On Sept. 21, Russia was officially blamed for the airstrike that destroyed a UN convoy headed for the besieged city of Aleppo, the epicenter of the Syrian civil war. This airstrike, among other ceasefire violations, collapsed the temporary halt in the conflict negotiated by Russia and the U.S. This provocative and likely illegal action is yet another attempt by Russia to regain its position on the world stage lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia claims that many of these actions were taken to protect itself from the growing NATO security block; however, this neglects the very reality of Russia’s present aggressive and expansionist actions, taken for the sole purpose of boosting Moscow’s influence in world affairs.
Russia’s aggressive foreign policy is nothing new. Its seeds were sown the minute Vladimir Putin came to power. In 1999, Russia fought its second war with the breakaway province of Chechnya. Much like the first war, Russia fought with a callous disregard for civilians, bombing and engaging in close combat in the Chechen capital of Grozny and other parts of the region.
The total civilian death toll is unknown, but is thought to be close to 25,000, not including the several thousand civilians “disappeared” during the conflict. While Chechnya was not itself a foreign country, Russia’s use of paramilitary forces, overwhelming firepower in densely populated areas and deception regarding its role in different aspects of the conflict are features that will appear in later conflicts.
In 1991, Georgia declared its independence from the crumbling USSR. While this was occurring, a civil war broke out in the northern regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. South Ossetia and Abkhazia fought for their independence from the newly formed Georgian state. While the fighting never really stopped, South Ossetia and Abkhazia became de facto states with support from Moscow. Border conflicts between South Ossetia and Georgia intensified in 2008 as a result of attacks on Georgian peacekeeping forces by South Ossetina insurgents. Georgia then invaded South Ossetia, resulting in the Russian invasion of Georgia. Russian forces were largely successful and the war ended in a ceasefire.
The Ukrainian Revolution in 2014 removed President Yanukovych over rejecting "a far-reaching accord with the European Union in November 2013 in favor of stronger ties with Russia.” Following Yanukovych’s removal, Russia seized the Crimean peninsula under the pretext of protecting Russian minorities. Furthermore, separatists rose up in the eastern Ukrainian regions of Luhansk and Donetsk with Russian material support and “volunteers.” The conflict in the east continues to this day.
As luck would have it, Georgia and Ukraine were under consideration for entering NATO in December 2008. The Russian attack on Georgia delayed, perhaps indefinitely, NATO admission. Ukraine’s admission was also blocked, on the basis of reforming the country politically before it could be admitted. Russian incursions or support for rebels in both countries have the practical effect of mob intimidation, a warning of the potential consequences of joining NATO or opposing Russian regional aspirations.
This is Russian bullying, plain and simple. NATO was founded to protect Western Europe from Soviet aggression and expansion, and continues to serve the same purpose today against the Russian Federation. Article five of NATO is the primary argument against the Russian suggestion that NATO is threatening Russia. After all, article five is “the principle of collective defense is at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.” Essentially, article five makes an attack on one member of the alliance an attack on all members of the alliance. In a sense, if Russia is not acting aggressively towards its neighbors, as it claims, why should it worry about NATO expansion?
Of course, the answer is that Russia is acting in an aggressive and expansionist manner towards its neighbors, despite attempts by the United States to “reset” relations to the status quo. Airspace violations are common, and the increasingly hostile rhetoric of the Kremlin is a reminder of the Cold War. Putin seems to have been personally insulted by the loss of influence of the Russian nation since the fall of the Soviet Union, and is responding in a way that can only be regarded as imperialist brinksmanship.
To poke the bear or not to poke the bear, that is the question. How do we handle an increasingly aggressive and belligerent Russia? We could attempt to continue the current policy of limiting NATO expansion, but this could run the risk of endangering our allies in eastern Europe. Too aggressive of a stance, however, could result in unforeseen consequences, particularly in Syria, where Russia and the United States have opposing aims.
Perhaps the best method is to not play the game at all. Hit Russia where it hurts without the risk of an international incident, increasing sanctions. The Russian economy is dependent on fossil fuel exports, so limiting those could do major damage that may make them reconsider their position. After all, sanctions forced Iran to the bargaining table, same might be done with Russia. Even if the sanctions are unsuccessful, NATO can make its point clear: Authoritarian, imperialistic strongmen from another era no longer have a place in Europe.