Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Russia delivers nuclear warning to Denmark [View all]Xithras
(16,191 posts)Putin has stated, openly and publicly, that one of the biggest problems on the planet over the past few decades has been the behavior of the United States. From ISIS to Afghanistan, he believes that many of the worlds biggest problems can be traced back to "Americans behaving badly". And why does he think this has happened? Because when the Cold War ended, the United States was left with the largest military on the planet and absolutely no counterweight, and it's been running roughshod over the rest of the world ever since. In the 30 years prior to the ending of the Cold War (1960-1990), the United States and/or NATO directly fought in one major overseas conflict...Vietnam. In the 24 years following the end of the Cold War (1991-2015) we've fought in EIGHT...Gulf War 1, the Iraqi "air occupation" of the 1990's, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya, and the ISIS bombing campaign. He's said that Americans and NATO have become one of the most destabilizing forces on the planet today.
Putin has openly stated that what the world really needs is a new counterweight to prevent Americans from bullying the planet. He wants Russia to return to superpower status and act as the foundation to that counterweight. ALL of his moves have been designed to prove Russia's ability to counter anything he perceives as American imperialism, and to re-establish Russia as a serious contender on the world stage. He's trying to "prove himself" so that he can reach out to other nations that are looking for an alternative to America's vision for the planet and pull them into Russia's sphere of influence. He also wants to establish Russia as a safe harbor for nations that feel directly threatened by America or NATO.
Mutually Assured Destruction is Putin's trump card. He knows that Russia's conventional forces couldn't beat the NATO in an open war, so he's falling back on his nuclear arsenal to bolster his position. He believes that, if NATO thinks that angering Russia could lead to nuclear war, then they'll have to start balancing their policies against the risk of global annihilation. That can't happen unless the west believes that he's serious about using them.
The worst part of all this? He's not really all that wrong in his worldview. While there are certainly better alternatives than a Russian-centered anti-NATO bloc built around MAD, his analysis of the need to check NATO's power is entirely correct, and his plan will be very effective if he can pull it off. He's behaving badly, but his analysis isn't actually wrong.