 |
| 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.
