Russia and a New Cold War?

US/Russian Relations: Post Cold War

• Containment: The US foreign policy towards Russia during the Cold War was based on containment, which aimed to limit Soviet expansion and influence globally. This strategy involved various measures, including military alliances, economic aid, and diplomatic pressure, to prevent the spread of communism.

• Unforeseen End of Cold War: The abrupt end of the Cold War took many by surprise, leading to a temporary lack of clear direction in US foreign policy. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the US faced uncertainty in defining its relationship with Russia and establishing new strategic goals.

• Perception of Victory: Some in the US believed they had "won" the Cold War, viewing the Soviet Union's dissolution as a triumph of democracy and capitalism. However, this perception was disputed by Russia, which saw the outcome as a result of internal reforms and changes.

• Russia as an Unknown Quantity: In the aftermath of the Cold War, Russia's future trajectory was uncertain. There was debate within the US government and foreign policy community about whether Russia would emerge as a friend, foe, or something in between.

US/Russian Relations: 11/9-9/11

• Initial Instability in Russia: The initial period of instability in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union raised concerns within NATO. The alliance worried about the potential for political chaos, economic collapse, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

• Key Aims:

  • Avoiding another Chernobyl-like disaster: Preventing nuclear accidents and ensuring the safety of nuclear facilities in Russia was a priority for the US and international community.

  • Limiting nuclear proliferation: The US sought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and materials from Russia to other countries or non-state actors.

  • Facilitating Russian entry into the IMF: Supporting Russia's integration into the international financial system through membership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was seen as a way to promote economic stability and reform.

  • Supporting Russian democracy: Encouraging the development of democratic institutions and processes in Russia was a goal of US foreign policy, although the approach and effectiveness of this support varied over time.

• "Benign Neglect": Despite some engagement, US/Russian relations were largely characterized by a state of "benign neglect" until the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The US focused on other priorities, such as economic globalization and regional conflicts, while Russia grappled with internal challenges.

• "On Again/Off Again": The relationship between the US and Russia was often described as "on again/off again," marked by periods of cooperation followed by disagreements and tensions. This dynamic reflected differing interests, values, and perceptions of the international order.

US/Russian Relations: Post 9/11

• Opportunity for Solidarity: President Bush saw the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to solidify Russian support in the fight against terrorism. He believed that a common threat could bridge the divide between the two countries and foster cooperation on security issues.

• Personal Relationship: A personal relationship between Bush and Putin was solidified by a shared view of terrorism. The two leaders found common ground in their determination to combat terrorist groups and prevent future attacks.

• Weaker Emphasis on Democratization: High-handed domestic politics in both countries led to a weaker emphasis on democratization in Russia. Concerns about terrorism and security took precedence over promoting democratic reforms, leading to criticism from human rights groups and democracy advocates.

• Re-assertion of Russia: Putin pulled out of bilateral treaties and suggested Russia should re-assert itself on the world stage. He sought to restore Russia's great power status and challenge what he saw as US hegemony.

• Challenges: The Orange Revolution in Ukraine, disagreements over missile defense, and the conflict in Georgia created challenges in US/Russian relations. These events exposed underlying tensions and diverging interests between the two countries.

• NATO Expansion: NATO expansion further strained relations with Russia, which viewed the alliance's eastward expansion as a threat to its security and sphere of influence.

NATO in the Post Cold War Era

• Reassessment: NATO's key goal was to "defend against a known adversary" (USSR), but the end of the Cold War prompted a reassessment of its mission and purpose. The alliance had to adapt to a new security environment characterized by asymmetric threats and regional conflicts.

• Core Tasks: NATO added "crisis management" and "cooperative security" to its core tasks alongside "collective defense." This expanded mandate reflected the alliance's willingness to address a broader range of security challenges beyond traditional military threats.

• Institutionalization: The alliance boosted institutionalization by coordinating defense planning and incentivizing political solidarity. NATO sought to strengthen its internal cohesion and decision-making processes to enhance its effectiveness as a security organization.

