Defensive Missiles, Defensive Bases, the US and Russia

[nodular]

Recently, Putin has made some statements that are somewhat defensive, one might say, vis a vis the US and the defense policies of the two nations. A big flap occurred about whether or not the US and Russia were drifting toward another "Cold War."

The immediate cause of Putin's statements was a series of news reports about the US was negotiating with Poland to build anti-missile missile batteries there.

Some have commented that Putin's statements are unjustified because the US anti-missile shield (which the Polish installation would only be a part of) is a purely defensive measure, and anyway, it is only directed at Iran.

This argument is a bit disingenuous and simplistic. Is there such a thing as a purely "defensive weapon"? Sounds like an oxymoron, but what about it? The nature of war precludes the idea of purely defensive weapons. Take what was possibly the original defensive accouterment from back in the days of the ancient Greeks and earlier---the shield.

The purpose of the shield is purely defensive---to protect one swordsman from the sword thrust of another. You could hit someone with a shield and hurt him---but it is admittedly not designed for that. But the effect of having a shield is hardly just defensive. By protecting part of the swordsman's body, the swordsman's confidence is increased and he becomes more aggressive moving forward.

It is in the nature of all weaponry and military tactics and strategy that effective defense can lead to offense. For example, infantry digging in is defensive. But one of the most aggressive---and most effective---infantry tactics is to stealthily move the bulk of one's force behind an enemy and dig in along his lines of communications (between him and his supply source). This generally forces the enemy to attack you in your entrenched position---at great loss to him.

Russia must consider the recent US talks with Poland about an anti-missile installation in this light. One cannot say that an anti-missile shield in Poland---whatever its relationship to potential Iranian attacks---cannot or would not potentially be used as part of some action against Russia.

In addition, the planned construction of the missile shield has to be taken in context with all the other US moves since the collapse of the Soviet Union and seen from the Russian perspective. First the Soviet Union withdrew its armies from Eastern Europe. Then it broke up into its component parts.

These events were seen as reassuring to the US---the Soviet threat was gone. However, US actions, from a Russian perspective, do not seem to be those of a reassured former adversary. NATO, which has always been under US leadership, incorporated the countries of Eastern Europe (and three small former Soviet republics).

In addition, the US set up a string of bases in former Soviet republics along Russia's southern periphery (Central Asia). Furthermore, a number of revolutions (the "color revolutions") occurred, toppling or attempting to topple pro-Russian regimes in Central Asia. These revolutions were variously supported by the CIA and George Soros (who has spent most of his life in America though he was born in Hungary). The purported goal of these revolutions was democracy, but the regimes have generally turned out to not be democratic.

All of these factors must be taken into account when looking at Putin's (Russia's) current stance vis a vis the US. In addition, US advisers (particularly some Harvard professors) played a big role in guiding Russia's economy immediately after the Soviet breakup. This was the 1990s, a period of economic disaster for Russia.

The US tends to view its actions as all having "good intentions". The Russians---including Putin---tend to see it differently. Certainly, one cans see their point of view.