The pin in the map above is stuck in the Russian city of Krasnodar, a major city with roughly the population of Seattle. It’s a day’s drive from Ukraine and about 800 miles from Damascus which is about the same as the distance between Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon.
This morning I heard George Stephanpoulos ask the newly-appointed British foreign minister, Boris Johnson, about Russia’s interventions “all over the world”, pointing to Syria and Ukraine. Syria and Ukraine aren’t “all over the world” for Russia. They’re the Russians’ near abroad. We’re intervening all over the world. The Russians are worried about their own neighborhood.
It’s reasonable to disapprove or even oppose what the Russians are doing. But know what the heck you’re talking about.
I’m curious as to why this ‘near abroad’ thing should apply to Russia but not to, say, Canada or Mexico? Mexico’s got nearly Russia’s population and Canada has a larger GDP. Houston’s about 800 miles from Mexico City, so should we consult Mexico on our policy toward Houston? And Germany’s ‘near abroad’ is all of Europe – as they’ve asserted on at least two occasions.
Either this ‘near abroad’ notion carries with it some implication of privilege, or it’s just a statement of distance which in itself means nothing in terms of a nation’s right to impose its will on others.
If you mean that Russia has some special rights within a zone that they alone get to define, I have to wonder why Russia and not Germany or Argentina?
The term “near abroad” is one the Russians use. It’s a statement of interest. Russian interest in the developments in countries in its neighborhood is legitimate. I’m trying to explain how the Russians view things. I have no knowledge of how the Mexicans or Canadians look at this but I suspect that they have interests, too.
Judging from the way we view events in Cuba, Canada, or Mexico we tend to view our own “near abroad” in a light different from the way we might, say, Balochistan.
Events in Russia’s near abroad can have major impact on Russia itself, as seems obvious. A coup that replaces a friendly government with a hostile one concerns them just as the idea of nuclear weapons installed in Cuba by the Soviet Union concerned us more than installing nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan did.
Do I think that Russia’s invading and occupying the Crimean peninsula was right? No but I think it was understandable. I also think that the present Ukrainian government is much worse than Americans have been given to understand and is not deserving of our support.
Russia is threatened by radical Islamists much more directly than we are and they are understandably concerned about it. The situation in the Middle East concerns them more directly than it does us and they were invited by Syria’s internationally-recognized government to provide help which lends Russia’s intervention there some legitimacy.
If you’re interested in knowing what the Russians think about events in the Middle East right now, it’s pretty easy to explain. They think that we’ve lost our collective mind and are behaving very erratically. They also think that we are hostile to them.
Canada and Mexico are our near abroad, and we plainly dominate both of them. Neither would be permitted an openly anti-American government, and neither would be allowed to ally itself with Russia.
We almost got into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over Soviet missiles in Cuba, and Cuba kept its independence only because of the agreement that prevented the war. I think it is clear we would invade Cuba if the Russians tried to build military bases there.
P.S. Korea and Taiwan are China’s near abroad, and similar rules apply to them, too.
Russia is only a world power by virtue of its nuclear arsenal. However, it’s still a regional superpower. It has one of the half dozen or so militaries in the world at the highest level of force readiness—second only to our own.
Bob:
And the same is true in reverse? Canada and Mexico would never allow an anti-Mexican or anti-Canadian regime in the US?
There’s an unspoken hierarchy at work here. We are assuming two classes of nation – those with sovereignty plus and those with sovereignty minus. I’m asking why Russia deserves sovereignty plus (S+). If nuclear weapons are the essential determinant, then both India and Pakistan, not to mention Israel and North Korea should have the S+. Does Israel’s S+ also extend 800 miles in every direction?
If this is not about military power, then by what criterion would we assume Russia deserves S+? They have the GDP of Italy. They are effectively just a bigger North Korea – a less-than-wealthy country ruled by a corrupt thug with an oversupply of weaponry.
Where is the list of countries privileged with S+? What are the criteria? What are the geographical limits? Many of the world’s countries tolerate enemies on their doorstep, why should we buy the Russian’s argument for special status? Who died and made them king of all they border?
