Spheres Of Influence
Posted on August 8th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
There’s little else I agree with in this Matt Curry piece*, but Curry does make one important point:
Given this location, Ukraine will fall into a sphere of influence [bold mine-DL] and will lean toward either the West or Russia.
Obviously, Curry wants Ukraine to be in “our” sphere of influence, which is probably the most honest, straightforward statement I have seen made in defense of the insane proposition of bringing Ukraine into NATO. Nowhere does Curry pretend that bringing Ukraine into a Western orbit has to do with its sovereignty and independence or a repudiation of “19th century ideas of a sphere of influence,” which are the usual excuses for unnecessarily provoking the Russians. Spheres of influence are going to exist, so the real question is why the West generally or America specifically should continue to ruin the relationship with Russia to deny it a sphere of influence over territories that it has ruled for a large part of its modern, non-Soviet history. Why engage in what must be and will be seen to be openly anti-Russian moves? How is any real Ukrainian interest served by making Ukraine a front-line state in a renewed rivalry with Moscow? Who possibly benefits from this madness?
Curry says Ukraine’s role is to be “a successful check against Russian expansionist tendencies,” which would require Russia to have expansionist tendencies to check. Once again, we see an argument for the pursuit of NATO expansion in terms of defending against Russian expansion that has not been taking place and could not realistically take place on a large scale even if Moscow so desired it. At least when the British were afraid of Russian advances towards India, there had been some actual expansion of Russian territory to give them cause for worry. Today hawks are frightened of Russian expansion despite having seen the retreat of Russian power for the last twenty years. Isn’t it odd how remarkably skittish and easily spooked many hawks are? The only thing that has continually expanded regardless of circumstances or consequences has been NATO and the American sphere of influence in eastern Europe. Despite all of this expansion, NATO has shown that it has outlived its usefulness and has become more of a menace to the peace of Europe than it is a pillar of security, and real American interests that could have been served by improved relations with Russia have been tossed aside to keep an archaic, unnecessary alliance going.
* Can anyone spell Caucasus correctly? Anyone?
P.S. Curry’s article runs through all the reasons why Ukraine is vital to Russia, and how complicated by ethnic (and religious) differences Ukrainian politics is, and concludes that these are reasons why it is a good idea to make Ukraine a military ally! It’s quite obvious that Moscow’s interest in retaining Russian access to the Black Sea and Mediterranean, a strategic goal of Russian policy for centuries, is obviously a good reason why Western powers shouldn’t be allying themselves with the country that stands in between Russia and this goal. Clealrly, an ethnically divided state in which a large part of the population is Russian makes a very poor candidate for an ally in an openly anti-Russian strategy. Instead of providing a bulwark against Russia, which is unnecessary and dangerous in itself, this arrangement would fragment Ukraine. Ukraine’s long term survival and success depend on the strength of ethnic Russian nationalism being kept to a minimum inside Ukraine. Curry’s proposals would have the opposite effect. Finally, it goes without saying that fiddling with U.S. immigration policy to try to manipulate the demographics of Ukraine’s ethnic make-up would have approximately zero support on either the right or left.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
As Stratfor recently pointed out, Russia is a country with few if any natural boundaries to invasion, and has been repeatedly invaded–by Mongols, Poles, Napoleon, Germans, to name a few.
It is entirely rational from a strictly geopolitical point of view for Russia to want Ukraine, Belorussia, and Poland not to be in hostile hands. Insisting on adding Ukraine to NATO, in its origins an anti-Russian alliance, plays directly into those fears and favors the authoritarian, centralizing tendencies in Russian political life. This sets aside the religious, cultural and historical claims that Russia also has in the area.
Turning on radio station WIIFM (What’s In It For Me?), one fails to see an iota of benefit for the US, or even West and Central Europe in such an arrangement. A Russian stranglehold on natural gas supplies to Europe may be worrisome, but there are means short of NATO expansion of addressing the issue.
An invasion from the West may seem a remote fear, but imagine if Russia invited Canada to join a revived “defensive” Warsaw Pact. The prospect of tank battles in North Dakota would amuse few in our country besides military scenario-spinners.
Russia is rich in nukes and natural resources, and has problems with alcoholism and family-formation. Better to cut a deal with her than to provoke her for no good reason.
Your wrong about the immigration idea Larison. Its a stroke of brilliance really. The manipulation of demographics in the context of political conflict has always lavishly benefited the native residents, and anybody doubtful of this obvious fact should just consult the opinions of Kansans in – oh, I dont know – the 1850s, who would surely report to having experienced a magnificent golden age of peace and tranquility.
