Wouldn’t it be nice …
James, I think, is both right and kind of naive when he writes this:
[W]e badly need to restore Europe and Japan to security independence, and we need to continue to advance the interests of India, and we need maybe above all not to make enemies of the Russians.
I can’t think of anything in that sentence that I disagree with, in principle. In practice, though, two of the four parts are basically unworkable. The other two present problems.
Restoring Europe to security independence is a lofty goal, but practically speaking I can’t envision it happening any time soon. The only reason Europe maintains its lofty semi-socialist entitlement programs is because the governments of Europe (with a few notable exceptions) don’t have to maintain standing militaries capable of keeping the peace in their own lands, let alone ones able to project force beyond their own borders. To raise such armies, the lesser stars of Europe would have to massively raise taxes or massively cut programs. The taxes can’t get much higher, so that means cuts in programs. And we see what happens in France any time they try to adjust the welfare state: the country shuts down.
Not antagonizing Russia is a similarly lofty goal, but Russia kind of wants to be antagonized. Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.
A third issue arises when we talk about allowing Japan to rearm–I’m sure China would strenuously object, and antagonizing the Chinese is just as bad as antagonizing the Russians, no? I think allowing Japan to get back in the game is probably a good thing, but it’s not without risk.
And I’m all for helping India, but the quickest way to do that is through improving its economic situation, and improving its economic situation almost certainly means more pollution. Clearing that with the environmentalists (not that I give a damn what they think, but still) might pose a challenge.
Who We Are
How We Roll
- @TAC
- AmSpecBlog
- Andrew Sullivan
- Culture11
- Daniel Larison
- Democracy in America
- Ezra Klein
- John Schwenkler
- Julian Sanchez
- Kerry Howley
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Yglesias
- Megan McArdle
- Postmodern Conservative
- Ross Douthat
- The American Scene
- The Confabulum
- The Debatable Land
- The Plank
- The Washington Realist
- Will Wilkinson
3 Comments - add your own
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.