Russia: Real Security Concerns, Real Weaknesses

Even after we take Putin out of the equation, these concerns and problems remain.

In both the legacy and new media, with only a few noteworthy exceptions, we have a persistent and must-not-be-questioned narrative: the current Russian-Ukrainian war exists because an evil Putin hates democracy and wants to restore the Russia empire in eastern Europe.

Russia is the global bogeyman ready to destroy democracies across the globe unless we act now and you sacrifice!

For people who are willing to learn more about why this narrative might be deeply flawed, I will provide a listing of sources at the end of this post. That is not my primary aim here.

I have two simple points to make — both in light of recent events and recent rabid punditry. 

One key recent event: the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz made it clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is not on the table and will not take place.

One key example of recent rabid punditry: several of the essays in a recent Foreign Affairs special collection, “How to Understand the Crisis in Ukraine: The Origins of the Conflict and What Comes Next.”

My two simple points — for which you can even take Putin out of the equation:

1. Russia has real external security concerns.

2. Russia has real internal weaknesses which exacerbate those external security concerns.

So demonize and discredit me. But if you finish this post, I trust you will understand better that: (1) Russia has real external security concerns; and (2) Russia has real internal weaknesses which exacerbate those external security concerns. And these two points hold true regardless of whoever is in charge of Russia, even if Putin is overthrown, otherwise replaced, or dies eventually of natural causes.

Let us begin a trip down the rabbit-hole and into the wonderland of geo-political realities.

1. Russia has real external security concerns

Geography still matters because large armies whether on foot, horseback, or in armored personnel carriers must travel over land and be resupplied. (Large armies: so special operation units, and strike-force units which would work in advance of the main military, are not our concern here).

Russia’s great vulnerability to conventional military operations:  the western border it shares with Belarus and Ukraine.

Below is a physical map of Europe, stopping at the border with Russia — Russia’s western border. A political map of western Russia has been placed next to it like a missing puzzle piece. The scale (fit) is not absolutely perfect — but you’ll get the idea. (Image below courtesy of GIS Geography, (c) 2022. Cited under Fair Use for Educational Purposes).

The Great Northern Plain to the Russian Heartland

To invade Russia from Western Europe, armies travel across the relatively flat expanse — the Northern European plain — which starts in Poland but expands greatly as one enters Ukraine (and to a lesser extent, Belarus).  Invading  Russia across the mountainous territories to the south, or across the mountainous area of fjords to the north, has never been practical for large military formations.

So why should Russia fear an invasion from Europe?  Tim Marshall answers that for us:

The Poles came across the North European Plain in 1605, followed by the Swedes under Charles XII in 1708, the French under Napoleon in 1812, and the Germans—twice, in both world wars, in 1914 and 1941. Looking at it another way, if you count from Napoleon’s invasion of 1812, but this time include the Crimean War of 1853–56 and the two world wars up to 1945, then the Russians were fighting on average in or around the North European Plain once every thirty-three years.

So Russians were defending their western borders roughly once every thirty-three years since 1812.  But with a history that stretches back far longer. They know this for certain: the road to the Russian heartland, including Moscow, is through Ukraine. (Let me acknowledge here my debt to Marshall’s masterful chapter “Russia” in his (2015) Prisoners of Geography.  Highly recommended).

So now we have some essential context for NATO, Russia, and Ukraine, and the recent remarks by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that NATO membership for Ukraine is not on the table and will not take place.

Putin, whether you believe him a manifestation of Satan or not, is not the only Russian leader to express concerns over NATO enlargement. Once again, Russia’s greatest strategic vulnerability in terms of conventional warfare: Russia’s western border with Europe. (The far-eastern border with China and Mongolia is vaster, but opens in to territory far distant from Moscow and away from Russia’s major population centers. Go slog through the tundra of now-melting permafrost if you wish).

Let’s have a brief look at NATO expansionism, in four maps.  (Please note: all the maps and graphs below created by Data Humanist for this post have been released into the Public Domain: CC0. Use and distribute if and as you please, but a link back would be appreciated).

