Via Stephen Green at Insty comes this thought-provoking article by Michael Korfman, which you need to read first for the rest of this to make any kind of sense. It’s one of the best takes on the geopolitical situation with respect to Russia and the U.S. that I’ve seen for a while, so it’s worth the time. And the fact that much of his analysis is based on historical precedent makes his hypothesis even more compelling.
While looking at the reasons why Russia is doing what it’s doing, Korfman makes this comment (and it gives rise to my only quibble with his piece):
This theory of victory stems from the Russian assumption that the structural balance of power will eventually shift away from the United States towards China and other powers in the international system, resulting in a steady transition to multipolarity. This strategy is emergent, but the hope is that a successful campaign of raiding, together with the greater threat from China, will force Washington to compromise and renegotiate the post-Cold War settlement.
I don’t understand why Russia would “raid” the Western democracies to cause the focus of power to move towards China, which seems on its face to be a perilous activity for Russia. After all, the United States is never going to invade and annex Siberia — which the Chinese are going to do, eventually and inevitably, as soon as they become strong enough — and with the loss of Siberia’s oil and mineral resources, Russia is going to be left far weaker even than it is already.
Unless, of course, the Russians are gambling that China will first try to establish hegemony in the South China Sea, and that if the U.S. has been weakened even slightly, that China will follow that course instead of invading Siberia. It’s a big gamble.
Failing that eventuality, I don’t have a counter-answer as to why Russia is being a pain in the ass; I do have a solution to counter their activities, which is to raid them back. For starters, I see a hugely-favorable trade agreement with Georgia, a massive U.S. military entrenchment in the Baltic states (with some offensive and not just defensive capability) and a “boys will be boys” attitude towards CIA mischief aimed at undermining Russian beach-heads (a.k.a. their embassies) in every country in the world. Two can play at the raiding game, and we need to show the Russians that we can, and will. Yeah, it leads to dangerous brinkmanship; but it’s also a way to stop their shit-stirring, or at least think twice before doing it.
As Cousin Avi said in Snatch: “Russians. I should’ve known. Anti-Semite, slippery Cossack sluts.” Truer words were never spoken, and we shouldn’t forget them.
If I understand the article properly, the strategy is to strengthen the PRC to the point where the US will cut a deal with Russia. This would give them the influence and “respect” they feel they deserve and create a potential second front to keep the PRC unwilling to jump into Siberia unless and until they feel they could simultaneously take on the US in the Pacific and South China Sea.
That would require a sense of timing and finesse that I doubt will work in the real world, but just because I don’t think they can pull it off doesn’t mean that they believe the same way.
It reminds me of Bismark’s methods- engineer a a crisis that only you can solve.
By 2030 the PLA Navy will be superior numerically to the USN, and is rapidly developing technological parity (at least) and operational experience:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/21/expert-china-navy-double-us-2030/
“the [People’s Liberation Army] Navy will be about 550 warships and submarines by 2030. That is twice the size of today’s U.S. Navy,” said Retired U.S. Navy Capt. James Fanell at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday.
“As such, it’s clear the U.S. Navy is at great risk. We simply are not adequately sized or outfitted to meet our national security commitments in the Indo-Asia Pacific, let alone around the globe,” said Fanell, former director of intelligence and information operations for the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet.
Fanell said the Chinese navy, or PLAN, currently consists of about 400 warships — at least 330 surface ships and 66 submarines. Meanwhile, he said the U.S. Navy has 283 warships — 211 surface ships and 72 submarines.
While the U.S. Navy aims to grow to 355 ships by 2030, it is hotly debated whether it can be achieved.
Fanell and other experts who testified said the growth of China’s military — particularly its navy — is just one part of its plan to become the world’s superpower by 2050. That plan not only involves pushing the U.S. out of Asia, where it has allies and interests to defend, but expanding Chinese influence throughout the world. ”
Fanell’s testimony is here:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/james_e._fanell_hpsci_testimony_-_final_-_17may18.pdf
I suspect Russia sees its role as providing an assist for China in exchange for a role in China’s exploitation of Siberia. For example, Russia engineers a crisis to draw US assets away from the South China Sea, following which China stages an amphibious and airborne takeover of Taiwan.