No, no, no, not really
There are no more Soviets, and we are not
in a Cold War situation.
Nevertheless, tensions between Russia and
the West are high, and Putin is behaving like
he is preparing for war.
I can see many worried people, and there's
lots of speculations about Russia's aggressive
intentions.
And that's my problem: in most accounts I
hear, it seems to me that the entire situation
is framed wrong.
I don't think Russia has plans of aggression,
and I don't think we are on the brink of war.
But I do think that the way the situation
is being wrongly framed is contributing to
the tension.
So, to show you a different perspective, here
is how I perceive the current stand-off.
Let's go back to the fall of the Soviet Union,
in 1991.
This created a domino effect that brought
down many other dictators around the world,
who no longer had the Soviets to back them
up.
The perception was that democracy won the
fight against communism, and many countries
around the world adopted the democratic system.
The problem was that the culture in those
societies was not prepared for democracy,
so in the years since we have seen many of
them sliding back to a more despotic system.
In the late 90s we witnessed the rise of a
new kind of despotic leader, exemplified mainly
by Putin in Russia, Chavez in Venezuela and
Erdogan in Turkey.
They were strongmen who were elected in a
democratic way, but then proceeded to slowly
and methodically centralize power and dismantle
the democratic system in their countries.
They also formed an alliance with the remaining
dictators, protecting each other from the
winds of democracy.
Realizing that the old dictators were brought
down partly by global electronic media and
human rights organizations, they formed their
own media outlets, and also adopted and subverted
the human rights discourse.
Today's dictators keep a semblance of democracy,
while actually holding all the power.
Still, in many countries democracy did take
hold.
One of the biggest success stories was Eastern
Europe, where the former communist states
became prosperous democracies.
A more complicated story were the countries
of the former Soviet Union, were the transition
was harder.
In the years of the union, many Russians moved
into these countries, and now that they became
sovereign states these Russian citizens wanted
to remain connected to Russia instead of turning
towards the West.
The first conflict to come out of these tensions
occurred in the early 90s in Moldova, where
a civil war broke out between national Moldovan
and pro-Russian forces, ending up in part
of Moldova breaking away and declaring itself
a sovereign state called Transnistria, a state
that isn't recognized by any UN member.
This was a sign of things to come.
After the fall of the USSR, the United States
remained the only superpower, and some Americans
thought that it had a moral obligation to
use this power to advance democracy and freedom
around the world.
Known as neo-conservatives, they reasoned
that an aggressive US policy against dictators
will embolden pro-democracy forces and drive
them to topple authoritarian regimes.
This reasoning did have some basis in reality,
but the neocons failed to consider the other
side of the equation.
American conservatives see their country as
a force of good in the world, and they tend
to think that the rest to the world see it
that way as well.
They don't realize that many people around
the world see the US as an imperialistic force
that is out to dispossess them.
So when the Bush administration adopted neocon
policies in the early 2000s, this was exploited
by many dictators and terrorists, who convinced
their countrymen that they are the only ones
that can defend them from the Americans, and
should therefore be given more power.
Hugo Chavez gained enormous popularity and
power in Latin America by presenting himself
as the antithesis to Bush, and used that power
to establish his dictatorial rule over Venezuela.
And in Russia, Putin used the fear of many
Russians that they are being infiltrated by
American forces to centralize power and become
the country's despot.
In other places, though, we did see democratic
revolutions in those years.
Particularly in the former Soviet countries
of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, that went
through the so called color revolutions and
started to move towards the EU and the West.
Putin believes that the West had something
to do with those revolutions, and that made
him paranoid.
He believes that he is next in line, that
once the West manages to westernize these
countries it will turn to Russia.
And this is one of the things that is hardly
being mentioned in the Western discourse about
Putin's motives.
We are told that Putin and Russia have aggressive
intentions towards Europe, when actually,
when you listen carefully to what the Russians
are saying, it seems that their belligerence
is really a reaction to what they perceive
as the West's aggressive intentions towards
them.
Russia is not strong enough to go against
NATO and attack any country that is under
the West's sphere of influence.
All it can do is stand its ground and try
to maintain its own sphere of influence.
But this sphere of influence is shrinking,
and that is due to another common Western
misconception about Putin.
Putin is seen by many in the West as a brilliant
strategist, when in fact, he has proven to
be a disastrous leader when it comes to protecting
Russia's foreign affair interests.
Despite the color revolutions, Russia was
still the strongest outside influence on the
politics of Georgia and Ukraine, and counted
these two countries in its own sphere of influence.
But in 2008, when Georgia witnessed inner
tensions between Georgian nationalist and
pro-Russian elements, Putin reacted by invading
Georgia and coming to the help of the Pro-Russian
forces.