NATO Enlargement in Four Maps

Please note the Berlin Wall fell in 1989; the Soviet Union, and with it, the Warsaw Pact, dissolved in 1991. The Cold War was generally agreed to have ended with Western victory in 1991.

The continuation of NATO enlargement represents a direct security threat to Russia. The total population of the NATO alliance is over 1 billion people; Russia and Belarus combined, roughly 155 million people.  The balance of power economically, even greater in favor of NATO.

If Ukraine flips to NATO, Russia’s western border is indefensible by conventional means. If attacked or significantly provoked, Russia can only defend itself with weapons of mass destruction and the cyber-warfare equivalent.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz understands this — so did John Joseph Mearsheimer, former US Air Force officer and the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago.

John J. Mearsheimer, Prophet

John J. Mearsheimer, an American Cold War realist and no one’s hippy-dippy peacenik, argued in 2014:

The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too.

To avoid conflict — such as the war we are currently witnessing, Mearsheimer (2014)  understood that “granting Ukraine NATO membership could put Russia and the West on a collision course” and so instead “the United States and its allies should publicly rule out NATO’s expansion into both Georgia and Ukraine.”

NATO Enlargement as Core Policy

Under Presidents George W. Bush (2001-2009) and Barrack Obama (2009-2017), NATO expanded by twelve nations: Czech Republic (1999), Hungary (1999), Poland (1999), Bulgaria (2004), Estonia (2004),  Latvia (2004), Lithuania (2004), Romania (2004), Slovakia (2004),  Slovenia (2004),  Albania (2009), and Croatia (2009).  

Both leaders floated also the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. Under President Donald J. Trump, NATO expanded by two additional nations: Montenegro (2017), and North Macedonia (2020).

The addition of Ukraine and Georgia, floated by the George W. Bush and Barrack Obama presidencies, would have resulted in a near-complete sealing of the vast Russian-Belarus western border. A NATO military position in Georgia would effectively the span the stretch from the Black Sea to Azerbaijan: in other words, from the Black Sea to not quite the Caspian Sea.

Mearsheimer (2014) attempted to explain via analogy: “Imagine the outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it.” China may yet do so — but that is another post. We can now freely take Putin out of the equation: no Russian leader concerned with national security would accept an indefensible western border. They know well from history the outcomes of such weakness.

As Mearsheimer (2014) eloquently concluded:

The United States and its European allies now face a choice on Ukraine. They can continue their current policy, which will exacerbate hostilities with Russia and devastate Ukraine in the process—a scenario in which everyone would come out a loser. Or they can switch gears and work to create a prosperous but neutral Ukraine, one that does not threaten Russia and allows the West to repair its relations with Moscow. With that approach, all sides would win.

We did NOT switch gears.  After the brief Trump interruption of largely balance-of-power realist international policy, the Biden-Harris-Whoever Really Is In Charge administration pursued the agenda put in place by former President Barrack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  So here we are.

Bashing Obama, hating Hillary?

Is it fair to place so much blame on President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton team?  Perhaps not, as the bulk of NATO enlargement occurred during the George W. Bush presidency, which was certainly was no highpoint in Russian-American relationships.

But the situation did seem to deteriorate further and faster under President Obama, whom we should remember was the one Nobel Peace Laureate under whose authority an airstrike was conducted on another Nobel Peace Laureate, the  Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, or Doctors Without Borders) at the Kunduz Tramua Centre, killing 42 people and injuring over 30.  (Screenshot below copyright© Nation 2015. Fair use. Linked to news article).

The wars that George W. Bush started, Obama continued and added to — in fact, no national leader in world history authorized more airstrikes and drone strikes than Barrack Obama. The NATO enlargement that George W. Bush made a core policy, Obama continued.

Please do keep in mind all of this was well after the Cold War ended. 1989 was the year the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union just two years later.  Yet the USA, as Mearsheimer (2019) noted,  has “been at war for two out of every three years since 1989, fighting seven different wars.” Hence Mearsheimer’s earlier and failed call to switch gears: to work with Russia to create a neutral and prosperous Ukraine, and one in which the rights of Russian-speaking citizens would not be brutally violated.

