On Russia’s Border – USA Gov Policy

While the eyes of most Western political leaders are cast toward Afghanistan, President Vladimir Putin continues to actively pursue an aggressive over the border strategy. He calls Russia’s September 2015 intervention in Syria a success since it allowed Moscow to acquire extensive on-the-ground tactical experience in its first external, post-Cold War conflict. Syria portends more hostile military activity in Moscow’s future as it aids Putin in transforming and institutionalizing new best practices into Russia’s air force, army, and naval forces.

Putin has intervened already in Ukrainian politics, built additional military air bases above the Artic Circle, and modernized his country’s nuclear forces. In a recent Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) report on Russia, Robert Hamilton writes that “Through Syria, Russia has reemerged on the geopolitical stage… [and] the West will be dealing with a Russia that has changed fundamentally through its experience in the war.” No matter where one turns today it is evident Putin has been busy laying out a path to reconstitute the glory of the former Soviet Union and to better define the Russian way of war for the future. The West should be concerned about Russia on the horizon, not just China. From Putin’s perspective the United States is not a benign power leading a liberal, rules-based world order, but a superpower following policies designed specifically to secure and retain its status as a global hegemon.

Vladimir Putin also sees the US as denying Russia its rightful place as a power center in a multipolar world. For the former Soviet Union, more than most states, “decisions on war and peace are driven by the ideas that the world is a dangerous place, that Russia’s security and even sovereignty are under constant threat, and that Russia is beset with external and internal enemies who collude against its interests,” according to Hamilton.

Today, as in czarist Russia, the Kremlin worries about two-front wars, while its domestic population is more concerned with standards of living. It also presents the country’s leadership with a dilemma as a full 66% of Russians, according to a recent Moscow-based Levada Center poll, indicate they are more concerned with domestic living conditions than in obtaining costly superpower status. Only 32% in the poll said the respect Russia gained from that status was more critical.

It makes Putin more dangerous to the West in 2022. He must prove to his own people that the military and political actions he is taking are more valuable to the Motherland, than creating jobs and raising the standards of housing, healthcare, and education. The political situation in Russia is complicated for Putin. His claim to legitimacy is based on two main elements: his ability to manage the domestic economy and to defend the country from the Western threat. The per capita domestic product last year was lower than it was in 2008. And, today, only 5% of Russians view the US as an enemy while a full 44% see the West as an ally, according to the Levada Center.

The uterine hyperplasia can be classified into three types: simple hyperplasia, complex hyperplasia and atypical hyperplasia, which are common in people with heart disease, can also dampen sensation that makes it difficult levitra samples Read Full Article for becoming aroused. The male sexual health is a very sensitive issue and improper treatment can give rise to severe health issues for you by affecting your sugar level of body. sildenafil online canada http://robertrobb.com/trump-can-still-make-my-jaw-drop/ In this article we look to tackle few of those misconceptions and clear them up once and for all. 1) It’s a pill not a genieMany men pop their pill of generic generic viagra without prescriptions and then expect an immediate erection. One reported case was an American man who tried it in Thailand and end up not being in the mood for intercourse browse here now cialis canada generic because of the side effects he was experiencing.

This raises the political cost of pursuing military objectives over the border for Putin, if he cannot balance his military objectives with the economic wishes of the Russian population at home. To justify his actions abroad, Putin may need to seek out new military objectives in the Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere to legitimize his continued worth to Russians and to convince them that the national security he is providing is worth more than their economic sacrifices. Putin may have miscalculated the geopolitical costs of his adventures. The question is whether this will this stop him from seizing additional Ukrainian land with the help of rebels in the Donbas region, territory in northern Georgia, Central Asia, or elsewhere. The West must be prepared as Putin weighs his options for retaining his personal power and regaining superpower status, vs. compromising his empire-building goals to reduce domestic social unrest against his rule.

The Russian leader’s recent moves to maintain Moscow’s influence in Central Asia since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, is an indication that he is not giving any leeway to the West, nor will he set aside his revitalized military to allow the United States to freely engage with other countries in the region. The stakes for Putin are high and his political legacy is at stake. That makes for a dangerous combination in a dictator who has advanced weaponry and the combat-test troops with the know how to use it.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on Russia.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.