Russia and NATO

• Russia Joining NATO: The idea of Russia joining NATO was considered during the Yeltsin administration, but it faced significant obstacles and ultimately did not materialize. The prospect of Russian membership raised complex questions about the alliance's identity, purpose, and relations with other countries.

• Suggested Membership Benefits:

  • Provide a break with the Soviet past.

  • Integrate Russia more firmly within Europe.

  • Serve as a symbol of modernity.

  • Continue the practice of former adversaries joining NATO.

• Russia's Failure to Meet Admission Requirements:

  • It was not a stable democracy with good relations with its neighbors.

  • It was unwilling to follow NATO procedures.

  • It was unlikely to support further expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe.

• Unpalatable Options: Changing the alliance to suit Russia would have been unpalatable to other members, while maintaining current requirements would have been unpalatable to Russia. This dilemma highlighted the fundamental differences in values, interests, and strategic orientations between Russia and NATO.

Eastern/Central Europe and NATO

• NATO Expansion into Eastern Europe: NATO also had to decide on expansion into Eastern Europe, a move that greatly affected relations with Russia. The decision to expand NATO eastward was driven by a combination of factors, including the desire to consolidate democratic gains in the region, deter potential aggression, and enhance the alliance's security capabilities.

• Eastern European States' Desires for NATO Membership:

  • It creates a "stamp of approval" at the international level.

  • "Western" states join NATO

  • It provides additional protection against regional instability.

  • It serves as a deterrent against Russia.

• NATO's Concerns Over Expansion:

  • There were unlikely significant military resource commitments.

  • Internal strife could destabilize the alliance.

  • There were ongoing concerns about burden sharing.

  • It may weaken the influence of dominant members (i.e., the US).

• Inducement Tool: Membership was used as an inducement for further reforms, particularly democratization, in Eastern European countries. NATO set conditions for membership related to democratic governance, rule of law, and civilian control of the military, encouraging prospective members to undertake reforms to meet these standards.

Impact of NATO Membership

• Russia's Frustration: Expansion frustrated Russia, which viewed it as a betrayal of earlier understandings and a threat to its security interests. Russian leaders voiced strong opposition to NATO expansion, arguing that it violated the spirit of cooperation that had emerged after the end of the Cold War.

• No Formal Agreement: Russia claimed NATO agreed not to expand into Eastern Europe, but records indicate no formal agreement was made (i.e., there was no "broken promise"). However, there were informal assurances and understandings conveyed during diplomatic discussions, which Russia interpreted as a commitment not to expand NATO eastward.

• Problematic Expansion: The way NATO expanded is the bigger issue, Russia believed it was being unchecked and surrounded. NATO's expansion process involved careful consideration of each applicant's qualifications and contributions to alliance security, but Russia felt that its concerns were not adequately addressed.

• Lingering Animosities: Cold War animosities take time to resolve, and the expansion of NATO stirred up historical grievances and geopolitical rivalries. Russia saw NATO as a relic of the Cold War era and questioned its relevance in the new security environment.

• Problematic Military Structures: Shifting military structures towards the border was problematic, raising concerns about potential military confrontation and miscalculation. Russia responded to NATO expansion by modernizing its armed forces and increasing its military presence along its western borders.

• Weakened Relations: Autocracy in Russia and hubris in the US weakened relations, creating a climate of distrust and suspicion. The erosion of democratic values in Russia and the perceived arrogance of US foreign policy contributed to a deterioration in US-Russian relations.

Enter Ukraine

• Annexation of Crimea: The annexation of Crimea in 2014 (and subsequent invasion in 2022) raises questions about a "new Cold War." These events marked a turning point in US-Russian relations, leading to sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and increased military tensions.

• The West's View: The West views Russia as annexing territory and "freezing conflict" to keep Ukraine in its near abroad, preventing it from fully integrating into the Western orbit. The US and its allies condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine as a violation of international law and a threat to European security.

• Russia's Perspective: Russia sees Ukraine as fundamental to Russian identity and views encroachment by the US/NATO/EU as intolerable, perceiving it as an existential threat to its security and cultural heritage. Russian leaders have asserted that Ukraine is part of Russia's historical sphere of influence and that NATO expansion into Ukraine would cross a red line.