Water over the dam — or rather, the dam now burst.

The Western Border

Regardless of whom one blames on the USA policy side, if anyone will be ever blamed or held accountable by the American people or officials, the above maps show the undeniable fact:  in terms of conventional warfare, Russia’s greatest vulnerability is the western border it shares with Ukraine and Belarus. Russia has real and legitimate external security concerns about its western borders, and about what the USA is doing with NATO in Europe.

2. Russia has real internal weaknesses which exacerbate those external security concerns

If the statement by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Ukraine not joining NATO helped motivated the first section of this post, a recent issue of Foreign Affairs provides motivation for the second. Our rabid pundits are falling over themselves to direct your attention to Russia, and only Russia. Let’s not look at what is happening in the USA, or what China is doing on the world stage.

Accept ongoing inflation, increased surveillance, and the continued suspension of your rights and liberties. The crisis never ends. We pivot from the Covid-19 mandates and lockdowns to contesting Russia: and just as the events on 6 January 2020 in Washington, DC, were worse than 9-11 and the American Civil War combined, Russia is back as the global bogeyman ready to destroy democracies across the globe unless we act NOW and you sacrifice. And you must sacrifice.

Deep breath, please. Russia is still a major power (of sorts) and has a stockpile of nuclear weapons and other highly unpleasant weapons of mass disruption as well as destruction. I do NOT deny this. In fact, I am deeply concerned about those weapons leaving Russia via fire sale to Iran, China, Kazakhstan, non-governmental organizations such as criminal gangs and terrorist groups, and so on. If the USA attempts and fails yet again at regime change, we will have opened Pandora’s deadliest box: without control or accountability, we will have globalized the proliferation of nuclear, cyber, and bio-weapons. Attacks of mass destruction will follow by non-state actors, but whatever functioning states remain must deal with the damages. We might become a borderless world in a hurry.

If the USA attempts and fails yet again at regime change, we will have opened Pandora’s deadliest box: without control or accountability, we will have globalized the proliferation of nuclear, cyber, and bio-weapons. Attacks of mass destruction will follow by non-state actors …

Well done, if you are committed to the Great Reset and convinced you will not only survive but perhaps thrive on the chaos. Or, alternatively, perhaps you are an elder statesperson or billionaire philanthropist  who wants to improve our planet before you die: that is, improve by leaving the planet with considerably fewer people populating it. But the majority of human beings — and for that matter, most forms of life visible to the human eye — will not benefit from Russia’s deadliest Pandora’s box being opened and the goodies globally distributed.

Those committed to bringing Putin and/or Russia down should ask themselves: what comes next? If we are going to remove Putin from power, we’d had better be damn certain about who is replacing him.

Back, finally, to my second point: Russia has been in steep decline, and we need to update our thinking, world-view, and policies accordingly.  Understanding that Russia is in decline provides much needed context for Putin’s desperate invasion of Ukraine, and for assessing Russia’s future threat potential.

The Myth of the Myth of Russian Decline

Our Foreign Affairs pundits, Michael Kofman and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, have argued otherwise: “The Myth of Russian Decline.”

They are wrong, and I will show this simply using maps, charts, and statistics that track two of the most important national indicators: Life Expectancy, and Per Capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity).

(Life Expectancy also serves as a proxy for the overall quality of life in a nation. Adjusted Per Capita GDP informs us not only how the average citizen approximately experiences the national wealth, but it also provides insight about general state of the nation (infrastructure; domestic stability; economic development; etc.).

You will learn that Russia is undeniably in decline. Russia is not the military power it once was.  Russia presents NO conventional military threat to even a semi-united Western Europe. None. To undertake such grand adventures, Russia simply does not have the war machine, the resources, the population, or the economic strength. 

And Russia damn well knows this. Even if our pundits and MSM and New Media commentators do not, but will NOT stop talking about Russia as the global bogeyman ready to destroy democracies across the globe unless we act now and you sacrifice. Let’s look at the data.

