[The Sources of Russian Aggression: Is Russia a Realist Power?, by Sumantra Maitra, Lexington Books, 2024; 205 pages]
One of many unlucky realities of the international coverage debate in America is that few People are paying a lot consideration. This basic degree of public ignorance makes it a lot simpler for the American international coverage elites to then feed the American public no matter lies swimsuit the regime’s agenda.
This has actually been the case with the US’s present proxy conflict towards the Russians in Ukraine. Within the early months of the 2022 Russian invasion there was seemingly no finish to the regime’s spinning of untamed yarns attempting to persuade us that Putin is the brand new Hitler, that Moscow will quickly re-create the Soviet Union, and that something wanting the US launching World Warfare III is akin to “appeasement” within the type of Munch, 1938.
So what does encourage Russian state actions in Ukraine? To assist us perceive the reply to this query we are able to look to a brand new e book from Sumantra Maitra, The Sources of Russian Aggression.
Maitra’s aim right here is to point out how Russia’s international coverage of the previous thirty years follows a reasonably predictable sample that may be effectively defined by the insights of structural realism. Furthermore, Maitra goes on as an example how Moscow’s conduct within the worldwide realm is that of a conservative and defensive realist nice energy. Removed from being a Hitlerish regime bent on international conquest, Moscow has very particular and restricted targets. Furthermore, these targets might have been anticipated by Washington, and the present battle averted.
Russia and the Realist Mannequin
Amongst worldwide relations students, realists have turn out to be among the most trenchant critics of American policymakers who obsess over countering the Russian “threat.” John Mearsheimer is probably essentially the most well-known realist scholar for the time being, and he has turn out to be notable for his prescient observations about how relentless NATO enlargement eastward has precipitated pointless battle between NATO and Moscow. It ought to shock nobody, then, that realist students aren’t precisely common in Washington. In spite of everything, the one acceptable narrative in Washington is the one by which the US is the good ethical crusader nation and each different regime is both insane or hellbent on international domination.
Opposite to the handy beltway narrative, Maitra illustrates how Moscow’s conduct within the worldwide realm is that of a established order energy. That’s, the Russian regime’s foreign-policy interventions are geared towards upkeep fairly than enlargement.
By means of his detailed evaluation of the occasions main as much as at this time’s conflict in Ukraine, Maitra exhibits how Moscow’s actions have been fairly predictable and rational inside a realist framework. What precisely is realism? As used right here by Maitra, it’s the “structural realist” or neorealist concept that posits sure assumptions concerning the conduct of nice powers (i.e., The US, Russia, China). Central to all that is the belief that nice powers will just about all the time “balance” towards threats offered by the dominant nice energy. Within the present world, the dominant energy is the US, and we are able to anticipate all different nice powers to hunt methods to steadiness towards US projections of energy. This conduct isn’t depending on the professed ethical or ideological framework inside every nice energy. Quite, nice powers act to protect themselves and to protect their place throughout the worldwide system, no matter their inner techniques of presidency. Maitra exhibits that Russia is a “security maximizer” and never a “power maximizer.” As we’d anticipate inside a defensive realist framework, Russia seeks to protect its degree of energy relative to different states, however this doesn’t require that Russia turn out to be a hegemon.
Maitra additionally notes a key side of balancing: “states actually balance against threats and not just power alone.” From this we are able to draw an necessary conclusion. Maitra continues: “Russian threat perceptions [are] dependent on aggregate power and offensive capabilities as well as perceived offensive intentions. The greater the perceived threat, the greater the balancing action observable.”
Thus, the mere existence of the US or NATO has by no means been sufficient to immediate an aggressive response from Moscow. Quite, it’s the enlargement of the menace posed by NATO and the US which have led to escalating tensions, culminating within the present navy response from Moscow.
30 Years of Escalations from NATO and the US
Maitra supplies a big quantity of historic evaluation right here, specializing in NATO enlargement all through the Nineties and early 2000s, and eventually coming to a head in 2008 with the Russo-Georgian conflict.
Maitra paperwork how US secretary of state James Bakers had negotiated for the reunification of Germany by promising the Soviets in 1990 that NATO would transfer “not one inch eastward.” By 1992, nevertheless, NATO enlargement had turn out to be a rising aim for each the US and a lot of European states. As soon as once more, NATO placated the Russians by claiming that even after Poland and Hungary joined NATO, no navy {hardware} can be positioned in these new member states. That pledge was subsequently damaged. Thus, a sample emerged by which NATO, a navy alliance that was de facto geared towards containing the Russian state, moved its devices of energy ever nearer to the Russian border.
Finally, this mixture of heightened energy, coupled with NATO’s ever nearer proximity to Russian territory, meant the vary of “balancing actions” entertained by Moscow continued to develop.
This course of lastly provoked a real navy response in response to open and express efforts by NATO to carry Georgia into the alliance. Maitra exhibits that in contrast to different earlier NATO inductees, Georgia was perceived by Russia to be key to Russian safety pursuits. A Russian navy response due to this fact appeared justified to Russian international coverage elites when, on August 7, 2008, Georgian forces shelled Russian allies within the breakaway area of South Ossetia. This led to open fight between Georgian forces and Russian peacekeepers.
Importantly, nevertheless, as soon as Moscow achieved its aim of interrupting NATO enlargement into Georgia, Moscow ended hostilities and contented itself with “frozen conflicts” within the area. This, Maitra exhibits, is attribute of a established order energy involved with upkeep fairly than enlargement.
The Georgian conflict proved to be one thing of a preview of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, though the conflict in Ukraine is on a a lot bigger scale.
In 2014, after yet one more “color revolution” and the rise of US and NGO-backed anti-Russian policymakers in Kyiv, Russia perceived that it might completely lose entry to navy sources perceived to be completely important by Russian elites.
Particularly, Maitra particulars how Russian navy property in Crimea—particularly the naval base internet hosting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet—weren’t one thing Moscow might tolerate shedding. Thus, the 2014 annexation of Crimea quickly adopted. Maitra notes that different Russian interventions in Ukraine have been centered on sustaining different sources that Moscow deemed important. Russia’s navy logistics networks had come to depend on shut ties with jap Ukraine. For instance, Maitra writes that “critical Ukrainian components and their servicing comprise up to 80 percent of Russia’s strategic missiles forces.” Thus, from the Russian perspective, “without Eastern Ukraine, Russian nuclear deterrence, and its naval forces, would collapse.” All this, mixed with the necessity to hold Crimea’s naval sources, just about assured that Moscow would drastically escalate its balancing efforts towards NATO.
These particulars additionally go a good distance towards explaining why Russia has not responded with the identical degree of resistance to NATO enlargement into Finland, and even the Baltics, that are each on Russia’s predominant, non-Kaliningrad border. Merely put, the specter of NATO enlargement into Ukraine poses a far larger threat to Moscow than NATO enlargement into different states of central and jap Europe.
So, what’s to be discovered from all this? Central to Maitra’s conclusions is the proof that Russia is a established order energy and never a revisionist energy. Within the examples offered, Russian aggression is an effort to protect the present system, and protect Russian state entry to key strategic territories and sources. As within the case of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, Russian intervention ended as soon as Moscow was glad it had prevented any sizable modifications to the worldwide order in Russia’s close to overseas.
None of which means Moscow is “the good guy” within the present worldwide order. After we are coping with states—particularly large ones, just like the US and Russia, that are each possessed of surprising quantities of coercive energy—there isn’t any “good guy.” However, revisionist states like the US—ceaselessly pledging new wars for “democracy” and “fighting terror” whereas bombing half a dozen nations at any given time—pose a really international hazard. The capricious angle of towards nuclear conflict amongst regime apologists within the US—in response to conflicts that don’t have anything to do with defending key American pursuits—has been particularly harmful.
Clearly, Maitra’s interpretation poses a problem to the numerous narratives claiming that Russia is a revisionist energy searching for to remake jap Europe, or possibly even Eurasia. Which narrative prevails in Washington and amongst members of the general public shall be determinant of what kind of intervention Washington can demand the American folks tolerate and fund. If Russia is a defensive realist energy, then this additional strengthens the concept the US has no curiosity in any respect in “containing” Russia or additional increasing NATO.
Sadly, lots of the most influential voices in Washington proceed to push for extra escalation and the narrative that Russia is the brand new Nazi Germany. It stays to be seen if the incoming Trump administration, which has professed a extra dovish place towards Moscow, will counter the beltway’s drive for conflict.