(On a side note: If we do foolishly decide to expand our military presence along Russians borders, which would predictably lead to a second Cold War, is it really wise to have an additional few million Russian ethnics in our country? I respect and admire the Russians, but you would think Curry was unfamiliar with the concept of espionage. Just saying)
This whole idea of expanding Nato to help us against Iran is demented on its own terms. If I was an Iranian hardliner, I would be praying for greater animosity between my American enemies and the Russians, because this would ensure me a powerful ally who is awash in oil and nukes. Im not sure how NATO helps us here. They are mostly unwilling to send troops into Afghanistan.. what makes Curry thing they would sign on to an objectively more hazardous mission? Also, we already have bases throughout the Middle East, which is a somewhat closer and more convenient launching pad than Kiev.
It would almost be better if Curry was less machtpolitik and more global democrat, because at least his argument would be minimally coherent. Much of the self-styled “realist” anti-Russian proposals, on the other hand, are so circular and self-referential. Rather than identify a reason we should oppose Russia, they simply take it for granted and say “We must thwart the Russians, lest they remain unthwarted!”
“Spheres of influence are going to exist, so the real question is why the West generally or America specifically should continue to ruin the relationship with Russia to deny it a sphere of influence over territories that it has ruled for a large part of its modern, non-Soviet history.”
Actually, a better question would be, why is the West even competitive with Russia in influencing these former parts of its Empire? Could it have something to do with how Russia treated these territories when they were a part of its Empire? Maybe it has to do with the millions of people murdered and starved by Russia during the last century or so in these areas?
If the United States has a problem with some of its former territories and spheres of influence, from Cuba to Iran, one can’t lay the blame purely on our competitors, one has to look at our own activities there. The same is true of Russia. Ukraine is certainly as much a natural ally to Russia as Canada is to the United States. The difference is that we never occupied, suppressed, and killed millions of Canadians. So they are naturally quite friendly to us. Whereas Russia has a rather ignoble history of exploiting Ukraine, which leads to the Ukraine feeling much less trusting of Russia, and far more open to western influence and alignment.
Furthermore, Russian behavior towards Ukraine since its independence has not done much to assuage these fears and gain its trust. Hence, it desires protection from the West, to the extent of even desiring membership in NATO. If Canada had been flirting with joining the Warsaw Pact, we couldn’t just blame the Soviets for that, we would have to look at our own relationship with Canada. In fact, Cuba’s joining up with the Soviets was not the fault of Russia, but with our own policies in that region. They were just exploiting our own bad policies. So this endless attempt to blame the West for “meddling” in Russia’s sphere of influence is mypoic. The fault lies almost entirely with Russia itself for mistreating the nations and people that have been near to and even a part of its own Empire.
If Russia really wanted a genuine, peaceful “sphere of influence” with Ukraine, it would have to actually change its policies with Ukraine, and act like a good neighbor that Ukraine would welcome influence from. Instead, it gets angry at the West for having better relations with Russia’s neighbors than Russia does itself. This sound like sour grapes and irresponsibility on Russia’s part.
This doesn’t mean that the US isn’t guilty to some degree of exploiting the situation, but it does mean that the solution is not for the West to back off, but for Russa to be a better neighbor. If it did that, the West would have nothing to exploit.
I think the real question is what sort of Ukrainian political disposition would advantageous and safety-enhancing for the West in the long term. And to me it seems that the answer would be for it to be completely free of the Russian sphere of influence, which would in turn require it to be within the Western sphere of influence, that being either some sort of special pact or outright membership with the EU (preferrably) or Nato.
Admittedly, current Russian power is much reduced and is not a very serious threat at this point to Western interests. But to regard such a state as being at all likely prevail would be to naively disregard Russian history. Whether be Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union, the powers to be in Russia, with quite explicit and unequivocal support from the general populace, have historically engaged in expansionary policy. I suspect i has indeed little to do with changing ideology, but indeed a great deal to do with the historical, original psychological root of the Russian empire, which conceived itself as a continuation of the Byzantine state when it was overrun by the Ottomans, indeed, a sort of Third Rome.
No Western country, even the United States with its Manifest Destiny, possesses such an egocentric view of the world, and no other country could fashion as indefatigable or unshakable a psychological self-justification for (sometimes very bloody and gruesome) expansionary activity. That is the real worry one has about Russia; not that it is expansionary currently, but that given its history and national character, it would be most likely expansionary in the future, when it, in control of vast amounts of natural resources and strategic territory, as well as a decently educated population, recuperates the ability to assert itself fully on the European stage, as it has done for the last 500 years and inevitably will try to do given the chance. To absorb Ukraine into the West would, primarily, be a defence of Western Europe, against the recidivism and boorish gestures of a future ascendant Russia.
One notes that without the threat of great Russian power and projection on the European stage, much the mechanisms that enabled both world wars would not have been present. Intra-European power conflicts were much aggravated by the blunt insertion of Russian power on the Continent, which complicated and blurred matters significantly and made much more difficult any lasting resolution. It is, indeed, impossible to have a peaceful Europe with such a leering threat right on its eastern frontier, which, occasionally pretending the friend of parts of Europe (Germany’s in the case of energy politics), causes frictions and fractures within the region.
