Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

[AmericanPride]

So again--what is Russia to the world? Right now Russia is in fact as isolated as never before even during the Soviet days.

This is why I asked you what you meant by "the world"? Is Russia relatively more isolated from the handful of countries that make up "The West"? Yes. In a narrow political definition, you could define "The West" as "the world" insofar that the West is largely responsible for the construction and maintenance of the current international system.

But the international system is always in flux. Russia is not isolated from the absolute majority of states - and it is not isolated from contenders for international power outside of the West, including China and India (and to a smaller extent, Iran and some South American states). Statistically speaking, Russia is a major economy (ranked #8 in the world), and after the U.S., has the largest capability for military power projection. And, since 1991, its track record in conflicts has been comparable to the U.S. (approximately 70% ending in favor). So why is Russia perceived as a failed or second-rate state?

Is it because the U.S. 'won' the Cold War? If so, that conflict ended more than 20 years ago; that's an increasingly irrelevant reference point in measuring Russia's current capabilities. That's not to say that Russia does not have its own vulnerabilities - it still has a number of political stability issues to sort out, as well as weaknesses in the structure of its economy. Between the late 1940s and 1980s, the USSR was one of the leading industrial and scientific states after the U.S. That potential still exists in Russia but that might require giving the technocrats more power in government (not sure if that's political feasible given the state of affairs).

The conflict in Ukraine must be analyzed in this context, and it must also further be analyzed with the long-view in mind about what U.S. interests are towards a Russia that is increasing in its capabilities, confidence, and disenchantment with its international status.

[AmericanPride]

Additionally: many of the trends today give credence to the argument that the international system is approaching a possible paradigm shift in global power. What do I mean by paradigm shift in global power? I mean the difference between pre- and post- Congress of Vienna; pre- and post- World War II. Pre- and post- Soviet collapse. Perceptions of relative power often drive the events that lead to the paradigm shift (more often than not, it's sealed by blood through war).

So if the perception is that U.S. relative power is in retrenchment, and Russian (or Chinese) power is increasing, how does that affect state behavior? In my previous posts, I discussed how Russia's historical references points about its past status frames its current decision-making (as opposed to current conditions framing the decisions); so if the U.S. is in retrenchment, and it perceives the power of other states to be increasing, will the U.S. be more or less likely to escalate conflict? As time progresses, the window for the U.S. to act to protect its status closes as other states approach parity. And for the contenders, time works to their advantage. The Russians may be perceiving that this is an opportune time for them to increase their power.

Now, how the U.S.-Russian dyadic unfolds within the context of a U.S. led international system is one thing. But how it affects U.S. interests after a paradigm shift is harder to calculate. For one thing, the triggering mechanism is difficult to assess - it could be the outcome of a major conflict (Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II), or it could be a significant political (Great Britain) or economic event (Soviet Union). That's because all of the norms and perceptions taken for granted become irrelevant. That's why it's important to take the long view of the Ukraine conflict - are we setting the conditions for future challenges to U.S. power?

[AmericanPride]

Outlaw,

Lastly, a spoiler in IR is not strong enough to dictate its terms unilaterally except in localized conditions but it is strong enough to obstruct the interests of other states. That's why Russia is relevant to U.S. and international security. It's perceived status is much greater than its ascribed status, and that generates insecurity, leading to confrontational and spoiling strategies. Russia already does not benefit significantly from the current balance of power, and increasing its isolation from the West will only reinforce the incentive to act as a spoiler.

In the long-term, what does a spoiler mean for the U.S.? For one thing, it means that while the U.S. is expending more resources and commiting more capabilities than what would otherwise be necessary, it creates opportunities for other states to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities. This takes us back to power transitions in international systems. The U.S. - Russian conflict benefits Russia to a small extent because it strengthens the domestic credibility of the regime and denies the U.S. increases in its relative gains compared to Russia. But it benefits China the most who will face less U.S. challenges to its interests. So - that is why I have asked (repeatedly), to what extent is Ukraine worth breaking the U.S.-Russian relationship? What good does it do long-term U.S. interests elsewhere? How does it affect the international system, which currently favors the U.S.? So, I'm skeptical of the utility of destroying or significantly destabilizing Russia.

[AmericanPride]

Right now Russia is in fact a rouge country regardless of how one wants to define rouge.

If you don't have a definition, how can you use the label?

[OUTLAW 09]

If you don't have a definition, how can you use the label?

AP--once a rouge country starts down a particular path it tends to repeat it often and over a long period.

Remember how the Georgia event started---via a demand by Russia to bring in peacekeepers which for Russia is a oxymoron since Georgia.

Let's see the path of this rouge country---first Georgia, then Moldavia, the Crimea, and now eastern Ukraine or the "New Russia" and along the way several small regions with no official recognition and Russian troops in these countries so does that strike you as a country willing to play the internal game of rule of law or t is a rouge country marching to it's on drumbeat as it defines that drumbeat. Then let's look at the current small scale insurgencies they are dealing with----- as ethnic Russians have a hard time recognizing other ethnic minorities

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/3...es-in-ukraine/

[AmericanPride]

AP--once a rouge country starts down a particular path it tends to repeat it often and over a long period.

Remember how the Georgia event started---via a demand by Russia to bring in peacekeepers which for Russia is a oxymoron.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/3...es-in-ukraine/

So - duplicity is a trait of a rogue state?