• Home
  • About

Rural Ruminations

OpEd pieces by a retired CIA station chief.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« When Biden speaks, duck and cover
CIA’S World War II Legacy: Why it could have done better in the Cold War »

American policies provoked Russia

August 24, 2008 by Haviland Smith

[Originally published in the Rutland Herald and Barre Times-Argus.]

The ongoing tiff between the United States and Russia over Georgia has far less to do with Georgia than it has to do with mounting Russian revanchism and Russia’s concerns about what is happening in its “near abroad,” the 14 former Soviet Republics, and in its former “satellites,” their seven former East European Socialist “allies.”

Compelled as they are by their history, the Russians will pay dearly for their compulsive incursion into Georgia and for their threats against Poland. How that works out remains to be seen, but at minimum, their Georgian adventure will precipitate a worldwide re-evaluation of Russia’s goals and tactics that will not be favorable to Russian interests.

All that aside, America has vital interests in a viable, non-hostile Russia and for that reason, we need to be very cautious and thoughtful in how we deal with them on these emotional issues.

Russia’s concerns are historical, going back to the early days of the Russian Empire. As with most empires, Russia has a long history of armed conflict with most of its “near abroad” and many others, including its former satellites. This reality has led, understandably, to a high level of Russian anxiety and paranoia. They have always viewed the outside world with grave suspicion.

During the Cold War, the Soviets complained constantly about the “capitalist encirclement” of the USSR, and they were right. We surrounded them with NATO and SEATO from Europe to East Asia. They in turn, had their “near abroad” and European satellites as buffers against Western encirclement.

That could and probably should have ended with the USSR’s demise, but by 2004, we had added 10 former Soviet properties, all seven former Soviet satellites and three former Republics, to NATO. Russia saw this as pure provocation. NATO was once again encircling Russia, and, as NATO looked more and more threatening to them, they returned to the more traditional and aggressive geopolitical tactics of both Soviet and Imperial Russia.

It should be noted here that Russia’s historical behavior has added to this unsettling mix. Small countries that for ages have existed precariously on the periphery of an aggressive Russia are understandably nervous about what appears to be the resurgence of Russian geopolitical ambitions.

In the post-Soviet world, Poland, Georgia and the Czech Republic, small, vulnerable countries on the fringe of Russia, as well as the seven others that have joined up with NATO, have sought big power protection. They would all like to maintain their democracies and their territorial integrity. Their long and bitter experiences have taught them that when it comes to Russian geopolitical imperatives, big power protection is mandatory. NATO led by America is that big power.

There is a great deal in the balance here. There is the fate of a democratic Georgia threatened by Russian regime change. There are the Georgian pipelines, the only petroleum pipelines from Central Asia to the West that are not controlled by Russia. There is the message that Russia is sending to its former territorial appendages in the “near abroad” like Ukraine and the Central Asian Republics, that they must not flirt with the West or NATO. Finally, there is the Missile Shield and NATO.

The real question here is what we see as the future role of NATO. The Russians see it as simply a continuation of the Cold War, with essentially unchanged goals. In that respect, at least as long as it remains primarily a military organization, NATO is and will remain a provocation to the Russians. It’s hard to see how a still militarized NATO, built for the Cold War, has any viable role today other than to intimidate Russia.

The same is true of the “Missile Shield” to be deployed initially in the Czech Republic and Poland. Despite concrete assurances to the contrary (remember Russian paranoia), the Russians see our explanation that it is designed to defend the United States against nuclear missiles (as yet non-existent) from nuclear armed rogue states (also as yet non-existent) as a fiction designed to cover its real target which they see as Russia. This has resulted in an intemperate Russian threat against Poland. With talk of Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO, Russian paranoia has hit high C and prompted the Georgian invasion.

Unlike the Soviet Union, Russia today does not represent a strategic threat to the United States. We need to decide if there is anything positive to gain from continuing policies that do little other than provoke the Russians. Yet we continue to do just that with the Missile Shield and NATO.

Perhaps we are still punishing Russia for its role in the Cold War. Perhaps our concern is based on the resurgence of a powerful Russia, fueled by its oil wealth and pursuing what we think of as its old imperial goals. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that Russia seeks world domination as it did in Soviet times. It is more interested in protecting its own turf and “near abroad.”

As a result of our current Middle East adventures, America today has little diplomatic leverage in the world. We can shout and threaten all we want, but the Russians know we are toothless and that they can do pretty much what they like. With our military totally committed elsewhere, all we have are our nukes – not a terribly flexible asset.

Lacking any credibility or flexibility, a continuing American struggle with Russia is not in our own interest. For many reasons, not the least of which is safeguarding Russian nuclear warheads from the rogue states and terrorists we fear, we have long hoped to see Russia integrate into the West. Yet we continue to provoke them with these policies, making such integration far less likely.

Unless we seek further confrontation with, or humiliation of Russia, bringing Georgia into NATO would rank as sheer stupidity, to be matched only by continuing to aggressively pursue the questionable “Missile Shield” in Eastern Europe, or by failing to demilitarize NATO.

