Russian President Vladimir Putin's lamentation of the Soviet Union's downfall is quoted often by those seeking clues to explain Russia's newfound belligerence. Via the Kremlin's website, here is what Putin said in 2005:
"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself."
Somewhat less cited, but of equal value in communicating the Kremlin's intentions on the global stage, is Putin's 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference:
"What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
"It is [a] world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."
The two speeches taken together offered a glimpse at Putin's intentions and previewed the Russian policy, revanchist or resurgent, of the years to come. Aggression in Georgia and Ukraine harkens back to 2005 -- an attempt to stanch what Moscow sees as the slow creep of Western institutions toward Russia's borders; to reimpose Cold War notions of spheres of influence; and to show off Russia's modernized military and its new breed of hybrid warfare.
Now, following another dramatic speech on a global stage, Russia has caught everybody by surprise in Syria. Putting a war-weary and hesitant America on the backfoot, Russia has taken action in the Syrian war theater. Its planes' targets may be American-backed rebels, rather than jihadists, and Russia's backing may guarantee Bashar Assad's inclusion at the negotiating table as a part of any solution to Syria's civil war. Harking back to Munich, Russian airstrikes constitute the Kremlin's most overt challenge yet to a fading unipolar order. Stratfor:
"Moscow played this out even further by making the point that Russia is the only country acting on behalf of the legitimate government of Syria and thus abiding by international law. By Russia's reasoning, the coalition conducting strikes against the Islamic State in Syria, led by the United States, is an aggressor."
And the implications go well beyond the Eastern Mediterranean:
"Russia is clearly showing its capability as a global leader counter to the United States. This last achievement, however, creates a serious barrier to another objective that Russia was trying to complete through its actions in Syria. Russians are chess players, and they don't stare at just one section of the board; Russia's actions in Syria relate just as much to the Russia-West standoff over Ukraine as they do to the Middle East."
See our sister memo for the implications of this move on the Middle East. For the Transatlantic alliance, it creates a delicate situation. Putin is playing his hand in Syria, challenging U.S. primacy in the broader region. The conflict in Ukraine is stalled for now, and as Constanze Stelzenmuller points out, concerted European and American action in that theater has been more effective than advertised. The costs for Russia of a greater invasion of Ukraine are prohibitive; Moscow's reputation is battered; and sanctions against Russia have increased the internal weakness that keeps Russian aspirations for empire at bay. (Consider that 20 of Russia's regions, this summer, were already technically in default.)
In March, former U.S. diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski called for an approach to Russia that combines deterrence with accommodation. The outcome to be pursued, he said, allows both sides to walk away and justify the result to their constituencies.
In pursuing such an outcome, the United States and Europe still hold plenty of good cards. Ukraine is pursuing closer ties with NATO and the European Union and, while having lost control over its east, is seeking to build a more modern, European state. The United States still holds the option of supplying lethal defensive aid. European leaders can maintain sanctions while also, as Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi wants, extending the bridges that connect their own national interests to Putin's desire for recognition.
It is a moment that begs for the most sober of statesmanship.
Around the Continent
There Will Be Blood: The New Statesman's George Eaton urges readers not to be fooled by the relative equanimity of the Labour Party's conference in Brighton:
"A popular theory in Labour circles is that Corbyn will voluntarily resign after two years, having achieved some internal reforms, and endorse a successor. Lisa Nandy, the shadow energy and climate change secretary, is the name most often mentioned, though she is from the soft left, rather than the leader's harder wing. Those close to Corbyn, however, say that he is "enjoying" the job and is not planning an early departure. This did not prevent speculation in the bars of Brighton about the identity of the next leader. Dan Jarvis, Tom Watson, Yvette Cooper, and Chuka Umunna were the names most commonly cited. Corbyn's opponents acknowledge that their task next time will be to unite around one candidate and to back him or her unreservedly.
Next May, the Labour leader will face his first electoral tests in London, Scotland, Wales and England. Some MPs have earmarked this date as the first possible moment to strike."
Why doesn't Europe have a president? Euractiv's Francois Decoster:
"But, citizens will ask, who is in charge? Who, amongst all of these leaders, is supposed to sort out the mess in times of crisis? Who do we vote out at the ballot box when we are unhappy with how the job has been done? The simple answer is that at European level, there is no leader! The very system we would never dream of having in a local council, a regional or national government, is what we have for our continent: a council of 28 heads of state and government who, for some very crucial matters, must agree unanimously before any action can be taken.
When times are calm, the system may work acceptably enough in some policy areas. But in times of crisis, it fails abysmally. The lack of leadership is revealed in all its horror to Europe's citizens, the member states flounder hopelessly, and only at times can the strongest leader amongst all the heads of government show the way and generate some consensus. The current shambles in the management of refugees is one such crisis which reveals how dangerous it is to deprive the European Union of what we take for granted in all other levels of government: a formal leader, with the powers to act, and accountable to the electorate."
Questions, comments, contributions? Feel free to send us an email, or reach out on Twitter @JoelWeickgenant.