AMU Europe Homeland Security Intelligence Opinion

Russian Aggresion Is a Packaged Threat

By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

The Russian bully is a sad character that is more afraid of you than you are of him. This does not mean the Russian bully is weak or that the Russian bully will not deliver a blow, but that the reasons for him behaving the way that he does are out of fear and not a sadistic pleasure.

What does the Kremlin have to fear? First it was the fear of losing Ukraine and then it was the loss of national interest in Ukraine. Now the Russian fear centers around an economic melt-down as their economy teeters on a recession. If that happens, Putin’s personal interests and safety may be in jeopardy. The rallying of the home base everyday becomes one of survival for Putin as a national symbol.

It has been noted by observers that the East and the West are playing two very different games. This all started in a little place called Kiev last winter. The West pushed for a new Ukraine a little too hard and got what they wanted. Russia got nothing in return. Russia reacted with an over-use of force and seized up real-estate in Crimea as a consolation prize as well as parts of the East to protect is gas fields in densely populated ethnic-Russian Ukrainian territory.

What did the West do? Europe and the U.S. gathered support of the rest of the international community, many of whom were and remain disinterested, and issued political condemnation and economic sanctions.

Russia continues to respond by playing the only strong card that it has—a nuclear and superior military to the immediate states having no defense against an initial invasion or increased territorial incursions. This card is also a threat to Europe. A second but weaker hand has been the status of a continental energy hegemon. Other political Russian counter-offensives were: the diplomatic deceit (e.g. the Minsk Protocol), propaganda and cyber-attacks.

Did the West start it? Not really. The Ukrainian toggle war between Russia and the West has been going on for decades. From a Western perspective, it was foreign Moscow political manipulation and bullying that caused the backlash of a Ukrainian nationalist rebellion. But all that is history.

What now?

At present, NATO scrambles to intercept an increasing Russian menace, whether it is mysterious subs in Scandinavia or blasted bomber jets in the Baltics. NATO efforts all come across as inferior to the bully. So that’s easy, just ramp them up, right? All actions have been done in a way as not to militarily escalate the situation and in fact have had the opposite result on the Russian side. Moreover, the limited NATO responsive are as weak as the warnings, which are not backed up with a threatening response of reprisal. Instead of blanket warnings on different rule-sets, it would be better if the West responded on all Russia’s levels in addition to being superior to them on other dimensions, like economics.

Washington recently warned Russia against sending troops into Ukrainian separatist held territories after the bogus elections in Novorossiya. The area is decimated, its future is bleak, social benefits from Kiev are no longer extent and like other Russian projects, there will be no democracy or rule of law. no one will be too surprised if Russian troops enter the Novorossiya in one form or another, but Russia really does not need to send conventional troops to secure political ends.

Russia is stepping closer and closer to becoming recognized as a legitimate terror state. Not only is it threatening neighbor states with military provocation, but it is using massive propaganda and diplomatic deceit. It is also threatening coercive energy measures to dependents and weaker states as well as launching illegal cyber-attacks.

Comments are closed.