Life Expectancy over Six Decades

We will begin at a time of relative parity: 1961, the Cold War very much in full swing and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact alive and well. The data set used is for all Life Expectancy visualizations is from the esteemed Gapminder Foundation; the direct URL: {http://gapm.io/ilex}.

Please note for this set and the next set of graphs, some of the data observations are clearly estimates after the historical fact as the dissolution of the Soviet Union saw new nations – several of which are now in NATO. The politically neutral Gapminder Foundation has a reputation for integrity and excellent – so I will place some trust in the general reliability of their data sets. On a related note, since Poland was of historical importance then and remains a strategic interest now, I label the location on all the maps that follow.

Let’s compare the results for Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine to the current European NATO members nations. We want to track how each group has fared over time. In 1961, the European NATO average for life expectancy was 68.66.

• Belarus: 71.5 (roughly 2.84 years higher than the EU NATO average 68.66)

• Russia: 69.3 (roughly 0.64 years higher than the EU NATO average 68.66)

• Ukraine: 71.1 (roughly 2.44 years higher than the EU NATO average 68.66)

Our Soviet Bloc nations were performing well enough in comparison. This will not last. In 1991, the year the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw pact ended, we see NATO pulling ahead.  The average European NATO nation life expectancy was 73.67.

Our three comparison nations are now meaningfully trailing:

• Belarus: 70.8 (roughly 2.87 years lower than the EU NATO average 73.67).

• Russia: 69.3 (roughly 4.37 years lower than the EU NATO average 73.67)

• Ukraine: 69.9 (roughly 3.77 years lower than the EU NATO average 73.67)

We now come to last year, 2021.  Globally, life expectancy suffered because of Covid-19 and poorly designed Covid-19 policies.  (My comments on the USA policies are elsewhere). But since all nations suffered to some degree, we still have a basis for comparison. The average life expectancy for the EU NATO nations: 79.79.

The gap between our three comparison nations and the European NATO nations has significantly increased.

• Belarus: 74.3 (roughly 5.49 years lower than the EU NATO average 79.79)

• Russia: 73.3 (roughly 6.49 years lower than the EU NATO average 79.79)

• Ukraine: 74.1  (roughly 5.69 years lower than the EU NATO average 79.79)

Again, the variable Life Expectancy also serves as a proxy for the overall quality of life in a nation.  No question by this measure that Russia has been in decline.

Per Capita GDP (PPP) over Six Decades

From public health and general quality of life to economics and also the general state of nation, we now look at Per Capita GDP (adjusted for purchasing power parity, or PPP). Our data set again comes for the Gapminder Foundation. The Per Capita GDP (PPP) variable is explained by the source as the  “Gross domestic product per person adjusted for differences in purchasing power (in international dollars, fixed 2011 prices, PPP based on ICP).” The direct URL:  {http://gapm.io/dgdppc}.

We start again in 1961, with the Cold War in full swing and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact standing strong.

Then as now, Switzerland and Luxembourg were rolling in the dough re mi.  But the average NATO member Per Capita GDP (PPP) was roughly 9351.07. Dragged down in 1961 by nations that were then in the USSR alliance but are now NATO members. Again, we are comparing the fates of political entities over time. How these nations did after joining NATO is of interest — and our graphs will indicate the results.  But back to our three nations for comparison:

• Belarus: 5490 (roughly 59% of  the EU NATO average 9351.07)

• Russia: 6870 (roughly 74% of the EU NATO average 9351.07)

• Ukraine: 6760 (roughly 72% of the EU NATO average 9351.07)

 (By “roughly,” I mean that most numbers generally rounded to 2 decimal places). So our three comparison nations are meaningfully behind in Per Capita GDP (PPP), but still doing well in Life Expectancy.  For 1961.  Money isn’t everything – until it is.  Which brings us to our next two years for comparison, starting with 1991.  Polite reminder: In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved and the Warsaw Pact ended.