Military power, veto on the UN Security Council, and it’s a relatively rich country. Your comparison with North Korea is facetious. Russia’s per capita GDP is more than 20 times North Korea’s. And half again Mexico’s with a population 20% larger.
Russia is undercapitalized and has been mismanaged for centuries. Otherwise it would be an economic superpower, too.
So basically this is about raw military power. Countries with sufficient power should be cut some slack as they impose their will on lesser countries? We’re down to the right of bullies to bully?
It may be realpolitik, but it’s damned hard to justify. It flies in the face of international law and the whole paradigm we’ve been theoretically trying to build in the post WW2 and post Cold War world. I notice no one has stepped up to explain just how big Israel’s S+ extends, or Pakistan’s or India’s, or just how little sovereignty we grant to countries that have the bad luck to live next door to someone bigger.
I don’t think that’s how we achieved an unprecedented 70 years without a major war in the west. The US has been playing the role of benign dictator to varying degrees, not applying our power only to serve our narrow self-interest, but using our power to push ideas of international law and agreed-upon moral limits. We certainly haven’t been saints or geniuses, but the last 70 years happened because we took a broad view, deciding for example that a safe, stable Europe was worth risking our own country. One could be cynical about that, and no doubt there’s a lot of cynicism in the mix, but there’s genuine morality as well, in the political class, and especially in the minds of the people paying the taxes and manning the FOBs.
It’s not just military power or even nuclear weapons, Michael. And really, this is nothing new – nations with the will and means to influence others to their own benefit is geopolitical reality and always has been. There is also history, Russia’s historic role as an empire and its historic relations with neighbors which is far different from Canada and Mexico.
The international paradigm and world order we’ve been trying to build is how we exercise our power – it may be more equal and less openly violent, but the reason we support it is because of the influence it gives us. Russia and many other countries do not want to be part of, or subject to, this world order we’ve created and so they are going to use their influence in pursuit of their interests whether or not they agree with ours. This is a potential catalyst for conflict that we ignore at our peril. The fact is that the survival of the Syrian regime and control of Crimea are vital strategic interests for Russia and no amount of finger-waving from the west will change that.
It’s a bit late in the day for us to be drawing ourselves up to our full height and talking about justice and the rights of smaller countries. Not after we invaded Iraq and attacked the government of Libya in contravention of international law. Anywhere we’re operating drones unless it’s with the express permission of the country’s government is a violation of international law. Our presence in Syria, too, is in contradiction of international law.
The EU’s investigation of the recent Russia-Georgia War found that Georgia started the conflict, not Russia. The Russians’ occupation of the Crimean peninsula on the other is pretty clearly wrong. However, I think that anyone who believes that we wouldn’t have responded just as the Russians did under similar circumstances is gravely mistaken. Is there to be one law for the United States only and one for the rest of the world? What justification is there for that other than raw power?
Every country has interests. They pursue them using whatever tools they have. They punch above their weight if they can get away with it.
Why did we admit the most recent sent of NATO members? I mean the ones that were admitted in 2004 and 2009? They don’t enhance our security and concern Russia. The Russians saw their admission as a deliberate provocation. Were they right or wrong to see it that way?
While I understand your point about the NATO additions, what about the flip side of that question….why did those countries seek NATO membership?
That’s easy. Because they hate and fear the Russians with some reason. As I wrote earlier, Russia is the regional superpower.
However, there’s more to it than that. Some of those countries, e.g. Lithuania, have been invading and occupying portions of Russia for centuries. Read up on the Polish-Lithuanian empire. Also the “Teutonic knights”.
And it gives them a freer hand in de-Russianizing their countries. 6% of the population of Lithuania is ethnic Russians, 24% of Estonia, 27% of Latvia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ethnic Russians in these countries have been the victims of discrimination, both in laws and in practice.
There was an alternative: neutrality. Finland kept the peace with the Soviet Union by convincing the Soviets that they were genuinely neutral.
Russia cannot be considered without any moral filter. All nations are not equal. However poorly we’ve done, we have set out to free people held in bondage. Russia has never been about anything but keeping people in bondage. It is a thug state. Allies of Hitler when Stalin thought it would work for him, they are allies of Assad today. When has Russia ever stood for anything but a boot in a human face, forever?
