Today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated clearly how Russia will respond to a U.S. missile defense shield in Europe:

We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way.

No “every option is on the table,” or “this will change the nature of our response.” Instead, it’s military action, “of course.” It’s those two words that indicate, if any further indication was necessary, that Moscow is not behaving in accordance with the geopolitical rules that govern reasonable actors. One must remember several things, here. First (and this is routinely ignored by Charles Schumer and others who charge the U.S. with taunting the Bear), is that George W. Bush tried hard to get Russia to cooperate in the construction of the defense shield. There were multiple meetings, personal letters, and compromises on regional considerations all geared at sending what Bush liked to call “a joint message” about protecting Europe from Iranian missiles. Second, the defense battery as it is designed poses no threat to Russia and its vast arsenal. Moscow is not acting out of resentment or self-defense.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens makes the convincing case that Putin and Co. are acting out the paranoia and insecurity that comes from weakness. Russia faces a population crisis that will shrink its citizenship by 32 million over the next four decades. Additionally, Stephens points out, “Oil production is set to decline this year for the first time in a decade, a decline that is widely expected to accelerate rapidly in 2010. Of Russia’s 14 largest oil fields, seven are more than 50% depleted. Production at its four largest gas fields is also in decline. Russia drilled about four million feet of new wells last year. In 1990, it drilled 17 million.” Later, Stephens writes,

For much of its history, Russia has been a weak state masquerading as a strong one — a psychological profile in insecurity. That’s why it has generally sought its advantage internationally by acting as an opportunistic spoiler, as it now does over Iran, rather than as a constructive partner seeking to magnify its influence (à la Britain) or as a rising power patiently asserting its place (à la China).

“A psychological profile in insecurity” certainly applies to a leader who guarantees a militarily response to a non-threatening regional development. It remains to be seen whether insecurity is any less dangerous in the short term than actual strength. But Moscow’s decision to chuck the international relations niceties and bluntly threaten our allies is no reason for us to forget our own strengths. We have steady population replacement; we have oil to drill for; we have allies; we have weapons. We also have our of courses. One of them is that we don’t let our partners face their enemies alone and empty-handed. It is time to do what Max Boot has called for in CONTENTIONS, what Stephens echoes in today’s Journal and what Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have recommended in the same paper: give Georgia antiaircraft and antiarmor weaponry.

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link