This resulted in the formation of two new
countries, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that
broke away from Georgia and joined Transnistria
as countries that no one in the world recognizes.
So Putin gained two very small countries that
are pro-Russian, but lost the majority of
Georgia, where the politics became decidedly
anti-Russian.
Russia still had Ukraine, a more important
piece in its sphere of influence, and things
were looking up for a while.
In 2010 Ukraine elected the pro-Russian Viktor
Yanukovych for president, and he proceeded
to follow the Putin formula of slowly dismantling
the Ukrainian democracy and taking it back
towards dictatorship.
Alas, this scared its pro-Western elements,
and in late 2013 they began protesting.
And once again, Putin miscalculated.
Instead of encouraging Yanukovych to settle
with the protesters, he pressured him to get
tough on them.
This resulted in a coup, which ousted Yanukovych
and replaced him with a pro-Western government.
This incensed the pro-Russian Ukrainians,
and two heavily Russian populated provinces
in the east of the country rebelled against
the new government.
Putin probably could have still found the
way to maintain his influence, but instead
he annexed Crimea and sent the Russian army
to invade east Ukraine, turning the Ukrainian
population against him.
More than 90% of Ukraine is now completely
out of Russia's sphere of influence.
The Ukrainian conflict is one of the biggest
causes of the current tension between the
West and Russia.
But this was always going to happen.
Any time one of the former Soviet Union countries
splits between its pro-Russian and pro-Western
elements, the result is a rise in global tensions.
Ukraine was expected to be the most dangerous
case, and the conflict there is not resolved
yet, but it seems that the worst is behind
us.
So actually, we are less likely to have a
war between the West and Russia than we ever
were before.
The end result will be that Crimea, and maybe
Donetsk and Luhansk, will join those small
parts that were torn off Moldova and Georgia
and become disputed territories, until the
day when Russia becomes closer to the West
and the disputes can be fully and amicably resolved.
There are now only three European countries
left under the Russian sphere of influence
– Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia – so
there are still potential tensions to come.
But, like I said, when it comes to the prospects
of Eastern Europe causing world war three,
it seems that the biggest dangers are behind
us, so I feel much less anxious about it than
ever before.
The other region that is responsible for the
current tension is, you guessed it, the Middle
East.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Middle
East was fully under the American sphere of
influence, with the exception of three rogue
states: Iran, Iraq and Libya.
After 9/11, when the Bush administration adopted
the aggressive stance of the Neocons, Libyan
dictator Qaddafi got scared and decided to
stop being rogue.
He started cooperating with the West, but
at the same time also kept good ties with
Russia.
The US invasion of Iraq, however, had negative
results, as it emboldened the anti-American
forces in the region.
Syria broke away from the American sphere
and joined Iran to form the so-called Axis
of Resistance, which also included the Jihadist
groups Hizballah and Hamas.
Putin sensed an opening, and managed to get
Syria back under the Russian sphere of influence.
Syria became a very strategic ally to Russia,
its only port in the Mediterranean, and it
is very important to Putin not to lose this
ally.
As I've mentioned before, the dictators figured
ways to circumvent the dangers posed to them
by electronic media and human rights organizations.
But they didn't bring the Internet into account,
and in the beginning of this decade this resulted
in new uprisings, especially in the Middle
East.
Obama's and Putin's responses to the Arab
Spring were very different.
Obama reacted in the best way possible, and
stood by the protesters.
In the countries that were under America's
sphere of influence, like Egypt, Tunisia and
Yemen, he supported a transfer of power from
the dictator to someone who will remain a
US ally and oversee a transition to democracy.
As expected, the transition to democracy proved
to be very problematic, but these countries
are still relatively under control and still
part of the American sphere.
Because of that, Obama can muster local forces
to help fight against the Jihadists that are
exploiting the chaos to take control over
geographic areas.
In recent years, we've seen Jihadist enclaves
forming in Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and Mali,
and they were all beaten back by local forces
with American aid.
The current Jihadist enclave that formed in
America's sphere of influence is the Islamic
State in Iraq, but it too is now in the process
of being defeated.
Thus, without spending too many American resources,
Obama succeeded in preventing the Middle East
from sliding into total chaos.
Libya is a slightly different story.
But here, too, Obama displayed his diplomatic
savvy.
Qaddafi enjoyed the protection of Putin, and
could not be persuaded to transfer power.
Obama allowed the Arab countries to lead the
diplomatic moves against Qaddafi, thus denying
him the ability to present himself as the
hero fighting against the imperialist West.
Once the UN sanctioned a military intervention
in Libya, NATO supported the rebel forces
that finally rid the world of Qaddafi and
his psychotic family.
