Friday, April 5, 2019
Russia as a Threat to the US
Russia as a Threat to the USThisessay bequeath examine Russia as the most signifi shtupt security threat/security gainsay confronting the U.S. The guanine strategy to address that threat is retaking the offensive. Additionally,the international theory of naturalismthat aligns with the grand strategy will be examined. Next, the essay willexplore the historical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine in put up to support the grand strategy as an shell of thatevidence. Last, the essay will discuss the risk of infections, as well as the international relations theory of badism, to illustrate this grand strategy. The most significant security threat/security challenge that faces the U.S. today is Russia.i Russias nuclear weapon stockpile and aggressive, unpredictable satisfys are reasons that country presents the most serious near-term threat to existence wide stability.ii One rationale for this security challenge of the threat is that Russia partners with different weaker states, such as Syria, to exhort and supply these states in order to accomplish its own strategic objectives, by looking to leverage its forces support to the Asad regimeand function its military intervention in Syria, in conjunction with efforts to capitalize on fears of a growing ISIS and extremist threat to expand its role in the Middle East.iii With Russias weapons capability, and action to create alliances with other weaker states, it offers these partnered states a cockeyeder opportunity to use nuclear proliferation,iv or chemical weapons as a strategic rationale against the U.S. to prevent the U.S. from acting against them, as well as an offensive strategy to use to charge the U.S.v These weaker states, like Syria, can present as great a danger as strong states to the U.S. national engrosss.vi For example, weapons of mass destruction could be nuclear or biological. Biological weapons can be slow accessible nuclear weapons are more difficult to obtain on its own, but a internationa l terrorist organization can secure weapons from a state.vii Anotherexample of Russias threat against the U.S., is its defiance of non-stateorganizations, that Russiain its post-Soviet roleis re-surging withshogunate and is aggressively contesting liberal norms, by seeking toweaken and divide non-state organizations, such as, NATO and the EU.viiiTo illustrate this point, Russia created a ground-launched travel missile(GLCM) that the U.S. claimed Russia violated the Intermediate-Range NuclearForces (INF) Treaty. That breach enables Russia to continue to produce GLCMs,ixthereby perpetuating the nuclear proliferation threat to the U.S. thus faranother(prenominal) example is Russias cyber threat.Russia is consistently seeking to use cyberspace to bolster its ownstatus, man attempting to threaten the U.S.s interests in the areas ofgoernment, military commercial, social and infrastructure. Recently, Russia used its aggression of cyberto influence the U.S.s 2016 elections. get ahead, R ussias actors conducteddisruptive cyber attacks outside the U.S., and has leveraged cyber space toseek to influence public opinion across Europe and Eurasia.x This is another security challenge for the U.S.,as Russia continues to seek out weaknesses in the U.S.s systems as well aspartner with other states to build aggression against the U.S. Theabove discussed Russia security challenges raises the intensity of interest toa take aim of vital, because of the seriousnessof its threats against the U.S. Protecting its physical existence when in jeopardy,due to attack or threat of attack is the most all important(predicate).xiFurther, a vital interest is one in which interest is so crucial to a state, itwill not compromise. An example of this is to prevent the regionalproliferation of WMDprevent the emergence of a regional hegemon in regions,promote the well-being of allies and friends and protect them from externalaggression.xii Thevital level corresponds to the basicinterest of defens e of the homeland dueto those threats and therefore causes the U.S. to employ a strategy that alignswith its national interest of survival.xiiiThe example for this is toprevent,deter and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponattacksprevent the emergence of hostile major plys or failed statesxivThe evidence discussed above illustrates that Russia rises to the intensitylevel of vital for the greatestsignificant security challenge the U.S. faces.Inlight of the security threat posed by Russia, the U.S. should pursue the grandstrategy of re-taking the offensive. victimizationthis approach for the fall outment of the liberal order, serves the U.S.sglobal interests. That the spread of democracy and market economics,prominence of liberal ideas as the guiding norms of international affairs,preservation of global stability and balance of positionxvis the accurate and tolerate direction for the U.S. to take regarding thegrand strategy. The re-taking theoffensive is important because it must continue sustain the liberal ordertopursue efforts to sustain and invigorate the momentum. To accomplish this, theimplications are to provide the U.S. with safety, security and prosperity (U.S.citizens), retain and change its diplomatic and economic ties with its allies (Germany,France, UK, Japan, India and Australia), reinvest in liberal democratic programswith non-governmental agencies (NATO, UN, EU), but most importantly, toaggressively fight nuclear proliferation (Russia, Syria), as well as otherthreats (chemical attack, terrorism) to the international order.xviAn example of this re-take the offensiveapproach is the alliance between the U.S. and Ukraine, through coalitionwith each other, cooperate together in order to thwart regional hegemonyexpansion by Russia. It shows evidence that illustrates how the grand strategy ofretaking the offensive addresses thesecurity threat to the U.S. by Russia. TheIR theory that aligns with the grand strategy is reali sm. Realists view world politics as a ply struggle that isconducted with conditions characterized by anarchy, and define a statesinterest in terms of levels of power over other states as a self-help mechanism.xviiFor example, using hard power as a meaning by which states advance their nationalinterests to force an enemy or reluctant ally to adhere to a states nationalobjectives is the main objective in order to maintain domination over the otherstates, thereby allowing the stronger state an opportunity to act upon its own agenda.Further, peace is defined as the absence of war, occurs when states adhere totheir own singularly defined national interests. Once in place, it becomes anintensive driving force, that states can no longer control its momentum, butbecomes engulfed in its movement, and then controlled by it.xviiiTherefore, as an example, by the US pushing back on chinawares