On April 24th, I sat down with Professor John Kopper, chair of the Russian department at Dartmouth College to discuss recent developments regarding the situation in Ukraine, especially heightened tensions between the United States and Russia.
JS: The United States has started stationing soldiers in Poland for military exercises. Today 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Poland and they will be joined by another 450 troops in the next few days. There will also be further military exercises run by the U.S. in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. What does this deployment mean for the situation in Ukraine? Why do you think the U.S. deployed soldiers now?
JK: I think we’re mainly reassuring those countries, and Poland, that being in NATO means something. They’re nervous. Three of them are former republics and they see Putin invading a republic and occupying it. Annexing part of it. Poland was behind the Iron Curtain. Although they don’t share a border with Russia, actually. None of the Eastern European countries do now. The borders are with Belarus and Ukraine. They still fear invasion because, historically, they’re enemies.
JS: Do you think the U.S. is escalating the situation?
JK: No. Not at all. Putin’s escalating this situation. This probably wouldn’t exist without one man. Maybe the whole thing. It’s a chess game for sure, and both sides are trying to get away with something with an escalation that their allies and their populations accept without invoking a destructive situation, which would be war.
JS: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed the U.S. was “running the show” in Kiev. What did he mean, or is that part of Russia’s information strategy?
JK: It’s definitely spin and he’s appealing to the xenophobic streak in the Russian population right now. They don’t want people meddling in what Putin’s trying them is not just their backyard but their property. I think we virtually have no influence right now on Ukrainian politics.
JS: The U.S. is reportedly considering appointing a new ambassador to Russia. Will this help improve the situation?
JK: No. That’s the short answer. The ambassador doesn’t make policy. What you hope for is an ambassador who’s well enough informed that it’s simply another good voice reporting on what’s going on in Russia and who has the contacts within Russia to possibly make a small difference.
JS: A recent New York Times article claims Russia is demonstrating a new military prowess - one combining special ops troops, cyber-warfare and a mass information campaign. This strategy is much more complex that its military strategy used in Chechnya at the turn of the century. What do you think?
JK: I think it’s technically true. In terms of improving the military, Putin is another example of Russian rulers who model themselves on Peter the Great. It’s the latest westernizing - he’s westerning the military and he’s doing a very good job. He’s sharp enough to know the Western models are the most successful. So he is trying to be like us. On the other hand, the vast majority of people in the Russian army are not going through special ops training. Their general level of training is far below American forces or those of any western European country. Most are conscripts. They live in terrible conditions, they’re demoralized, and looking at the size of the Russian army now doesn’t tell the whole story. A sector of it is increasingly well-trained like its western counterparts.
JS: Do you think the situation will escalate beyond military exercises and ignite into an actual war?
JK: I think it could. I can see a non-nuclear war breaking out in small areas, one after another. I don’t see a major conflagration. I guess I find myself looking at Putin following too close in Hitler’s footsteps in the late 1930s, wanting land, basing it on ethnic claims and knowing that his popularity is largely contingent on that. The Russian economy isn’t doing too well at the moment. I think the difference is countries gave Hitler things because they thought if they gave him one more little piece, that would be enough. We have the example of Hitler so countries aren’t thinking like that now. Today it’s more a case of ‘what can we realistically do to stop Putin?’ and that’s a huge difference.
JS: If you do think that a conflict is possible, what do you think the likelihood of that be? What would need to happen for that to occur?
JK: I think Russia going into NATO countries would certainly force the issue. I don’t know how long NATO could get away with doing nothing without essentially doing nothing. It was brought into existence to fight the Soviet Union. It wasn’t dissolved when the Soviet Union dissolved, so if it has a reason to exist now, it would be to protect Europe from Russia. And if it doesn’t, everyone will assume that means it can’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment