Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

ARTICLE: Putin Says U.S. Is Undermining Global Stability, By THOM SHANKER and MARK LANDLER, New York Times, February 11, 2007

Don't get too excited on this one. You have to remember how far down the Soviet/Russian military--and especially the navy--fell across the 1990s.

As I recounted in PNM, I made projections on this with the aid of a longtime U.S. Intell expert on the Soviet navy, and our "best case" scenario for their collapse was far exceeded.

So if the old Sov navy gets indexed at 100, the collapse was to about 20, and Putin's promised resurgence elevates them to maybe 35-40, and that's being very kind to Russian military capabilities (not to mention their professionalism).

Then add in the fact of no real antagonism toward the West (Russia's biggest customer base), and only the most die-hard Cold Warriors get a glint in their eye.

Watching New Core pillars like India, China and Russia build up their militaries, some should be welcomed, not feared. Check out their incentive structure on future global developments and they want the same things we do, plus they recognize the same threats. The lost opportunity here under Bush has been how marginally we've improved our ties with these natural and future allies. India falls into our lap for the price of admitting it's a nuke power, but that's basically it to date, leaving every natural turn in China's rise and Russia's return subject to fear-threat reactions on our part.

As I note consistently, the Bush administration is great at picking up enemies, but sucks at developing new allies. Simply put, two terms of Bush is all we can waste in future alliance building. Bush and Co. adjusted the rule set well, and started the process of changing the playing field adequately (although primarily through failed execution). Where they have made little to no progress is in altering the roster. There, the net impact of this administration has been profoundly negative: scaring old allies and disturbing potential new ones to the point of great distrust, while casually conflating various threats from radical Islam. No matter what tactical diplomatic wins this crew pulls off (zero out State Department non-political Chris Hill and you've got almost nothing), the strategic opportunities lost have been huge.

We have to understand that, to the vast bulk of the world and to even our closest allies, it's America who has acted "unusually hostile" these past six years. They don't hate us so much as they are disappointed and bewildered by our behavior.

Good news? All becomes possible on 20 January 2009, assuming we choose a deal-maker and not a deal-breaker.

Had quite enough of the latter recently.

Thanks to Bryan Jones for sending this.