significantlygrowing political, military and economic power, this demonstrates how the U.S.seeks to get the hang another state. Chinas strategy of its own position of increasingimprovement, will motivate China into expanding its regional and globalinfluence, thereby propelling China into the competitive sphere of other majorsuperpowersthe U.S. This endangers the U.S.s national interests, which mustthen exert its own power in order to retain its brilliant position.xixFurtherillustrating domination by using hard power to dominate others, by incorporatingsoft power thereafter, a state can replace domination by cooperation wherediplomatic, military and economic relationships of coalitions can undulate inorder to assert against other nations states from becoming importantinternational actors.xxThe IR theory of realism supports theU.S. grand strategy of retaking the offensiveby using levels of power in a self-help rule in which to control otherstates in order to achieve its objectives.Thehistorical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine is an important document for U.S. foreign policy that isconsidered the start of the Cold War. The tenetarticulated that the United States would provide military, political, andeconomic aid to threatened states that were under subjugation from outsideauthoritarian forces.xxi Additionally, the Truman Doctrine created a policyfor containment and bullying to thwart further expansion of Russia and itssphere of influencexxii.To further illustrate the historical significance ofthe threat from Russia, the doctrine was created in response to assist Greece andTurkeydemocratic nations which were in danger of becoming overthrown by theRussian regime. This doctrine supports the grand strategy of retaking the offensive, as the U.S. mustintervene and maintain its strategic interests in order to forethought the worldagainst authoritarian/communist attempts to threaten and politically overturnU.S. democratic spheres of influence throughout the world. Therisks, as viewed through the lens of the IR theory of liberalism, and the reliance on intelligen ce organizations and otheractors that play an more and more important role regarding global affairs. Specifically,the U.S.s reliance upon its alliances with these states and non-governmentalorganizations to thwart Russia, illustrates that riskNATO, UN, and WTOinorder to follow their liberal sanction for Russia to be thwarted. The questionis whether or not these partners possess the vigor need to sustain or advancethat order.xxiiiThe risk is the reliance on the influence to shape the environment for the successof the U.S. it is placing its fate in other organizations hands, andtherefore relying upon its unknown ability to assist in exercising the U.S.sstrategic objectives. This risk demonstrates the justification of retaking the offensive as the grandstrategy regarding Russias threat to the U.S.Thisessay analyzed Russia as the most significant threat to the U.S. today. Inlight of this threat, the grand strategy of retakingthe offensive is conquer for the U.S. The IR theory of rea lism is the foundation for retaking the offensive, as illustratedby the historical precedent of the TrumanDoctrine, whereas liberalism increasesthe risk to this grand strategy of retakingthe offensive.ENDNOTESi Missy Ryan,Pentagon unveils budget priority for next year Countering Russia and China, New York Times, February 2, 2016.ii Leon Shane,III, introduction Joint Chiefs chairman calls Russia, China top threats, Military Times, July 9, 2015. iii Daniel R.Coats, World-wide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence participation, SenateSelect perpetration on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017 1.iv Glenn P.Hastedt, Military Instruments BigWars, in American distant Policy Past,Present and Future, (Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), 334.v Ibid. vi Liana SunWyler, Weak and Failing States Evolving tribute Threats and U.S. Policy,(Washington, D.C. congressional research Service, April 18, 2008) 1-8. vii Stephen D.Krasner, Failed States and American National Security, Hoover InstitutionJo urnal, Hoover Institute, April 16, 2015.viii Hal Brands,American dreadful system and the Liberal parliamentary law Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND render toFurther Explore U.S. scheme in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a incidentally Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016 11.ix Daniel R.Coats, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, SenateSelect Committee on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017 6.x Daniel R.Coats, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, SenateSelect Committee on National Intelligence, May 11, 2017 1.xi Dennis M.Drew and Donald M. Snow, Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy An introto Modern National Security Processes and Problems, Air University Press, (November 2006) 33xii Alan G.Stolberg, Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century in U.S.Army War College spotter to National Security Issues, 5th ed. Vol. II,ed. J. Boone Bartholo mees, Jr 13-21.Carlisle Barracks, PA U.S. Army War College, June 2012. xiii Dennis M.Drew and Donald M. Snow, Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy An Introductionto Modern National Security Processes and Problems, Air University Press, (November 2006) 33xiv Alan G.Stolberg, Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century in U.S.Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th ed. Vol. II,ed. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr 13-21.Carlisle Barracks, PA U.S. Army War College, June 2012. xv Hal Brands,American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND Project toFurther Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a Timely Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016 13.xvi Ibid.xvii Dr. ChrisBolan, Realism, lecture, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, citedwith permission of Dr. Bolan. xviii Glenn. PHastedt, formation American Foreign Policy Problems, in Americ an Foreign Policy Past, Present and Future, (Rowman and Littlefield,2015), 33. xix HalBrands, American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order Continuity, Change, andOptions for the Future, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RANDProject to Further Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, PerspectiveExpert Insights on a Timely Policy Issue, TheRand Corporation, 2016 11.xx Ibid.xxi Ibid. xxii Ibid.xxiii Hal Brands,American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order Continuity, Change, and Optionsfor the Future, Building a Sustainable International Order, A RAND Project toFurther Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World, Perspective Expert Insightson a Timely Policy Issue, The RandCorporation, 2016 11.