This is not about Russia’s interests, it’s about Putin. Putin is Russia like Napoleon was France. Russia is just a tool to feed his ego and ambition.
Was extending NATO to the Baltics a “provocation?” Putin claims to see it that way. But it is also an effort to secure a degree of liberty for the people of those three countries. We are trying to keep free people safe from a tyrant. Are the people of the Baltic countries to be surrendered to Putin’s oppression because Russia is big? Would they have joined NATO absent a Russian threat?
After Trump has fed Putin the Baltics, are we to give him Poland as well? And then can we declare peace in our time?
The Baltics are not vital to Putin, nor do they pose a threat as he knows perfectly well. And what rot to talk about Syria being a vital interest to Russia. Oh? In what way? Does Syria put food on Russian tables? He’s bombing relief convoys and starving children and for what exactly? To hold onto a port we or the Israelis could shut down tomorrow? A port for ships that can only reach it after passing through the Dardanelles under the watchful eyes of NATO naval and air forces? That’s why he has to murder thousands of children?
Got it. When we occupy a country, it’s liberation. When the Russians occupy a country, it’s oppression. That’s referred to as “moral filter”.
Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Philippines, Grenada, Panama, Iraq. I’m giving us the benefit of the doubt on Southeast Asia.
Just to be clear my position is that if we want the world to be a place of freedom and reliance on law, we’ve got to act that way. All of the time not just when it suits our fancy.
I don’t think the Russians are good guys but I don’t think they need to be our enemies, either. Sometimes our interests coincide, sometimes they don’t, mostly they’re completely distinct from one another. The Cold Warriors in Washington think they’re wearing the white hats and the Russians are wearing the black hats, forever and ever, amen. What we do is good because we’re doing it.
Let me suggest a different way of looking at things, Michael. There is no universally accepted system of values. We can impose our values on others or not.
For some people (as in Iraq) liberation means the freedom to murder their neighbors. When you try to prevent them from doing that, it’s oppression.
We shouldn’t be trying to impose our ideas, even our benign ideas, on other people.
At some point a decision to refrain from ever imposing our ideals on others becomes a decision to allow others to impose their ideals. There’s obviously room for debate on where those lines are drawn.
Unsurprisingly as an ethnic Pole my views align much more with Michael’s here. And I am somewhat versed in the history of the region, but don’t have to look as far back as the Teutonic Knights. I had cousins who fought for the Polish resistance in WWII- one was killed and one captured by Germans in the course of the Warsaw Uprising, while Stalin refused to allow the Allies to support the Polish fighters who were trying to liberate their city.
But sure, Putin is worried about discrimination of ethnic Russians in some of the former Eastern bloc countries. I’m sure that is his main concern. Does it not occur to you that Finland was able to maintain neutrality because it didn’t have anything to risk? Others might not have that luxury, when they have ports or pipelines that Putin wants to control in order to try to save Russia’s failed economy.
Stalin wasn’t a Russian and Russia is not the Soviet Union.
I also disagree with Michael’s interpretation of Putin just as I disagree with his views on Napoleon. Napoleon was the fulfillment of the Revolution and most of the French agreed with him, at least right up to the time when he crowned himself emperor (maybe even then). I think that Putin is genuinely popular among the Russians and is doing things of which most Russians approve. I think that his setting himself up as the protector of ethnic Russians and Orthodoxy is a shrewd political move. I can’t assess how genuine it is.
I think the majorities in the Baltic states want them to be monoethnic states. In an ideal world neither we nor the Russians would decide that and the people of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would settle their own affairs amicably, peaceably, and justly. Unfortunately, it’s not an ideal world.
Are we more interested in the constitution of the Baltic states or is Russia?
Yes, Soviet era was a bit different and yet it was all part of a piece. The Soviets wanted to control Eastern Europe just as the Russians before them and the Russians after them. I mentioned that one episode in my family history but there was much more, including Russification since several branches of my family lived under the Russian partition of Poland (including, we believe, at least one ancestor who fought for Napolean after his promise to create an independent Polish homeland.)