In 1991, the average European NATO member Per Capita GDP (PPP) was roughly 24489.64. In comparison:

• Belarus: 8780 (roughly  36% of  the EU NATO average 24489.64)

• Russia: 20400 (roughly 83% of the EU NATO average 24489.64)

• Ukraine: 14400 (roughly 59% of the EU NATO average 24489.64)

Belarus has dropped from 59% to 36%; and Ukraine from 72% to 59%. Russia has shown some improvement — going from 74% to 83%. This would not hold.

We now come as close to the present as the data permits: last year, 2021. Or, the year before the invasion.

In 2021, the average European NATO member Per Capita GDP (PPP) was roughly  40053.57. In comparison:

• Belarus: 19100 (roughly  48% of  the EU NATO average 40053.57)

• Russia: 27200 (roughly 68% of the EU NATO average 40053.57)

• Ukraine: 12900 (roughly 32% of the EU NATO average 40053.57)

From 1961 to 1991 to 2021, Ukraine has gone from 72% to 59% to 32% of the the average NATO member Per Capita GDP (PPP).  So much for the promises of the Orange Revolution: we have regression not progression since 2004.

Russia likewise has declined: from 74% to 83% to 68%.  And Belarus, 89% to 36% to 48%: poor results.

All the Data in One Chart, One Table

We can summarize these results — and show Russia’s relationship in terms of Life Expectancy  and Per Capita GDP (PPP) with one slightly complex graph, and one summary stats data table.

The “Bad” Quadrant

Let’s visualize first; read the numbers, second.  The graph below is segmented to show the results for each year studied: 1961, 1991, and 2021.  Each plot is divided into four uneven quadrants.  The “bad” quadrant is a result that has a Life Expectancy below 75 years of age, and Per Capita GDP (PPP) below 30,000.  NATO members are the blue points; Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, the red points. 

You will notice that for year 1961, ALL the nations are in the “bad” quadrant: Life Expectancy < 75 years & Per Capita GDP (PPP) < 30,000.  But please also pay attention to how the “bad” quadrant changes over time: the red points stay, most of the blue points advance.

So although all our nations in 1961 started out in the “bad” quadrant, in 2021 only the nations of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and the NATO nations of Bulgaria and North Macedonia remain. Russia is the red point with the lowest expectancy; Bulgaria is the NATO nation with the lowest Per Capita GDP (PPP). Bulgaria still outperforms Russia for Life Expectancy and matches closely with Per Capita GDP (PPP).

If a nation such as Russia is on the level of Bulgaria in terms of Life Expectancy and Per Capita GDP (PPP), it can only be a major power in highly limited areas. In so far as Russia is a major power, Russia has clout only because of its Pandora’s box filled with weapons of mass destruction and disruption: nuclear, biological, and cyber.

Back to my earlier statement:

Russia does not have the conventional military strength  or economic support for grand adventures in Europe or Eurasia. Period. Russia presents NO conventional military threat to even a semi-united Western Europe. NONE.

So here’s that data table of summary stats, btw, for our three RED nations in comparison to the European NATO members. 

Yes, the Clinton Foundation wishes for you to (mis)understand Russia as the global bogeyman ready to destroy democracies across the globe unless we act now and you sacrifice. And the Clinton Foundation, our deep state, and our globalist coastal elites are winning handily that battle of mis- and dis- and mal-information. But their narrative fails the reality test.

What about population?  Well, I covered that previously on American Exile. Russia and Belarus combined have an estimated population of 153,499,000 people.  The total NATO alliance, over 1 billion.  But if we limit the set of member nations to just  Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland, we have an estimated population of  362,700,000 people.  So the combined population of Russia and Belarus is roughly 42% of that of just those seven member nations.  A Russian invasion of Western Europe is not going to happen — and is not even on the table.

Don’t Happy, Be Worried

Russia breaking into its Pandora’s box?  Using weapons of mass destruction and disruption?  A pre-emptive start to WWIII (aka, the Great Reset). All that is on the table.  A real and unhappy possibility. Because Russia will defend itself. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz knows this — and Professor John J. Mearsheimer knows this — and now you know this as well.

