, it will end on the ground with guns and men.
It is far too late to rely on deterrence. We have appeased Putin's Russia since the invasion of Georgia and, regardless, Putin's actions demonstrate an utter disregard for Western power. Hitler was not stopped at Munich and the result was conflagration. By the time he invaded Poland, the West had nothing left to threaten him with. The same is true of Russia. We need to prepare for war because it is coming, without regard to our deep desire to avoid it. And it will not be a cold war. It will not be the last war. It will not be the wars we've fought in the Middle East for the last seventeen years. It is a war that has already started, and a war that we are already losing.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That warning holds true today. The blueprint for the next World War has been perfectly laid out as if it were 1914 or 1936. As horrifying as that may be, it also should serve as a warning to our adversaries. The United States has, since its inception, annihilated every great power it has fought. The birth of our nation marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Our entry in to World War I marked the end of the German monarchy. Our entry in to World War II marked the end of the Nazi juggernaut and imperial Japan. Our resurgence during the Regan administration marked the end of the Cold War. As Admiral Yamamoto lamented after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant." It is a lasting warning to our enemies. We are slow to anger but, when provoked, we are an unstoppable force.
That said, the last two World Wars started because the great powers were overconfident and underestimated their adversaries. Who on Earth can say that history is not now repeating itself?
The United States and its allies have spent the last 25 years preparing for and fighting wars in the Middle East. Russia was an afterthought, as was China. Even when Russia invaded Soviet Georgia, the Bush administration, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, chose to do nothing. When Russia annexed Crimea, the Obama administration belittled the invasion as "contrary to Russia's interests," as if we dictate to Russia what its interests are. When Russia invaded the Ukraine, again, nothing, notwithstanding that we had guaranteed the Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for its agreement to give up its nuclear arsenal. My guess is that they regret that decision now.
Western leaders, including NATO, have consistently underestimated Putin and Russia, disregarding them as "thugs," and "foolish." All the while, Putin has humiliated the West. Contrary to what our leadership may think, Russia is not a "regional power," with a small economy and a decaying military.
Russia has a land mass larger than all of Europe. It has a population greater than Germany and France combined. Its conventional military assets double those of NATO if you were to exclude the United States. Russia has strategic resources in oil, gas, coal and ore that exceed anything in the rest of Europe, and it has strategic alliances with our global rivals that provide it with anything it cannot make on its own. Russia has an enormous, albeit dormant, industrial base. Russia can grow its own food.
Most importantly, however, the Russian people are hardened. There is a reason Vladimir Putin is so popular in Russia. The average Russian enjoys far more wealth than a decade ago, which isn't saying much. But, as the EU debates how many refugees should be allowed to take advantage of state benefits, Russians have been singularly focused on rebuilding their nation. Scarcity is not now, nor has it ever been, a foreign concept to the average Russian. We think that Apple, Facebook and Google make us superior, but we had a similar misconception about Western industry leading up to both World Wars. We have a tendency in the West to overestimate our importance to the world and we have consistently underestimated the resolve of our adversaries. The next war may start in cyberspace, and Apple may give us an advantage but, like all wars, it will end on the ground with guns and men.
It is far too late to rely on deterrence. We have appeased Putin's Russia since the invasion of Georgia and, regardless, Putin's actions demonstrate an utter disregard for Western power. Hitler was not stopped at Munich and the result was conflagration. By the time he invaded Poland, the West had nothing left to threaten him with. The same is true of Russia. We need to prepare for war because it is coming, without regard to our deep desire to avoid it. And it will not be a cold war. It will not be the last war. It will not be the wars we've fought in the Middle East for the last seventeen years. It is a war that has already started, and a war that we are already losing.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That warning holds true today. The blueprint for the next World War has been perfectly laid out as if it were 1914 or 1936. As horrifying as that may be, it also should serve as a warning to our adversaries. The United States has, since its inception, annihilated every great power it has fought. The birth of our nation marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Our entry in to World War I marked the end of the German monarchy. Our entry in to World War II marked the end of the Nazi juggernaut and imperial Japan. Our resurgence during the Regan administration marked the end of the Cold War. As Admiral Yamamoto lamented after Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant." It is a lasting warning to our enemies. We are slow to anger but, when provoked, we are an unstoppable force.
That said, the last two World Wars started because the great powers were overconfident and underestimated their adversaries. Who on Earth can say that history is not now repeating itself?
No comments:
Post a Comment