Putin in Play?

Stephen Blank, Ph.D.

I had the pleasure of interviewing internationally known Russia specialist, Dr. Stephen Blank, now a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C., and previously a Professor of National Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College.  I’ve known Steve for many years and worked with him at Foreign Affairs Speakers Bureau.  I welcome him today to my interview chair.

BERNARD:  Steve, help me understand  … When we see Russian President Putin playing a leadership role with the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, the bombing campaign against ISIS, the incursion into Ukraine and his deepening relationship with Iran, the old Cold Warrior in me senses an imperialist mission.    On the other hand, knowing how ailing the Russian economy and the Russian defense industry are, I see a clever and greedy tactician whose weapons systems sales make money for him and his cronies.   Which is it – Putin as a Peter the Great-type strategist expanding the Russian empire or Putin the opportunistic capitalist seizing markets for his military wares?

BLANK:  To answer this question it is essential to grasp that there is no necessary contradiction between strategy and tactics.  Only in the U.S. media and political class, neither of whom grasp the difference between the two and use the terms promiscuously, does it seem that Putin is just a tactician and not necessarily a good one.  To be sure, Russia has incurred serious and unexpected costs that will be long lasting.  But from Putin’s perspective, which is the only that counts for him, he has won.  Crimea is his, Eastern Ukraine is under his control and the Ukrainian state is severely crippled and enduringly vulnerable to myriad Russian pressures –both military and non-military.  In Syria the supposed isolation of Russia has been shown to be a myth.  The Obama Administration acknowledges that Russia must be part of an overall Middle East solution and has caved in on letting Assad stay in power because it has no strategy to counter Russia.  Meanwhile, despite rising financial costs of the operation, Putin has a working coalition with Iran while U.S. alliances are collapsing. Putin, in my view (to be fair many would disagree), is a strategist, the quality of the strategy is another issue) but his strategic goals do not exclude a superb sense of opportunistic timing.

BERNARD:  Steve, reports are consistent that Putin is not bombing ISIS targets in Syria but instead the opponents of Bashar al-Assad.   What’s your take on what is really happening between Putin and ISIS and Putin and Assad?   And what does this suggest for the United States?

BLANK:  What this suggests for the U.S. is that the Administration still fails to grasp what Putin is up to or to support the development of the analytical capabilities we need to understand Russia.  It points to serious defects in intelligence and policymaking and to the continuing absence in this administration of any real understanding of strategy or how limited military forces may be used to advance concrete political interests and objectives.  If we are to deal with the multiple challenges facing us – not just Putin’s Russia – these problems must be rectified sooner rather than later.

Although Putin now calls for improved ties with Washington he has indeed attacked other factions much more seriously and often than ISIS because Putin’s goals have nothing to do with ISIS other than keeping it in Syria where its members cannot threaten Russia, as would be the case in the North Caucasus and potentially Central Asia.  Putin stands foursquare behind Assad and the U.S. still has no clear idea what it wants.  Moreover, despite years of experience to the contrary, Washington still seems entranced by the idea that a “third force,” neither Assad nor ISIS, can come to power in Syria, establish itself as the legitimate rule through some semblance of democratic rule and be pro-Western.  This, to be frank, is delusional and explains much of the failure to date.

BERNARD:   It’s curious how Vladimir Putin seems to have a solid working relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the same time he deepens his relationship with the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran – having just sold him S-300 surface-to-air missiles – a sophisticated missile defense system.   On the heels of the Iranian nuclear agreement, how are the U.S. and Israel to understand this?  

BLANK:  Russia has several reasons for close ties with Israel.  It does not want a new Arab-Israel war even if everyone else was at peace for the Arabs would lose and Washington would dominate the political aftermath.  Second, it trades substantially with Israel and is now very interested in getting into Israel’s energy policies to gain another source of leverage in the Middle East.  At the same time it supports a unified Palestinian camp and will not recognize Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists.  Indeed, acting through Iran and Damascus, Moscow is one of their principal suppliers of weapons though it claims those groups are not terrorists!  More recently it clearly sees an opportunity to score points at Washington’s expense given the incompetence on both sides that has led to serious Israel-American tensions.  Putin and Netanyahu appear to understand each other.  Putin respects Israel’s willingness to use force and is personally not an anti-Semite (though perfectly willing to play that card at home if necessary).  These factors explain the improved ties with Russia.

BERNARD:  Thank you, Steve, for your time, expertise and candor.  To see Steve Blank's extensive professional profile, visit www.LisaBernardsSecuritySpeak.com and to host him, contact me directly at Lisa@LisaBernardsSecuritySpeak.com.