We Will NOT Discuss

One final chart. You might wonder why no one in the USA is talking about China in this general  context. Or, perhaps wondering about this never occurred to you.   

China is an essential economic partner; Russia is not. In fact, the USA owes China. Don’t believe me?  Let’s have a look at our trade (im)balance with China:

Direct URL to data source: {https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html}. An official US Government source.

Just a few quick notes about what we will not discuss. We need a “major power” enemy to justify our military expenditures, our deep state, and our corrupt elites controlling us, but China right now is far too important to us economically. We are dependent. In 1989, the year the Berlin Wall came down, the USA had a negative $6,234.3 million balance of trade with China. In 2014, the year of the Ukrainian coup, the USA balance of trade with China was a negative $344,817.7 million.

Let’s do some basic math. 344,817.7 divided by 6,234.3 equals (rounded): 55. In 2014, our negative balance of trade with China was 55 times higher than in 1989. Our  “plan” to reverse this trade imbalance?  Export the NBA, Hollywood, Cardi B. (Go Cardi B, go!)

So how’s that working out for you, my fellow Americans?  Creating good jobs in the USA?  You got benefits?  You can buy a home or afford your rent?  Savings for retirement?  

Topics for another post.

Your take-away for today:

1. Russia has real external security concerns.

2. Russia has real internal weaknesses which exacerbate those external security concerns.

I may return to this general topic in the near future. Or not. Thank you sincerely for considering American Exile as an alternative source of analysis and commentary. If you found this post of interest, please do share.  All the images here within created by Data Humanist released into the Public Domain (CC0).  The text © 2022, but please freely share this post for educational  and entertainment purposes. (If sued, I will plead the Tucker Carlson defense).

---

Note: This post was edited on 9 March 2022 to correct a factual errors about NATO enlargement under the Barrack Obama presidency, whose policies were (in some ways, perhaps understandably) conflated with those of the George W. Bush presidency. My mistake, period. I have also clarified the comparison between Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is with NATO Europe: not all of NATO (excludes the USA and Canada), and not all of Europe. My focus again is strictly the European balance of power, as I believe the EU must step up to resolve the security and economic issues, and that NATO and the USA should step back and have at a best a supporting role to the European leadership.

---

Other Sources

If you got this far down the rabbit hole, you might want to continue your journey in the wonderland of geo-political realities versus the narratives approved by the MSM and enforced on social media.

David Stockman, former congressperson and Ronald Reagan’s OMB director, offers a no-holds barred and richly detailed US gov insider narrative on the USA in Ukraine: “The Land Where History Died, Part 1.” This essay is NOT for the faint of heart.

Glen Greenwald recently published an essential essay on the Russian-Ukraine war, and the USA’s involvement in contributing to and now perhaps escalating that war: “War Propaganda About Ukraine Becoming More Militaristic, Authoritarian, and Reckless.”

Back to the Dean of Geo-Political Realism, the great John J. Mearsheimer:

• his classic essay (2014) in Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault”;

• his lecture (2015) “The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine Crisis”;

• his recent (2019) book The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Yale UP but available in e-book format from all the standard vendors.

Jimmy Dore on YouTube has done the Yeoman’s work in lining up informed guests to combat the standard narratives.  Of his numerous excellent videos on the Russian-Ukraine War, his discussions with Aaron Mate are exceptional.

Anything & everything Aaron Mate writes about the topic.

Kim Iverson has shown some serious independence of thought — which might well get her banished from The Hill, which itself was recently suspended from YouTube.

And back to Substack, the Good Citizen has now several posts exploring the psychological, social, and geo-political dimensions of our current moment.  Some people understand his work as satire.  But as the great Jonathan Swift taught his readers, a true joke is something you are not sure you do not mean. Good Citizen knows the joke is on us — and increasingly, the joke is us. His writing strikes me as a similar to a small batch of highest quality bourbon (or whiskey or rye, as you prefer).  Perhaps not yet for everyone, but certainly for the connoisseurs.