Is Putin hurting Russia?

A strong Russia, or perhaps a strong Eurasia, is in the interest of a peaceful world. That may not be the most politically correct position to take as a writer in the West, but I'm convinced of it. Growing up in the Cold War era wasn't easy on the nerves as the great powers from each side starred each other down, but with age comes wisdom, and for me that means an unshakeable belief that nations are people - people are possessed with "want" - and want creates tension. In other words, we as a species aren't happy unless we can control and consume everything we choose, and when we choose it.

Enter modern day Russia. Enter Putin. Ostensibly, Vladimir Putin is serving the function of President of Russia, but in the bigger picture his role (and responsibility) is far greater than that. He, and Russia, are the major force behind a greater Eurasia. You can call it the "Silk Road" or whatever you like, but in reality Eurasia represents a deterrent to American unilateralism (or domination if you like). Putin's job has been to use oil money to rebuild Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and he has done so with great discipline. The question, however, is whether he can place Russia in the shoes of the Soviet Union and re-establish a multi-polar world. That question is both burning and unanswered.

Just like most things in life, Putin's great strengths are also in many ways Russia's great weaknesses. On the one hand, Putin is a master of the concept "don't use a hammer to kill a fly", but on the other hand he is failing to realize that great statesmanship may necessitate the use of a hammer to send a message to the rest of the flies. In other words, a taking of one's place with authority. His decision to allow Russian athletes to compete at the Olympics while Russia itself was humiliated as a sort of "non-country" is a case in point. Putin had all sorts of reasons for sending his athletes, but he failed his country horribly by doing so. A great power, or even just a self-respecting power, does not allow other nations to disrespect its colours. That is as old as humans' presence on this earth. Yet, Russian athletes were subjected to just that in South Korea. It was the Russian men's hockey team that refused to allow that humiliation to taint them, yet their "unlawful" singing of the Russian national anthem was more an act of defiance than a proclamation. That is a key difference. Great nations do not commit acts of defiance, because to do so is to admit they are unequal - as defiance is the act of the weaker while principled decision is the role of the strongest.

It's important to note, and their must be many in Russia that would agree with this, that a country is meant to be run as a country and not an intelligence agency. Putin, out of necessity and likely habit, has run Russia like an intelligence agent - harkening on his old career no doubt. While those skills may have been well placed in placing Russia back to a position of strength, they now hold Russia back from its position as a great power, and without Russia being a great power America is free to continue its relatively unopposed world rule. The best current example of that is Syria.

Syria is really more of a Putin failure than it is an American success. Putin is deathly afraid of  "another Afghanistan". Afghanistan rings in the Russian ears as Vietnam rang in American ears before Ronald Reagan. Reagan, however, used his popularity  to move the American people past the Vietnam era, and pushed them into global military supremacy. Think what you will of Reagan, but that was an act of great leadership. Unfortunately, it appears Putin is not as confident in his ability to lead the Russian people past their Afghanistan mindset and into their place as an equal super power. Instead he prefers to sit himself, and Russia, in the shadows of international conflicts. His approach is that of an experienced intelligence officer - careful, targeted, and effective. What's wrong with that you might say.

It boils down to this: It's a totally predictable weakness. Great nations make great gestures. The prerequisite of a great nation status is that you will fully commit to the defence of your allies. Now just this week Putin claimed he would do just that, but it's been taken as just talk. And he has often wondered publicly why the West doesn't listen to him. Well the answer is quite simple - they don't respect him. Talk is cheap. The willingness to sacrifice is strength. Putin has not proven by action that he is willing to sacrifice for hos allies or even his country (ie. the recent Olympics). He's going along to get along. Sure Russia has intervened with primarily safe air force assets to stop the overthrow of Assad in Syria, but what else has it accomplished? Syria sits divided, with a now dug in American military presence insuring it remains that way. Instead of taking decisive military action at the very beginning of the conflict, which in this case would have meant sending armed divisions into Syria back in 2013, Putin took the least costly option possible and now faces a direct confrontation with the US to make Syria whole again. Ditto for Ukraine - another frozen conflict and another broken ally.

Indeed, the answer to Putin's public ruminations about the West not listening to his dire warnings lies in his mirror. When unfettered strength has been called for he has used measured responses rather than decisive strength. He has failed to set the tone that would demand respect. You don't pick your battles as the leader of a great nation. Rather, you forcefully engage those that bring battle to your doorstep. If it's war then it's war. If it's peace then it's peace. Israel is a good example of this. The reason the world listens to Israel is because they know that Israel will act - and forcefully so. There is no such feeling now for Russia. That lack of respect is something that is severely undermining the idea of a multi-polar world, and without a multi-polar world then why does Russia even matter? For Putin, the person who  is in place at this time in world history to make it happen, the mission is forget your KGB mentality and be a great statesman of a great power.

Not So Swift Afghan Policy

This week Russian military forces conducted operations in Afghanistan...say what? The news of the joint American-Russian military operation against a drug target in Afghanistan was interesting to say the least. Only those in the corridors of power would know why this particular drug operation was targeted or why the Russians of all people were involved. There must be a very good reason. Question is: "Does the means help the ends?"

Think for a moment that it was only just over a two decades ago that the Russians left Afghanistan thus ending their nine year occupation of that country. It took the Russians only two days to capture Kabul, but nine years to realize they could not hold it. They suffered 25,000 dead and 37,000 wounded depending on which set of numbers you believe. Nothing compared to the massive attrocities inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan. Estimates of Afghan deaths are between 1-2 million people. 1.2 million people disabled. 3 million mamed or wounded. 5-10 million people fled to Pakistan or Iran - one third of Afghanistan's pre-war population. A further two million displaced internally within the country. As mind boggling as those numbers are, consider the destruction of the country itself. Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture all but destroyed by Soviet aerial bombing. Water systems poisoned. Villages, towns, cities destroyed and depopulated. In other words, the Soviets/Russians layed Afghanistan to waste.

Consider then how the Afghan population must have felt when Russian troops entered their territory in force for an organized military operation - and as guests of the Americans. The Taliban must have been doing cart wheels at the sheer magnitude of the publicity this presented to them. A recruiting tool unmatched since the first Soviet invasion. Unbelievable. You have to think that at the highest levels these decisions must be well thought out, and sanctioned. The pros must out weigh the cons. Yet that is hard to see or believe in this case.

Certainly if you are the Russians, read: Putin, you are happy to be flexing muscle back in the old neighborhood. You can go in, get out, and suffer relatively little expense. It's a hint of "what we could do, should we choose to." A little macho strut - not unlike some of the other macho goings on in Russian politics prior to the next Presidential election. However, this time everyone has egg on their face.

Our alliance, NATO, has been battling for control of Afghanistan now for some nine years. The stated objective has been to win the hearts and minds battle with the Taliban for the proverbial soul of the Afghan people. The stated purpose of our occupation being to help rebuild Afghanistan and create a viable democracy for the benefit of its people. And then we invite the Russians in? The people that layed waste to the country and within living memory. The Afghan President was dumbfounded and embittered. Easy to understand why when you consider he is the one that must explain this to his people.

It is really a complete breakdown of intelligence to allow such a slap in the face to the Afghan people. It is the height of insensitivity to allow Russian soldiers across the border and into a country that they so recently committed such atrocities to. It almost begs the question: "Are they trying to win the war, or are they trying to amp it up?" Is such a small, and relatively insignificant raid worth undoing nine years of work, and legitimizing the Taliban in the eyes of those undecided or leaning Afghans? Don't the Afghan people deserve better, and more sensitive care at our hands than that? We believe in upholding to them a different standard than the cut throat, barbaric world that has been much of their lives. And then they bring in the Russians. You really have to feel for those people.