Clarence wrote:I actually agree with him to an extent.
I do believe that quite a large part of "the political system' (specifically the neocon think tanks and the politicians that listen to them and the companies /individuals that profit from this endless war crap) does want at least some limited military action against Russia. All the better to start a new Cold War. They may not want full scale World War 3 , and esp not one with nukes (they do value THEIR lives and property) but once you push a bear too much it's not guaranteed how he will react.
I don't think that anyone
wants direct military action against Russia. It's simply too unproductive. What's happening is that Russia and the US are struggling for the control of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, carrying on the "Great Game" of old between the British and Russian Empire. Nobody on either side wants an open war, they want to control strategic points for the control of oil and other resources (which may mean supporting local conflicts, of course).
After the end of the Cold War Russia was in shambles due to the fall of Communism and the instability under Eltsin, and many in the US saw it as a opportunity to isolate it by supporting local independence movements. The Baltic states and the Caucasus states in particular had a long history of chafing against Russian supremacy within the Soviet Union (when Stalin deported to Siberia anyone who objected to Soviet control, and many who didn't but looked like they could) , and they sought US help to keep Russia in check.
The US was all too happy to help them get independence, break away from Russia and join NATO. In some cases (especially in the Baltic states) independence meant
economic success.
As you would expect there's no love lost between most of the ex Soviet republics and the Russian Motherland, with the exception of Belarus and (until the Euromaidan movement) the Ukraine.
What happened after the political rise of Putin is that Russia got more or less stable and he got rid of anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, including many who had profited of the chaos to become filthy rich. Many Russians cheered at the fall of the profiteers and Putin efficiently managed to portray himself as the rightful leader who was going to fight corruption and Make Russia Great Again (while making deals with the heads of the Chechen mob and happily ordering journalists critical of him to be killed, but that's another story).
He resumed the Great Game and supported and financed counter-independence and/or pan-Russian movements (
Transnistria,
Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, etc).
He also heavily promoted pro-Russian propaganda and skillfully used the Orthodox Church as one of his propaganda tools. He acquired some friends in the West among the religious conservatives, the neo-Nazis, the Euro-skeptic movements (which he preferred and heavily financed) and anyone who had a political view hostile to the US. That's also part of the Game.
It's hard to see them in the US but in Europe there are plenty of Putin lackeys and shills. I'm always amused by the fact that so many people think that the US are "provoking" Russia when in reality it's a clash between two empires and many in Eastern Europe prefer the far away friend to the close neighbor (for understandable historical and political reasons). Interestingly far less people think that by supporting South Korea or Japan or the existence of Taiwan the US are "provoking" China and that we'll soon have an open war with China because the Evil US want it so much.
The Great Game continued when the US (along with many European countries, especially Germany) saw an opportunity to bring the Ukraine closer to the EU and the "West" and financed and supported the Euromaidan (Euro-square) movement, which successfully deposed the pro-Russian president and started talks to join with.
Putin saw this as a threat to Russia joint control over Crimea (mostly ethnically Russian and where the Russian navy has most of its bases in the Black Sea) and to his ambitions of building a pipeline in the Donbass area(mostly ethnically Russian) so he more-or-less openly sent the Russian army to occupy Crimea (which was relatively easy) and to fight in the Donbass. Oh, sure, the Kremlin propaganda line was that it was "local freedom fighters" but in most cases those "local freedom fighters" are Russian military who simply took their dog-tags off.
I'm not saying that what the US are doing is necessarily "right" and what Russia is doing is necessarily "wrong". I'm saying that it's the nature of international politics, and everybody plays that game without necessarily going to war with each other over it. I don't see the Americans as doing anything different from, or morally worse than, what the British Empire did in its times. Putin is also carrying on the policies of the Russian empire, and he's created a cult of himself as the informal "new Czar". He reached a stalemate of sorts in the Ukraine while the fights continue.
The biggest victory for Putin, however, has been Syria. The US supported the overthrowing of Assad, but the situation degenerated so much (I'm over-simplifying things here) that they paved the way to the creation of the Islamic State. Putin skillfully exposed the ties between the US and some "freedom fighters" who were actually ex Al-Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim supremacist groups and their indirect ties with the Islamic State (through Saudi Arabia and the Gulf nations).
The US have lost a lot of international prestige and support over the Syria war, and Putin has scored a big propaganda victory by portraying himself as the paladin of law and order and as the most efficient actor in the fight against the Islamic State.
Now the US are in a position of weakness. I don't think that anyone, not even neocon think-tanks, can imagine that they'll have an easy job at dealing with Russia in the near future, or wants to start military operations. The most efficient strategy right now, after a stalemate in the Ukraine and a huge propaganda blow in Syria is to lick their wounds and go back to square one. You don't start wars from a position of weakness, it's just asking for another defeat.
And Putin doesn't want to go to war with the US. He has got more or less what he wanted in the Ukraine, the EU is weak and unpopular, which pleases him and gives him more room to infiltrate Eastern Europe and he's busy in Syria.
I think that the most likely scenario is an Assad-Iran-Russian victory in Syria, the elimination of the Islamic State (good news), Assad coming back to power (a necessary evil I'm afraid) and Saudi Arabia reacting in some way, probably by killing more Shia Muslims in Yemen (bad news).
The US will back Saudi Arabia against Iran (bad) and they'll carry on with their Great Game against Russia (good for some Eastern Europe countries). I really don't think that they'll just start a war with Russia out of nowhere, and I don't think that Putin wants to go to war now that he's winning the propaganda war and has business to deal with in Syria.
Sure, the ideal choice would be to come to a reasonable compromise with Russia and Iran and to ditch the Saudis, which is possible, but it takes two to tango, and Putin needs to keep his ambitions in check and not over-reach if he wants to open diplomatic channels with the US. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to ditch the Saudis, but she's not likely to simply go to war with Russia (over what?).
What's far more likely is four more years of business as usual.