As expected, Libya then descended into chaos
and civil war, but the US is ok with this
result.
The Americans have a lot of experience with
helping countries transition from dictatorship
to democracy, and they know that sometimes
it takes decades of violence and chaos before
the transition is achieved.
They are willing to take that risk.
The Russians don't understand this American
attitude.
The way they see it, rule of law is always
preferable to anarchy, no matter if it is
democratic or dictatorial law.
Russians simply don't get how important democracy
and the spread of democracy are to the Americans,
so they always suspect they have other motives.
Putin, it seems, sees the ousting of Qaddafi
as part of the American plan to weaken Russia,
and this made him even more paranoid.
And so we get to Syria, the Arab Spring country
that was under Russia's sphere of influence,
and here we can witness Putin's bungling foreign
policy in all its glory.
Putin could have controlled the Syrian situation
if he only acted like Obama did with America's
allies: persuade Assad to step down and transfer
control to someone who will remain pro-Russian
while being acceptable to the protesters.
Instead, he supported Assad's iron fist reaction,
which plunged Syria into civil war and turned
the country into a chaotic bloodbath.
Among the catastrophic results of Putin's
decision making were the rise of ISIS, and
the migrant crisis.
For Russia, it meant needing to spend ever
growing resources to keep Assad in power.
Obama's Syrian policy was to aid the rebels.
However, the rebels failed to show that they
can be trusted, so the support they get from
him is very limited.
Many are blaming the Americans for allowing
Assad to slaughter his own people when they
can use their force to bring him down and
stop the massacre, but there is no guarantee
that this will make the situation better.
For instance, if the Sunni anti-Assad forces
take over, they might then proceed to massacre
the Alawite minority, and the Americans will
get blamed for it.
The Americans spent years trying to get the
Syrian opposition to come to terms with the
Alawites, but to no avail.
The Syrian opposition also refuses to disavow
the Islamist and Jihadist elements within
it.
In Libya, the opposition was much more organized
and trustworthy, and still it couldn't avoid
falling apart once it came to power.
The Syrian opposition seems much worse, and
it would be extremely foolhardy to bank on
it.
Still, the Americans might have taken their
chances with this opposition and help it overthrow
Assad.
But when it might also ruin its relations
with Russia, it is not worth the risk.
And this, in my opinion, is what is behind
the current Russian saber rattling: it is
Putin letting the West know that he is willing
to go to war to protect Assad, calculating
that the West will not take the chance.
And I am positive that the West will back
down: it simply has too little to gain and
too much to risk by going against Putin on
this.
The US has already scored two major victories
in Syria: first, it significantly weakened
the resistance axis; secondly, it cleared
the country of its chemical weapon stockpile.
They will be satisfied with this result.
Putin's admirers claim that he managed to
outsmart the Americans and establish his dominance
over Syria.
They are forgetting that Syria was already
part of the Russian sphere of influence even
before the Arab Spring began.
When I point it out to them, they say: yes,
but now he has more influence in Syria than
he had before.
That is true, but what does that mean?
All it means is that Russia is now stuck in
Syria in the same way that America found itself
stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a situation
where the existence of its ally government
is dependent upon its support, and it has
to spend resources just to keep it alive.
And they are probably going to be stuck in
this situation for many years to come, because
the majority of the Syrian population now
considers Assad not a legitimate leader but
a butcher.
I'm wracking my brains to understand how anyone
can think that this is a win for Putin and
Russia.
Hillary Clinton is now a clear favorite to
be the next US President, and sources in Washington
say that she intends to be tougher on Syria
than her predecessor.
I'm not buying this election talk.
Like I said, the Americans have very little
to gain from it, and a hell of a lot to lose.
Hillary is a rational politician, and she
will surely come to the conclusion that it
is better to just bide the time and allow
Putin to keep on making mistakes and losing
ground.
So I am not worried about the possibility
of war, either hot or cold, breaking out between
the US and Russia.
The tension will continue until the situation
in Ukraine and Syria is resolved, but that's
all it will amount to.
One thing that we can do to help is to calm
down, and see things as they are.
All this talk about how Putin has aggressive
plans against Europe is pushing people to
demand leaders that will get tougher on Russia,
and there's no need for it.
As we've seen, Putin has only been losing
ground, and he's fighting to preserve what
little sphere of influence Russia's got left.
There's no reason to think that he has any
plans against anyone outside this sphere of
influence.
So don't fall for those who tell you that
our weakness is inviting Russia to attack
European countries.
As for the Russians amongst you, you need
to calm down about the idea that the West
is out to get you.
Nobody has any animosity towards Russians.
Actually, a lot of us think that you're kind
of awesome in some ways.
Everyone just needs to relax.
