Kit nailed it. You can't lose what you never had. Russia's history prior to the beginning of the Cold War can be summed up as "Who's invading us this week?" A bit flippant and over-simplified, but the Russians have been on the receiving end of a lot of invaders for 2,000 years. Of course they panic at the thought of anything less than military parity with the dominant powers of the world, they interpret this as a prelude to another invasion. Given the global competition for resources, and the extent of Siberia's resources, they kind of have a point.

Clinton and Bush's mistakes of insulting and underestimating Moscow.


... Hmmm. "Insult" is a perception. Based on Russia's history, I suspect that anything less than abject terror of Russia's military might would be perceived as an insult, as would any military presense in what Russia considers her sphere of influence. Our operations in Afghanistan, cooperation with the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, bringing Estonia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other former Soviet states and client states into military cooperatives, etc are an insult in Russian eyes, because they highlight Russian military ineffectiveness.

"Underestimating"??? Given Russia's challenges with corruption that are at the heart of so many of their problems, this is again a Russian perception. To describe the Russian situation and capabilities accurately would be an "insult", hence must be an undersestimation of Russia... I need to stop the circular treasoning before I get sick

Russia continues to "pet any anti-American dog" because the general strategy has worked for them as well as any other, and it costs relatively little. Internally, it propogates an image of Russia's leaders as "can-do" guys who are rebuilding Russian might and security. Externally, it builts Russia's image as a hero of all opposed to American Imperialism, much like the Iranian posture in the Muslim world.

This is behind many of our small wars, and is shaping the ones we're in now. Ironically, the most pragmatic solution amounts to bribing the Russian leadership. It's expensive, and the cost would keep rising, but strategically, it might be cheaper than tolerating their behavior.