• Swedish and Finnish Accession: Swedish and Finnish accession to NATO is also seen as problematic by Russia, which views it as further encirclement and a challenge to its strategic interests in the Baltic Sea region. Russia has warned of unspecified consequences if Sweden and Finland join NATO.

• Return to History: Is this a return to history or just a case of misunderstandings and missed opportunities? The conflict in Ukraine has prompted debate about the underlying causes of the crisis and whether it represents a resurgence of historical patterns of conflict or a result of policy failures and misperceptions.

Structural Factors Shaping Russian Foreign Policy

• POWER:

  • Lack of natural borders, making Russia feel vulnerable to invasion and external threats. This perception has shaped Russia's foreign policy and military strategy for centuries.

  • Expansion provides natural resources + buffer zones, enhancing Russia's economic and strategic self-sufficiency. Control over natural resources, such as oil and gas, has been a key source of Russia's power and influence.

  • Possession of nuclear weapons, ensuring Russia's status as a major military power and a key player in international security.

• INTERDEPENDENCE:

  • Not a major economic power, relying heavily on natural resource exports and lacking diversification in its economy. This dependence makes Russia vulnerable to fluctuations in global commodity prices and economic sanctions.

  • Oil/natural gas deposits give it leverage over European countries dependent on Russian energy supplies. Russia has used its energy resources as a tool of foreign policy, exerting pressure on countries that rely on Russian gas and oil.

• IDEAS:

  • Restore Russian power/influence, both regionally and globally, seeking to regain its status as a major player in international affairs.

  • Create a sphere of influence in its near abroad, particularly in the former Soviet republics, to protect its security interests and promote its political and economic agenda.

Political Factors Shaping Russian Foreign Policy

• Gutted Institutional Autonomy: Institutional autonomy gutted under Putin, concentrating power in the hands of the president and weakening the role of other government institutions.

• Key President: The president is key; the legislature and judiciary are not relevant in shaping foreign policy decisions, giving the president virtually unchecked authority in this area.

• "Uniquely Russian" Democracy: Democracy should take on a "uniquely Russian" flavor, emphasizing national sovereignty and traditional values over Western-style liberalism. This concept reflects Putin's vision of a strong, centralized state that is resistant to external influence.

• KGB/Security Services: Major players active in the previous regime, particularly the KGB/security services, continue to wield significant influence in Russian politics and foreign policy decision-making.

• Calls to Restore Influence: Public opinion is responsive to calls to restore influence, providing Putin with a popular mandate to pursue an assertive foreign policy aimed at restoring Russia's great power status.

• Weakened Middle-Class Frustrations: Middle-class frustrations weakened after Ukraine, as patriotic fervor and support for Putin's policies increased in response to the conflict. This has made it more difficult for opposition groups to challenge the government's authority.

• Controlled Media: The media is not free and is largely controlled by the state, which uses it to promote its narrative and suppress dissenting voices. This limits the public's access to alternative perspectives and reinforces the government's control over information.

• Dependent Parties: Parties are not independent and are largely subservient to the ruling United Russia party, which dominates the political landscape and stifles genuine political competition.

"Needs, Not Nostalgia"

• Failed Integration: Failed integration into the West soured relations, leading to disillusionment and a sense of betrayal among Russian elites.

• Re-fashioning Attempts: Attempts to "re-fashion" based on re-creating zones of influence, exploiting natural resources, and boosting nationalism are out of sync with the world, hindering Russia's ability to adapt to the changing global landscape.

• Failure to Adapt: Failure to adapt to a context where soft power is critical, relying instead on hard power and coercive tactics that alienate potential allies and partners.

• Controlling Satellites: Controlling satellites chafes other states, undermining Russia's credibility and reputation as a reliable and trustworthy partner.

• Counterproductive Bullying: Using gas/oil to bully other states is counterproductive in the long term, as it damages Russia's image and encourages countries to seek alternative energy sources.

• Internal Modernization: Failure to modernize internally to attract investment, create jobs, and improve living standards, contributing to economic stagnation and social discontent.

• Reset Needed: Needs to "re-set" its relationship with the world based on mutual respect, cooperation, and adherence to international norms and principles.

