As this is written, what appears to be a second invasion of Ukraine is underway, a slow-motion infiltration of Russian surrogates and, perhaps, the now-familiar Russian special operations and paratroops in unmarked uniforms. Whether they will be sufficient for the job at hand, or whether less well-trained conscripts will be committed – or whether any troops will be sent in at all – only time will tell.
It is sinking in to U.S. and European decision makers that a new strategic era has begun. The last one, in which Europe was secure and the United States assumed that Russia would be a strategic partner in most things – aside from the occasional tiff over peripheral issues like Syria – is over. In fact, it is now evident that, in Vladimir Putin’s mind, the past several decades tell a different story, and that the West, led by the United States, had consistently overridden Russian interests and not accorded her the respect due a great power. Putin’s speeches betray a sense of aggrieved xenophobia. George F. Kennan of “The Long Telegram” would have instantly recognized it.
We will know in a decade or two whether Putin’s worldview will survive him. “Putinism” plays heavily on a sense of Russian nationalism and grievance that may not endure. But he has ample time – and has had ample time – to put subordinates in place to perpetuate his ideological worldview. The odds are even that in ten or twenty years the West will be facing a reborn Soviet Union still as fundamentally corrupt and illegitimate as before, but without the corrupt ideology that made it so hollow to its subjects. A reborn and aggressive Russian nationalism, though, may be more potent and have more staying power.
What is to be done? The future of Ukraine, in whatever form it ultimately takes, is worth every measure short of war that NATO and a revived Western community can devise. The opinion columns and blogosphere are full of suggestions, many of them good, and the immediate things that can be done will be done. But what of the long term?
First, the US must readjust to a tripolar world, a bare statement with historical significance. Through cunning and determination, Putin has succeeded in making Russia more than just a regional power. While cooperation may still take place in some areas of mutual interest, Russia has now moved aggressively, with force of arms, to once again threaten the security of Europe, and to compete with the United States for global influence. European security can no longer be taken for granted, and though there may be voices in the United States who say “not a penny more for Europe,” we need to recognize – as we have in the past – that Europe’s security is essential to our own, whatever the risk. This means, among much else, arresting the slide of American power, a U-turn that will take a decade.
Second, to stop the military decline and begin the long climb back, the United States has to get its own fiscal house in order. Current fiscal mismanagement makes the renewal of American military power almost impossible, and in a larger sense cripples all dimensions of American global power.
We can start by ending the fiction that the budget can continue to be cut, and taxes reduced, to produce more “defense.” Given the competing pressures in the overall U.S. budget – most of them quite legitimate – defense cannot simply take more and more of a shrinking pie. Whether it be higher taxes, or tax reform, or some combination, a serious new strategic challenge demands more than continued gridlock and mindless opposition to “big” government; put baldly, the government will have to take in more money. This flies in the face of the “no new taxes” ideology that now grips both parties. Overcoming it is the overarching strategic challenge that Putin’s aggression raises.
Whether we can meet this challenge is anybody’s guess. As Churchill once said, Americans will always do the right thing, but only after trying everything else. Many will resist the fiscal and ideological accommodations required for a long-term response to a reawakened and hostile Russia. We may have lost our capacity for seriousness. But if Putinism survives its author, as is likely, we or our children may someday wish we had risen to the challenge.
Colonel (USA ret) Bob Killebrew writes and consults on national defense issues as a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Prior to his retirement from active duty he served for thirty years in a variety of Special Forces, infantry and staff duties.
Photo credit: Contando Estrelas
Matt 
Malcolm Davis 
Nickname 
Steve Richason 
John Allen Williams 
Obama is not even going to sanction Russia seriously. But of course he would take the opportunity to raise taxes to pay for the welfare state and blame Republicans for whatever happens in Libya or Europe or the Pacific. Obama is not going to change his course for anything. Russia and China know this and will continue to step up their many and historical land and sea seizures.
As for Putin himself, I seriously doubt he’ll willingly relinquish power at the end of his current term. Nor would he be content to be the puppet master behind the scenes as he did with Medvedev. I think the Russian Parliament will overwhelmingly vote to give Putin another two terms in office – to finish the task of re-making the Soviet Union in all but name only. Bad times ahead people.