Now, I don’t believe in Georgian inclusion in a Western alliance, because it is, quite honestly, not on the European frontier and has little strategic or historical relevance for either Europe or America. And indeed, given its tiny size, it would be impossible to defend seriously as a ally at a distinctly difficult flank of Russia. But the eastern European frontier is a different question altogether, and frankly, the further we can push Russia back from being able to project power on the Continent, the happier I am.
That is the real worry one has about Russia; not that it is expansionary currently, but that given its history and national character, it would be most likely expansionary in the future, when it, in control of vast amounts of natural resources and strategic territory, as well as a decently educated population, recuperates the ability to assert itself fully on the European stage, as it has done for the last 500 years and inevitably will try to do given the chance. To absorb Ukraine into the West would, primarily, be a defence of Western Europe, against the recidivism and boorish gestures of a future ascendant Russia.
I think it’s dangerous to justify expansionist activity on the part of the United States (e.g., attempting to forge military alliances with most/all of Russia’s neighbors) by arguing that, hey, the Russians would be doing the same thing to us if the shoe were on the other foot. If you spin out scenarios in which other countries are always naturally aggressive, biding their time, waiting to strike, etc., then any kind of expansionist or aggressive action on the part of the United States is justified. That’s why I disagree with you when you write that:
No Western country, even the United States with its Manifest Destiny, possesses such an egocentric view of the world, and no other country could fashion as indefatigable or unshakable a psychological self-justification for (sometimes very bloody and gruesome) expansionary activity.
Surely America’s view of itself as the one country that always has every other country’s best interests at heart, and the one country with the nobility and foresight to see other countries’ bad motives and thwart them in advance, IS an “indefatigable or unshakable psychological self-justification for expansionary activity.”
I also disagree with your description of Russian history. Or, at least, I think it would be valuable to consider for a moment Russia’s perception of its own history. Given Russia’s experiences in the Napoleonic wars and World War II we should consider the possibility that Russia wants a buffer between itself and Central Europe for reasons other than boorishness, bloody-mindedness, etc.
To be clear, I could go on at length about all the things I find appalling and unacceptable in Russia’s contemporary and historical foreign policy. I don’t think they’re misunderstood good guys or entitled to any particular deference. I’m more concerned about portraying the United States as having uncomplicated and noble motives, when that’s simply not the case.
— I apologise for language. Program transfer. And delay. But it is better late, than never.
— Daniel Larison, rational enough and sensible reasonings. I have started to think already, that marasmus becomes the face the American mass media. It concerning a couple of cockroaches which get into heads. Also suck a brain. From it weak-mindedness develops. And it is infectious.
Excuse, that it for a question: “* Can anyone spell Caucasus correctly? Anyone?”? It is possible correctly. But what exactly?
— The Mr. conradg: “Actually, a better question would be, why is the West even competitive with Russia in influencing these former parts of its Empire? Could it have something to do with how Russia treated these territories when they were a part of its Empire? Maybe it has to do with the millions of people murdered and starved by Russia during the last century or so in these areas?” Interestingly as. And you are assured, what it is Russia “starved” Ukraine? And millions people perished only in Ukraine? Or ten millions – in Russia? Who killed them in Russia? Georgians? Yes, Georgians. Jews? Yes, Jews. Ukrainians? Yes, Ukrainians. What, both Poles were? And Germans? Horror what. And Americans – too killed. But Jews have succeeded. And one Georgian…. Yes, and such country Ukraine whence undertook? Both when. And why. And whence Russia undertook? Also what it for the countries such – “two boots – pair”? And how many Ukrainians in Russia?
The Mr. conradg, understand with the knowledge. More precisely absence of those. Also be guided at least in times and customs.
But I think, if you dare at this courageous act will find next cockroaches-dom. Unfortunately, the American model of perception of Russia is enough barbaric. And again a question: so to whom it is necessary? (… And to cockroaches!)
— Mr. Charlie: “To absorb Ukraine into the West would, primarily, be a defence of Western Europe, against the recidivism and boorish gestures of a future ascendant Russia.” – Also I will remind you of historically uniform people. And in general. Again “bad / good guys”… Who, why and when. The radical purposes, problems. Primary sources. And a mirror do not forget.
When Western Europe and guarantee Ukraine a steady, reliable source of winter fuel, then perhaps it may dream of poking the Bear hard enough to assure swift and certain retaliation to the detriment of all.
But why would any sane person in Western Europe want that?
P.S.
Ferris Bueller can spell Caucasus correctly.
This NATO thing really is out of control. It was a nice postwar idea, it actually helped civilize Germany, but it’s time to stop the madness. Stop pretending that every ex-Soviet republic is going to be protected. We don’t care that much. You know it. We know it. You know that we know it. So everyone stop pretending.
If Russia swallows Ukraine again then it will take on the rest of Europe in earnest. They will not quit until they control the entire continent. Germany and Italy already cannot be considered as independent states. Let’s face it, they are not going to fight with Russia not only for Georgia but for anyone else, for that matter, too.
Bone appétit my great Slavic Brother!