Are We Deliberately
Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia?
Tensions are becoming dangerous in Syria and on
Russia's back doorstep
By Ted Galen
Carpenter
August 31, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
A dangerous vehicle collision between U.S and
Russian soldiers in Northeastern Syria on Aug. 24
highlights the fragility of the relationship and the
broader test of wills between the two major powers.
According to
White House reports
and a Russian video
that went viral this week, it appeared that as the
two sides were racing down a highway in armored
vehicles, the Russians sideswiped the Americans,
leaving four U.S. soldiers injured. It is but the
latest clash as both sides continue their patrols in
the volatile area. But it speaks of bigger problems
with U.S. provocations on Russia’s backdoor in
Eastern Europe.
A sober
examination of U.S. policy toward Russia since the
disintegration of the Soviet Union leads to two
possible conclusions. One is that U.S. leaders, in
both Republican and Democratic administrations, have
been utterly tone-deaf to how Washington’s actions
are perceived in Moscow. The other possibility is
that those leaders adopted a policy of maximum
jingoistic swagger intended to intimidate Russia,
even if it meant obliterating a constructive
bilateral relationship and eventually risking a
dangerous showdown. Washington’s latest military
moves, especially in Eastern Europe and the Black
Sea, are stoking alarming tensions.
|
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
|
There has been a
long string
of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one
came in the late 1990s and the initial years of the
twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit
promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet
leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany
within NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move
farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain,
the Clinton and Bush administrations successfully
pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from
Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful
military association directly to Russia’s western
border. In addition, the United States initiated
“rotational” deployments of its forces to the new
members so that the U.S. military presence in those
countries became permanent in all but name. Even
Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense
under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was
uneasy
about those deployments and conceded that he should
have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be
unnecessarily provocative.
As if such steps
were not antagonistic enough, both Bush and Obama
sought to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The
latter country is not only within what Russia
regards as its legitimate sphere of influence, but
within its core security zone. Even key European
members of NATO, especially France and Germany,
believed that such a move was unwise and blocked
Washington’s ambitions. That resistance, however,
did not inhibit a Western
effort to meddle
in Ukraine’s internal affairs to
help demonstrators
unseat Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russia president and
install a new, pro-NATO government in 2014.
Such provocative
political steps, though, are now overshadowed by
worrisome U.S. and NATO military moves. Weeks before
the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump
administration touted its plan to relocate some U.S.
forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of
Defense Mike Esper finally made the announcement,
the media’s focus was largely on the point that
11,900 troops would leave that country.
However, Esper
made it clear
that only 6,400 would return to the United States;
the other nearly 5,600 would be redeployed to other
NATO members in Europe. Indeed, of the 6,400 coming
back to the United States, “many of these or similar
units will begin conducting rotational deployments
back to Europe.” Worse, of the 5,600 staying in
Europe, it turns out that
at least 1,000
are going to Poland’s eastern border with Russia.
Another result of
the redeployment will be to boost U.S. military
power in the Black Sea. Esper confirmed that various
units would “begin continuous rotations farther east
in the Black Sea region, giving us a more enduring
presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies
along NATO’s southeastern flank.” Moscow is certain
to regard that measure as another on a growing list
of Black Sea provocations by the United States.
Among other
developments, there already has been a surge of
alarming incidents between U.S. and Russian military
aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve
U.S. spy planes flying near the Russian
coast—supposedly in international airspace. On July
30, a Russian Su-27 jet fighter
intercepted
two American surveillance aircraft; according to
Russian officials, it was the fourth time in the
final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in
that sector approaching the Russian coast. Yet
another interception
occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy
planes. Still
others
have
taken place
throughout mid-August. It is a
reckless practice
that easily could escalate into a broader, very
dangerous confrontation.
The growing number
of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging
U.S. military presence along Russia’s border,
especially in the
Black Sea.
They are taking place on Russia’s doorstep,
thousands of miles away from the American homeland.
Americans should consider how the United States
would react if Russia decided to establish a major
naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico,
operating out of bases in such allied countries as
Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
The undeniable
reality is that the United States and its NATO
allies are crowding Russia; Russia is not crowding
the United States. Washington’s bumptious policies
already have wrecked a once-promising bilateral
relationship and created a needless new cold war
with Moscow. If
more prudent U.S.
policies
are not adopted soon, that cold war might well turn
hot.
Ted Galen
Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at
the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at
The
American Conservative, is the author of 12
books and more than 850 articles on international
affairs. His latest book is NATO: The
Dangerous Dinosaur (2019). -
"Source"
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
Post your comment below
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House. |