The astronomical growth of government bureaucracy, reckless disregard for constitutional constraints of power, disregard for international agreements and treaties signed with friendly nations, an admitted distaste for our constitutional law and past US forign policy (an understatement), as well as a tendency to spend money with the reckless abandon of a Juvenal deviant that just scored a stolen credit card, is what has aided our current administration in steering the world into its current predicaments. I agree with the author tha we need to get our own house in order (and quick) before we can address issues with Russia, Europe and the rest of the world. Our government spending is out of control and Putin is using that fact to his advantage. Our military constitutes less than ten percent of our total fiscal spending. Our social welfare programs constitute more than fifty percent. Our national output of product does not equate to enough intake of money to keep up with the demand (strain) our social spending imparts on the nation. We are drowning in problems of our own design. In thi age of entitlements, our military can only continue to suffer cuts and scale backs. Russia will continue to outmaneuver us unless we put the breaks on our spending quickly.
Actually, the defense budget is closer to 19% of the total budget in 2013, not 10%. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Is the problem that we aren’t spending enough? We already spend more than the next 10 countries combined. http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2014/02/26/chart_u_s_defense_spending_vs_other_countries.html How much is enough?
Before someone decides I am some kind of peacenik and a bleeding liberal, please save yourself the time and effort. I am not. I believe in a strong defense. I spent 30 years in the Navy willing to put my life on the line for this country. But sometimes one has to understand that the biggest threat may not be not enough military. The problem is Congress is failing to do its job to get our fiscal house in order. Our debt and deficits are the biggest threat to this country. Take the time to remind Congress to read Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution and tell them to start making the hard decisions necessary to financially preserve this country that will allow us to be strong in many ways, not just military power.
I quote Dwight Eisenhower, 5 star general and former conservative Republican President who said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Ike kept us out of war and balanced the budget while he was in office. That is my definition of a conservative. How many modern day conservatives can say they have such a record? Few if any, unfortunately.
Specifically, regarding the Ukraine, instead of rhetorically bashing the President, I suggest specific policies and proposals are far more appropriate to useful and productive conversation. For example, the following are what I would like to see asked/happen that would send clear signals to Putin that he is heading down the wrong road.
The first question to Putin needs to be, “Do you really want to make enemies of the United States and its Allies which encircle you?”
Second, “You have radical Islam knocking loudly on your southern borders. Again, do you want help with that or do you want to made things far worse by
making enemies of the Western nations?”
As a footnote, the rise of megalomaniacs, like Putin, cannot me accurately predicted, but history is replete with them and the historical damage they cause. The end of the cold war suggested that defense spending could reasonably be expected to drop which it did. The failure of democracy in Russia as the West sees it and practices it is no surprise, and in my opinion successful implementation of Russian democracy was a long shot at best. The West failed to adequately prepare itself for that likely possibility. We engaged in too much wishful thinking.
3 Don’t forget that even though Russian defense spending has apparently been increasing, it is still a small fraction of what we spend. They are one of the 10 mentioned above. They should be reminded of their “regional” status.
4. The following measures should also be implemented without delay. The failure of NATO members to adhere to their required investment thresholds and maintain their fair share of the defense burden needs to be addressed. If Putin’s boldness is in anyway a reflection of his perception of NATO weakness, there are numerous signals we can send that we are prepared to significantly change course. For example:
— Rapid deployment of ABM systems to eastern European NATO
— Increased U.S. and NATO troop deployments to eastern Europe (ongoing in a limited way now)
— Indications from NATO members that they are going to increase defense spending
— Let it be known that we are considering reverting to navy tactical nuclear weapons policy necessary during the cold war
— Hard core sanctions that will hit the Russian economy very hard along with a combined program of energy independence of Europe and the US to put Russia in the poor house.
5. If the Russians are in fact in violation of the missile treaty they signed that led to the removal of the Pershings and GLCMS, they should be notified that those weapons or more advanced MIRV’d versions of them will be re-installed all across Europe because the Russians can no longer be trusted.
6. We bankrupted them once before, and I suspect that with the combined resources of Europe, Korea, Japan, Australia and the US not to mention encirclement, we can adjust the thinking of Comrade Putin that perhaps cooperation is a better path than confrontation. He cannot afford confrontation over the long term. Russia has less population than each of Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan and things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. Trying to hang on to nine time zones of land with a decreasing population with militant Islam knocking at your southern borders would suggest that alienating the US and all its allies is a strategically very bad move.
The Secretary of State needs to make those points to him.
As expected, Colonel Killebrew nails it. This is the best and crispest summary of the newest strategic challenge I have seen. I remain hopeful that Americans will prove Churchill right, but in the near term rather than distant future. Given domestic political acrimony (bordering on lunacy in some quarters — both left and right) and aversion to systematic strategic thought, this may be the triumph of hope over (recent) experience. Jay Williams