Must We Always Have an Enemy?
Until recently, about the only truly bipartisan agreement in Washington and the media was that Vladimir Putin was evil and Russia was an enemy. Then along came candidate Trump, who sent both sides into a tailspin when he declared that he would “get along with Vladimir Putin,” asking rhetorically, “Wouldn’t that be a good thing?” Well, wouldn’t it be? Shouldn’t it be? Let’s try to be fact-based and rational.
First, a bit of history. The postwar world was simple. As the iron curtain descended across Europe, Russia became the enemy of freedom and democracy: Ronald Reagan’s evil empire. They meddled in America’s interests throughout Latin America and invaded Afghanistan. We expanded military spending to outrun them, and it worked. With the US leading as the “arsenal of democracy,” the Berlin Wall fell, western liberalism triumphed, and Russia’s system of totalitarian communism proved to be bankrupt both morally and economically.
Reaping the “peace dividend,” President Clinton reduced defense spending, and President George W. Bush declared several times that Russia was “no longer an enemy.” By 2014, however, the new order started to weaken as Russia aided pro-Russian separatists in Crimea and Ukraine, ultimately annexing Crimea and part of Ukraine. Despite this, then-President Obama still dismissed them as no more than a “regional power.” In 2016, Russia used social media to influence the US election in Trump’s favor. Incensed, Americans were for the most part, once again, unified around the existential threat that Russia represented.
Except for President Trump. Bearing in mind that an idea is not responsible for those who embrace it, is the president right or wrong on this one? Let’s begin with a review of the balance sheet of relative power and behavior between our two countries.
| US | RUSSIA | |
|---|---|---|
| Defense spending | $726 billion | $61 billion |
| Foreign bases | 800 | 9 |
| Active-duty troops | 1.3 million | 771,000 |
| Nuclear weapons deployed | 1,600 | 1,600 |
| Military alliances on Russian border | NATO, which expanded to include several former members of the Soviet Union, including Latvia and Estonia, that border Russia | None |
| Foreign interventions since 1989 | 35 (including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, all within several hundred miles of the Russian border) | Four (Crimea, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine, all but one of which are on the Russian border) |
| Drone attacks on sovereign countries | Routine, justified by the “war on terror” | None |
| Economic power | $19.4 trillion GDP | $1.6 trillion GDP (smaller than Italy), and oil dependent |
| Rallying ideology | Freedom, democracy, and capitalism | None |
| Treaty compliance | Withdrawal from Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (blaming Russian noncompliance), Paris Agreement, Iran Nuclear Deal | Russia remains in the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Agreement |
| Election interference | The US is believed to have interfered in approximately 85 elections within other countries | Russia interfered in the 2016 US election |
As we observe in our Defense Research, considering these facts from the perspective of Russia is interesting. Not only does the US maintain a military capability that is many times the size and strength of theirs, it has used its power aggressively by expanding NATO to Russia’s border and engaging in wars of choice in Russia’s sphere of influence. When these points are combined with the military and economic strength of its allies, the comparisons are magnified. Furthermore, the US has been an unreliable partner in global agreements and has frequently interfered in other countries’ elections since WW2.
Bullies are generally admonished to “pick on someone your own size.” Russia is clearly not our own size, and yet we allocate daily energy to reinforcing their “enemy” status. Why? Must we always have an enemy? Is it so important to have an enemy that we ignore the reality of our own behavior? Recently, Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “Russia is an adversary in so many ways; they invade countries in Europe, they use force in brutal ways in the Middle East, and they interfere in electoral processes not just in our country but throughout Europe.” Factually, that sounds a lot like American foreign policy.
Maybe the president is right on this one. And even if Russia does represent a threat, what is to be gained by labeling them as an enemy and dismissing even the possibility of getting along?