The U.S-Russia standoff: implications for global security

The U.S. goal to end the Putin regime by over-extending and unbalancing Russia has thus far not succeeded. For those nations both directly and indirectly affected by America’s escalatory actions, there is clearly a lot at stake should the U.S. succeed. Increasingly lethal arms shipments provided by Washington and its allies motivate Kyiv to continue the fight, but few consider in any meaningful way that such support escalates and protracts the fighting. External military support has pushed Ukraine to incur greater casualties, indicating that Washington and its allies are more focused on defeating Russia than saving Ukraine. The evidence is unequivocal. Today’s conflicts are more protracted and deadly, precisely because geopolitical rivals intervene to support opposing sides, forcing the hands of recalcitrant allies and other countries. For example, America’s military campaigns in Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all failed to support democratic governments, protect human rights, establish robust institutions, and vanquish radical organizations. America’s strategic aim is focused on Russia’s political and economic isolation, regime change, and the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. Yet the narrative of Russian aggression instead of “shared responsibility“ remains dominant. Rather than promoting stability as a “geopolitical hedge” against threats, America’s stated desire to have Ukraine part of NATO, when it was not ready for membership, undermined the very goals of stability and deterrence that NATO was designed to achieve. In brief, America’s current policy is a badly planned, ad hoc, and misguided effort to disrupt Europe’s status quo relationship with Russia such that rapprochement remains out of reach. For example, America’s preoccupation with military affairs and militarization strategies do little to tackle the conflict’s political and economic dimensions. The decision by NATO to increase its forward presence in Eastern Europe, as well as considering Finland and Sweden membership, have only encouraged greater regional insecurity and suspicion within Moscow. Combined with sweeping sanctions on Russia, the decision by the U.S. to pursue the single biggest arms push since the end of the Cold War has ensured an escalatory path and an ever-widening theatre of operation. The U.S. alone has committed about $65-billion in arms to Ukraine. Moreover, Russia’s actions were not without provocation. According to the Biden administration, in the lead up to the Russian invasion in 2022, there were 3,000 close contact incidents between American and Russian forces. These flash-points, many of which were deliberate in their intent to antagonize and escalate, fundamentally undermined the deterrence that was in place for decades. Sending U.S. strategic nuclear capable bombers within 12 miles of the Russian border was one such provocation. Instead of pursuing a diplomatic path, America’s actions have shifted the conflict from one that was subregional to one that is continental if not global. Indeed the U.S. has framed this conflict as one in which all nations must choose a side, imposing secondary sanctions on countries that do not support U.S. policy on Russia. Washington is clearly committed to supporting Kyiv militarily. But evidence on protracted conflict shows that such skewed support focused on a weak country’s security and military domains generates mostly negative outcomes. For those countries that are not directly affected by the U.S.-Russia confrontation, the economic and political fallout is equally significant. The war’s global impact comes from the fact that most nations do not support American sanctions, nor do they necessarily agree with the position the West has taken on confronting Russia with economic warfare. From an ethical and moral standpoint, there is, for these countries, the issue of shared responsibility that, thus far, the U.S. is unwilling to acknowledge. Mitigating the negative impacts that escalatory actions are having on the global economy and geopolitical stability now appear as important as defeating Russia. David Carment is a fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He is also editor of Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, and a series editor for Palgrave’s Canada and International Affairs. Dani Belo is an assistant professor of international relations at Webster University in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S., and a fellow at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses on hybrid and gray-zone conflicts, transatlantic security, grand strategy, the evolution of NATO–Russia relations, ethnic conflicts, and the post-Soviet region. The Hill Times