The Response to a Superpower in Distress

Comments from Others

The crisis in Crimea is emphasizing the estrangement between Russia and the U.S. With its aggressive approach, [Russia] is attempting to avoid another political marginalization.

Powerful nations are asserting their vital national interests and are even willing to use force if necessary. They are allowing themselves the right to exercise regulatory functions within their sphere of influence. Russia is doing it, as are other powerful nations. Global superpowers, including the U.S., are enforcing rules on a global scale.

The Russian intervention in Crimea is a breach of international law. International rights support strong nations but only to the extent that the nations do not affect or violate those rights. The Greek historian Thucydides said, the strong will do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Russia is representing its vital interests with full force.

The change of regime in Kiev meant a strategic defeat for the Russian leadership. Its reaction to this defeat was based on the perception that the failure of its own strategy only added to a series of defeats by the U.S. The crisis in Crimea clearly highlights the deep alienation between Russia and the U.S.

Russia chose to violate international law and then absolve itself of all responsibility. If nothing else, its actions are an aggressive reaction to the U.S. attempt to not only marginalize Russia but also to actively weaken the country. Between 2001 and 2004, Putin sought cooperation with the U.S. on the basis of equal status and respect for internal sovereignty. The [ensuing] intelligence work and indirect military support in Afghanistan were clear signs of Russia’s willingness to cooperate.

However, the Bush administration undermined this cooperative approach, and its actions resulted in the effective (not just perceived) weakening of Russia’s power. Initially, this involved the U.S. invasion of Iraq despite the threat of veto from Russia. This was followed in 2004 by NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe.

The USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 was based on the understanding that the West would not abuse its retreat for territorial gain. The expansion of the Western military alliance was [therefore] a threat for Russia, since the U.S. has also pushed for Georgia and the Ukraine to be introduced to the Alliance’s Membership Action Plan.

[Since then] the U.S. [has] continued to penetrate the former Soviet territory on an ever increasing level. This [has] included growing relations with the governments of Georgia and the Ukraine following the Rose and Orange Revolutions, its attempts to establish permanent military bases in Central Asia, and the weakening of the hegemonic role of Russia in energy transport by supporting the bypass pipelines for oil and gas that run through the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia (the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipelines).

The break in relations between the U.S. and Russia [has been] further enforced as a result of Bush’s (and Obama’s) missile defense initiatives and the Russian leadership’s belief that the U.S. is interfering in Russia’s internal affairs. In addition, there was the violation of the U.N. mandate to protect civilians in Libya in March 2011. Russia views this series of events as a weakening of its status as a major power.

The Russian leadership feared that the new government in the Ukraine would not accept Russia’s refusal to become a nonaligned nation in 2010. [Coupled with this was Ukraine’s] association with the EU and the [potential] termination of the 1997 and 2010 naval base agreements, which would lead to a drastic strategic marginalization of Russia.

In conclusion, the destabilization of Ukraine and the military intervention in Crimea were reactive steps from a beleaguered superpower. The fact remains that Russia is breaking international law and exploiting the Ukraine’s weaknesses. However, Russia’s actions should be viewed in a long-term context. This does not justify what has happened. However, it enables us to understand the reasons behind Russia’s actions.