Let me try to explain the Russians’ interests. Note that I’m not defending the Russians’ actions, merely trying to explain them. I don’t necessarily side with the Russians but I think I understand them pretty well.
Russia is a big, mostly flat country without natural boundaries. In general it doesn’t have oceans or mountains to protect it from invasion by its neighbors. Its rivers tend to be large, shallow, and slow-flowing so they don’t provide any defense, either.
The Russian experience is highly influenced by the Tatar invasion of 800 years ago. The invaders were able to run right over Russia because of its lack of natural defenses. That continued for centuries. Their western neighbors did the same thing, carving up pieces of territory, killing Russians, settling it themselves. Not to put too fine a point on it but the Russians are paranoid.
They attempt to create buffers between themselves and potential aggressors and their neighbors have suffered from that paranoia.
How should we deal with that paranoia? Of the alternatives of promoting opposition to the Russians and feeding their paranoia or convincing them that they have nothing to fear I think that the latter is preferable, particularly since the Russians possess on the order of 10,000 nuclear weapons. It’s a fine line and difficult to maintain but I think that signing up adversaries on their borders is not a step in the right direction, particularly when we have little to gain from it.
BTW, the Russians suffered gigantic losses during WWII. The Germans killed practically as many Russians as every other country (including China) on both sides lost people all put together. Nobody really knows how many. Probably 20 million. Maybe more.
While I think your analysis is correct I also think it’s generally unwise to deal with paranoia by affirming the delusions of the paranoid. I concede that I don’t know of a better strategy though.
Divorcing foreign policy from morality is the essence of good men doing nothing in the face of evil.
I’m not making the case that our every foreign intervention is humanitarian or well-intentioned or wise. But we have nevertheless tried to stand for something more than naked self-interest and it is the perceived moral superiority of the United States that has allowed us to remain, after 70 years as the world’s dominant power, amazingly popular in the world.
Our power is not just economic or military, our power is widely accepted because we have used our power responsibly for the most part. We are seen as flawed, often foolish, but fundamentally decent and trustworthy. That’s why the Baltic countries throw in with NATO, because they know they can base NATO troops in Vilnius or wherever and have literally no fear of those forces being used in a hostile way.
Meanwhile, Putin is ordering convoys of food to a starving city to be bombed. That is Russia. Russia has never been anything but a pain in the ass of civilization. From Czars to communists to kleptocrat thugs.
As for Russian paranoia? Please. Since operation Barbarossa it’s been all Russians invading, not Russians invaded. And had the USSR not been a depraved, morally bankrupt terror state they’d never have been invaded by Hitler to begin with. Only Stalin’s madness and incompetence allowed Barbarossa. Russia’s flat? Oh, is it? Poor babies. You know what other country is flat? Poland. Who are they paranoid about? Russia. And with damned good reason, because there is no Russian neighbor that is not deliberately kept in a state of fear by the little KGB agent in the Kremlin.
Putin is a thug who encourages anti-semitism, encourages attacks on gays, has destroyed the free press in Russia, jails or assassinates his political opponents, uses starvation as a weapon, and even tries to push his snout into American domestic politics.
And how many of those were killed by the NKVD? How many starved because of communist incompetence? Stalin purged the military and totally missed Hitler’s plans and sent untrained troops out with leftover WW1 crap to fight his former allies. It’s a tragedy, but it’s a tragedy with a hell of a lot of Russian fingerprints alongside the German ones.
Seven decades later are we still worried about the Japanese attacking Hawaii? Are we worried about the Germans? No, because we haven’t spent the time wallowing in hypocritical self-pity and paranoia while alienating absolutely everyone, like the Russians have.
According to Pew, in 39 surveyed countries, the media favorable/unfavorable for the US is 69/24. The Russian equivalent number is 30/50. There’s a reason for that.
The thing is, I don’t believe that Russian leaders really are paranoid about NATO anyway. It seems like propaganda for the consumption of their domestic political audience. What the leaders fear most is likely the combination of a lack of internal social cohesion, a failed economy, and terrorism.