It’s one thing to be tough when you have muscle; it’s another thing when all you have is flab.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who worked in East and West Europe and the Middle East, primarily against Soviet targets. He lives in Williston.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Russia |

  • Search all posts

  • Newest Posts

    • TRUMP AT WAR WITH AMERICA
    • WHERE IS THE WORLD HEADED?
    • Democratic socialism and the coming election
  • Posts by Category

    • Afghanistan (34)
    • CIA (23)
    • Democracy (7)
    • Egypt (6)
    • foreign policy (104)
    • Gulf (1)
    • Insurgency (3)
    • intelligence (22)
    • Iran (18)
    • Iraq (44)
    • ISIS (1)
    • Israel/Palestine (27)
    • Lebanon (2)
    • Libya (2)
    • Middle East (60)
    • Military Polilcy (8)
    • NATO (1)
    • Pakistan (2)
    • Revolution (2)
    • Russia (20)
    • Syria (11)
    • terrorism (53)
    • Uncategorized (25)
    • United States (88)
    • Yugoslavia (4)
  • Posts by Date

    • March 2020 (2)
    • February 2020 (1)
    • September 2019 (2)
    • August 2019 (5)
    • February 2018 (2)
    • January 2018 (1)
    • December 2017 (1)
    • October 2017 (1)
    • September 2017 (1)
    • June 2017 (1)
    • May 2017 (2)
    • April 2017 (1)
    • March 2017 (2)
    • February 2017 (3)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (1)
    • June 2016 (4)
    • February 2016 (1)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (4)
    • May 2015 (1)
    • March 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • August 2014 (1)
    • June 2014 (1)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • December 2013 (1)
    • November 2013 (1)
    • August 2013 (3)
    • July 2013 (1)
    • June 2013 (1)
    • May 2013 (1)
    • March 2013 (4)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (2)
    • December 2012 (2)
    • November 2012 (1)
    • October 2012 (1)
    • September 2012 (2)
    • August 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (1)
    • June 2012 (1)
    • May 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (4)
    • February 2012 (1)
    • January 2012 (1)
    • December 2011 (1)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (3)
    • September 2011 (2)
    • August 2011 (2)
    • July 2011 (2)
    • June 2011 (3)
    • May 2011 (3)
    • April 2011 (4)
    • March 2011 (3)
    • February 2011 (2)
    • January 2011 (4)
    • December 2010 (3)
    • November 2010 (3)
    • October 2010 (2)
    • September 2010 (4)
    • August 2010 (3)
    • July 2010 (4)
    • June 2010 (4)
    • May 2010 (3)
    • April 2010 (2)
    • March 2010 (4)
    • February 2010 (3)
    • January 2010 (6)
    • December 2009 (4)
    • November 2009 (3)
    • October 2009 (3)
    • September 2009 (3)
    • August 2009 (1)
    • July 2009 (4)
    • June 2009 (4)
    • May 2009 (3)
    • April 2009 (3)
    • March 2009 (4)
    • February 2009 (4)
    • January 2009 (6)
    • December 2008 (4)
    • November 2008 (2)
    • October 2008 (3)
    • September 2008 (6)
    • August 2008 (5)
    • July 2008 (7)
    • June 2008 (2)
    • May 2008 (5)
    • April 2008 (2)
    • March 2008 (3)
    • January 2008 (1)
    • December 2007 (1)
    • November 2007 (3)
    • September 2007 (2)
    • August 2007 (2)
    • July 2007 (2)
    • June 2007 (2)
    • May 2007 (1)
    • April 2007 (1)
    • March 2007 (2)
    • February 2007 (1)
    • January 2007 (1)
    • December 2006 (1)
    • November 2006 (1)
    • September 2006 (1)
    • August 2006 (1)
    • July 2006 (2)
    • June 2006 (1)
    • May 2006 (3)
    • April 2006 (1)
    • February 2006 (1)
    • January 2006 (1)
    • November 2005 (1)
    • September 2005 (1)
    • August 2005 (1)
    • June 2005 (1)
    • April 2005 (1)
    • March 2005 (1)
    • January 2005 (2)
    • December 2004 (1)
    • November 2004 (1)
    • September 2004 (1)
    • August 2004 (1)
    • May 2004 (1)
    • April 2004 (2)
    • November 2003 (1)
    • October 2003 (1)
    • August 2003 (1)
    • June 2003 (1)
    • February 2003 (1)
    • January 2003 (2)
    • December 2002 (1)
    • January 2002 (1)
    • November 2001 (1)
    • September 2001 (1)
    • August 2000 (1)
    • January 2000 (1)
    • August 1999 (1)
    • May 1999 (1)
    • August 1998 (1)
    • April 1997 (1)
    • August 1996 (1)
    • July 1995 (1)
    • January 1995 (1)
    • September 1994 (1)
    • March 1994 (1)
    • October 1992 (1)
    • July 1992 (1)
    • February 1992 (1)
    • August 1991 (1)
    • February 1991 (1)
  • Videos

    • Haviland Smith: VPT Profile
    • The Impact of the U.S. Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
  • RSS

    • RSS - Posts
  • Blog Counter

    • 6,724 pages viewed

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Rural Ruminations
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Rural Ruminations
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: