Russian Aggression

Russian aggression in the past six months is cause for concern.  There has been an image of Russian strength that has been portrayed by their leader, Vladimir Putin.  Economic growth, hosting of the Olympics, and self proclaimed military superiority.  Russia, under Putin’s leadership, thinks it can finish the job their predecessors were not able to which is establishing a global hegemony of strength in Asia and Europe. 

The Georgia conflict and the uncontested annexation of Crimea are only the beginning.  Up until last week, I thought Russia’s leaders were smart enough to take advantage of the separatist movement in Ukraine.  It is known that Russia has been funding and arming the separatist movement, but this is still different from direct Russian military involvement.  It has been quite clear that the West isn’t going to tolerate direct Russian intervention in Ukraine.  The invasion of a neighboring sovereign nation is a cause for action from free world.  In my opinion, the risks are too high at this point for Russia to outright invade Ukraine.  But reports were released this week that there has been consistent artillery fire from across the border in Russia by the Russian military.  There have also been very large troop build ups along the border, so one must assume that artillery fire is to lay the ground work for a full out invasion. 

How could Putin miscalculate the benefit of using a proxy force to fight for Russian interests?  The secrecy and opaque nature of the separatists were enough for the West to not realistically put military options on the table.  You would think this type of conflict would be sought after by the Russians.  It buys you more time and allows you to view your expansion efforts on a greater scale, perhaps with further annexations and a “peaceful” acquisition of the Baltic States similar to Austria in 1938. 

This miscalculation can mean only one thing.  Russia’s plans are deliberate, they are not afraid of the West and welcome conflict with the free world.   They have a vast amount of natural resources available to them and have recently acquired allies in the Middle East and Africa if reserves are needed.  The pieces are set, and the planning is complete.

After Germany’s defeat in WWI the country had no sense of self.  It had no economy, no leadership, and no nationalism.  It took 15 years for a leader to rise up and lead the German people to their destiny of being the superpower of Europe.  That leader improved the economy, courted capitalists, and created a wave of nationalism.  The combination of those three things gave Adolf Hitler the ability, through positive public opinion domestically, to expand outward and secure living space for the Germans.   The West did nothing to curb this trend of aggression.  The conciliatory tone of European diplomats, mostly Neville Chamberlain, portrayed weakness to a leader that preyed on such things.  The atrocities of WWII could have been avoided if a bold and decisive foreign policy was executed by Europe and the United States.  If only we would have stood up to tyranny when it was right in front of us, but we didn’t and the world was forever changed.

I believe Russia’s expansion is eerily similar to that of Germany’s in the late 30’s.  His rational, his methods, his deploring of violence publicly as he funds violence privately, and his disregard for international law mirror the actions of Adolf Hitler. 

We can’t allow this behavior to continue.  If Russian ground troops are deployed to Ukraine, we have no choice but to act.  American intervention and leadership is an absolute necessity.  A strong and aggressive Russia is a direct threat to the national security of the United States.  We must lead with action when the time calls, and can’t be left to European diplomacy that will inevitably produce another Neville Chamberlain moment.