• Mired in History: It is still "mired in history," unable to break free from outdated geopolitical concepts and power dynamics that are no longer relevant in the 21st century.

Enter the "Hybrid War"?

• Western Failure: Western failure to incorporate Russia into the global order has consequences, contributing to a climate of mistrust and hostility.

• Multiple Domains: Central to "hybrid war" being "fought in multiple domains," including cyber space, information warfare, economic pressure, and military coercion.

• US/Russia Tactics: The US uses sanctions to punish Russia for its actions, while Russia uses hacking and disinformation to undermine Western democracies.

• Breaking the Will: Designed to "break the will" of the opponent by creating chaos, confusion, and division within society.

• Dangerous but not Cold War: Not the same Cold War, but just as (if not more) dangerous due to its complexity, ambiguity, and lack of clear boundaries.

• Values, Not Ideology: Based on values, not ideology, with the US and its allies defending democracy, human rights, and the rule of law against Russia's authoritarianism and aggression.

• Realpolitik: But still predicated on realpolitik, where states pursue their interests and seek to maximize their power and influence in the international system.

• Resource Disparity: The US has more resources than Russia, giving it an advantage in the long-term competition for global influence and dominance.

• Isolated Russia: Russia is isolated but not willing to "give up," determined to defend its interests and challenge the US-led international order.

Return of the Cold War?

• Threatening US/Russia Posturing: Posturing between the US and Russia threatens a return to the Cold War, with increased military spending, nuclear modernization, and geopolitical rivalry.

• Complicated Relations: Would complicate relations with China, which seeks to maintain a neutral stance between the US and Russia while pursuing its own strategic interests.

• UN Stalemate: Would boost stalemate at the United Nations, where the US and Russia frequently clash on issues such as Syria, Ukraine, and arms control.

• Shared Blame: Who is to blame? Both sides share responsibility for the deterioration in relations, with the US and Russia each making mistakes and miscalculations that have contributed to the current crisis.

• US Issues: "Messed up" by failing to emphasize the relationship with Russia and instead pursuing policies that have alienated and antagonized Moscow.

• Russia's Status: Russia is not a defeated enemy but a major power with legitimate security interests that must be taken into account.

• Resentment: "Spinach treatment" created resentment among Russian elites, who feel that the US has treated Russia with disrespect and condescension.

• Crackdowns in Russia: Russia: assertiveness and domestic crackdowns create distrust among Western leaders and public opinion, who view Putin's government as authoritarian and repressive.

• Yeltsin's Authoritarianism: Encouraging Yeltsin to ignore the Duma set the stage for Putin’s authoritarianism, undermining democratic institutions and processes in Russia.

• Ignoring Russia: Ignoring Russia on Kosovo, NATO, and Al Qaeda was damaging, as it reinforced the perception that the US does not take Russia's concerns seriously.

• Last Straws: Last straw: ABM treaty withdrawal and support for Orange and Rose revolutions, which Russia viewed as interference in its internal affairs and a threat to its security interests.

• Different Cold War: Not the "same Cold War" as before, with new challenges and opportunities for cooperation between the US and Russia.

• Nuclear Deterrent: Russia is not a superpower but possesses a nuclear deterrent that ensures its status as a major military power and a key player in international security.

• Conventional Weakness: Weaker in conventional weapons than the US and its allies, limiting its ability to project power and influence beyond its immediate neighborhood.

• Isolated Russia: Russia is relatively isolated with no Warsaw Pact to rely on for support, making it more vulnerable to external pressure and sanctions.

• NATO at the Gate: NATO is "at Russia’s gate," with alliance forces deployed in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, raising concerns about potential military confrontation and miscalculation.

• Baltic Exposure: The Baltics are "exposing themselves to retaliation" by hosting NATO forces and participating in military exercises near the Russian border, increasing the risk of conflict in the region.

• Elevated Mistrust: Mistrust is as high (or higher) than previously, making it difficult to find common ground and build a more cooperative relationship between the US and Russia.

• Political Interests: Both sides are responding to political, not strategic, interests, with domestic considerations and political calculations often overriding rational decision-making.