Follow us on social


Is Russia playing the victim, or is the sense of impending siege justified?

Its new national security strategy may be calculated to appeal to voters, but the West has clearly helped to push Putin's buttons, too.

Analysis | Europe

Moscow’s global outlook in Soviet times was framed by communist ideology and the party’s political priorities. The nearest contemporary equivalent is the “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation,” last updated in 2016, in the aftermath of the Ukrainian crisis, when Western sanctions were raining down on Russia hard and fast.

Yet at that time Russia remained optimistic about possible partnerships with Western states. It committed to “building mutually beneficial relations with the United States, taking into consideration that the two states bear special responsibility for global strategic stability and international security in general, as well as vast potential in trade and investment, scientific and technical and other types of cooperation.” In relation to Europe, the goal was “a common space of peace, security and stability, based on the principles of indivisible security, equal cooperation and mutual trust.”

Russia’s new “National Security Strategy,” approved by President Putin earlier this month, does not feature such fine sentiments. Having endured more years of Western sanctions, accusations that it is a rogue state, and the vilification of its president, Moscow seems to have now abandoned all hope of a return to détente with the United States and the EU. Russia’s existing allies and friends such as the People’s Republic of China and India, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, and members of the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, are the only states and organizations meriting any positive mention. The pronounced pivot away from a Western orientation in Russian foreign policy to a focus on Asia and the Pacific is unmistakable.

Having sown the wind, the West will now reap the whirlwind. Two decades of failure to see Russia’s point of view or to understand why Moscow feels so threatened have helped to create not just a rival but an adversary, a state whose main mission is to isolate itself from Western power and influence at any cost.

Moscow’s current view is that external dangers to Russia have only multiplied and intensified in recent years. Accordingly, the National Security Strategy asserts that Russia and its citizens are under attack. A number of foreign states identify Russia as a threat or, worse, a military opponent. These same states strive to isolate Russia internationally and to interfere in its domestic affairs. Amid a tough global struggle for spheres of influence, the use of force to resolve international problems has become increasingly common. There is a moral vacuum at the global leadership level. The liberal democratic model is in crisis and Western states are attempting to solve their domestic problems at Russia’s expense.

Strategically, Russia will respond to this unstable and threatening situation by strengthening its military, enhancing its internal security, and reducing its dependence on foreign trade, finances, and technologies.

Equally, the document lays out Russia’s commitment to a unified international order based on legal norms and respectful, trust-based relations between states. It wants to strengthen international institutions, especially the United Nations Security Council, which it sees as the foundation of global order. It aspires to reduce the threat of war, curtail renewed arms races and develop new mechanisms to safeguard strategic stability in the nuclear sphere. Politics, diplomacy and peacekeeping are Russia’s preferred foreign policy instruments as it seeks cooperation with other states in relation to nuclear proliferation, climate change, migration, health threats and counterterrorism.

These internationalist commitments are welcome but they are thin gruel compared to past proposals by Moscow for Russo-American strategic partnership and pan-European collective security. As Russian analyst Dmitri Trenin has commented, the new strategy is designed for an era defined by an “increasingly intense confrontation with the United States and its allies.”

This sorry state of affairs is not seen as Russia’s doing, but the result of strident efforts by Western states to preserve their hegemony in an increasingly multipolar international system at a time of fierce all-around competition to control markets and financial resources.

Moscow is particularly concerned about the role of the internet and its potential for disinformation and subversion, its utilization by criminals and terrorists, and its manipulation by foreign intelligence agencies. Putin has long advocated a cyber pact to control the international information war but that is not highlighted in this document.

A vigorous assertion of Russia’s sovereignty is the persistent theme: state sovereignty in the face of foreign interference in the country’s domestic affairs; the autonomy of its economy, financial institutions, and information technology systems; the country’s cultural specificity and independence; and the moral right of its citizen to choose a traditional way of life based on their religion, family, and community values.

Russian foreign policy is said to be “predictable,” “consistent,” “reliable,” “transparent,” and “pragmatic,” but the document sometimes reads like a political manifesto calculated to appeal to a domestic electorate as they vote in September’s national elections. 

The document includes a section devoted to the social welfare and moral well-being of Russian citizens and the state’s role in fostering the full flowering of their human potential.  Another section is entitled “Defense of Traditional Russian Spiritual-Moral Values, Culture and Historical Memory.” In effect, this defines Russia as a conservative state resistant to the extremes of liberal individualism. Russia’s traditional values are seen as under attack by Western states aiming to undermine the country’s cultural autonomy, while its past is being falsified by those trying to obliterate its common historical memory in order to fan the flames of inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflict. 

Further evidence of Moscow’s defensive stance came in a recent piece Putin wrote on the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations in which he says the western anti-Russia project dates back centuries.

Simon Saradzhyan’s apt summary of the document: “Deter the U.S., ignore the EU, partner with China and India.”

October 1, 2019: Russian President Vladimir Putin listens to president of Kyrgyzstan Sooronbay Jeenbekov during meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in Yerevan, Armenia.(Asatur Yesayants /
Analysis | Europe
US flouts international law with Pacific military claims
The aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) transits the Pacific Ocean Jan. 25, 2020. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Alexander Williams)

US flouts international law with Pacific military claims


In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.

Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States.

keep readingShow less
Not leaving empty handed: Zelensky gets his ATACMs
President Joe Biden and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden greet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Mrs. Olena Zelenska of Ukraine at the South Portico of the White House. (Photo by Allison Bailey/NurPhoto)

Not leaving empty handed: Zelensky gets his ATACMs


So it looks like Ukrainian President Zelensky did not leave Washington empty handed this week after all. According to reports this afternoon, the Biden administration has relented and will transfer long range ATACMs, long considered too escalatory for the conflict, to Ukraine in the “upcoming weeks,” according to POLITICO.

The ATACMs variant that the U.S. is reportedly considering, according to the Washington Post (which, unlike POLITICO says the administration is "nearing an announcement") uses controversial cluster munitions, another old "red line" for the administration in this war, instead of a single warhead. This is not exactly what the Ukrainians had hoped for.

keep readingShow less
Wall Street Journal

Editorial credit: monticello /

WSJ conceals Saudi funding of pro-Saudi nuke deal source


The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “Israeli officials are quietly working with the Biden administration on a polarizing proposal to set up a U.S.-run uranium-enrichment operation in Saudi Arabia as part of a complex three-way deal to establish official diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern countries,” according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

The article, authored by Dion Nissenbaum and Dov Lieber, largely showcases Israeli opposition to the deal. Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a group whose mission includes providing “education to enhance Israel’s image in North America…” was quoted opposing a uranium enrichment program on Saudi soil. He warned that “we’re one bullet away from a disaster in Saudi Arabia,” adding, “What happens if, God forbid, a radical Islamist leader takes control?”

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis