Russia's Dead Cat Bounce

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the Georgian war earlier this year and what it means for Russia's future as a great power. Now, it's undeniable that Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal. That alone qualifies a nation as a great power in my book. If you have nukes no matter how big or small of a nation you are, in boxing terms, you have the capability to punch above your weight.

A couple of things happened as a result of the Georgian war. One, in the aftermath of the war Poland very quickly inked a missile shield deal with the US. (This is one of those coincidences that leads me to believe the US had ulterior motives in allowing the Georgians to provoke the fight.) Second, Russia made it very clear that NATO expansion was at an end. German Chancellor Angela Merkel quickly made this more than clear when she went to Saint Petersburg and essentially agreed with the Russians. (The French quietly agree with the Germans on this too.) No MAP will be offered to the Ukraine and Georgia. The Euros are have dug their heels in on this one and since NATO decisions are based on consensus this fight is over.

Those are two pretty concrete results of the war, not to mention that Georgia was humiliated and will need to find a way to deal with the Russians in the future, much as Mexico deals with the United States. Look, international relations aren't pretty but that's reality. If you have the misfortune (or good fortune, depends on where you're standing I suppose) to live next to a great power you simply have to adjust your foreign policy accordingly or suffer the consequences. As Georgia has no doubt seen, they can be ugly.

But, in the long run Russia has deep, systemic problems as a nation, what with a demographic collapse ongoing. Russia looses 800,000 people a year, net. That alone, when factored out twenty or thirty years into the future is catastrophic for Russia. Second, it's armed forces need dire reform. While officers in the Russian military do not outnumber enlisted members, the number isn't too far off. The army is too top heavy and even with oil in over $100 a barrel the Russians are having a hard time just maintaining what equipment they have. There are no new weapon systems coming on line. (If I recall correctly they were delivered one new fighter in the last several years.) Russia doesn't have a carrier and more, doesn't have a shipyard capable of building one.

Anecdotally, during the war with Georgia, enlisted soldiers frequently resorted to using their own cell phones for communication with superiors. Kind of reminds me of the anecdote that US forces had to use a pay phone in Grenada to call in air support.

Add to these significant burdens the falling price of oil--yes, I know, it may rise for the Peak Oilers out there, but Russian oil is dirty, sulphuric oil and needs more refining and thus gets a lower price on the market--and I think what we witnessed (and will witness for a few years more) is a kind of dead cat bounce for the country as a whole. I'm not saying Russia is in terminal decline, but it's steep and broad based and not likely to change for several decades.

So, while Russia is presenting Obama with his first foreign policy challenge, it's important to take note that this is not the same country as the Soviet Union was and never, ever will be again. Cooler heads in the Pentagon know this. And hopefully we can avoid the kind of binary foreign policy arguments we've had during the Bush years moving forward. It's time for nuance and more understanding. I eagerly await Obama's choice for Secretary of State and Defense, and his National Security Advisor. These will tell us if we're going to get a neo-con lite Clinton redux or some new, fresh thinking that might begin to take tentative steps to unwind the national-security state.

If Hagel is nominated as Secretary of State and Samantha Power finds her way into an Obama Administration I think we'll be lucky. As for the Defense post? If Obama is even considering the slow process of unwinding the national security state that person will have to be an absolute bureaucratic bulldog of the most vicious sort. The Pentagon isn't going to be happy abandoning boondoggle projects, just look at how much trouble Rumsfeld had closing the Crusader program! And too much of the national-security state is wingnut welfare disguised as, well, national security. I don't envy the nation's next Secretary of Defense. That will be the toughest job of all.