Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior

It would take a book to do an in-depth analysis of the multiple variables that are contributing to a pattern of Russia’s military aggression against its neighbors.  The historical observations here are provided  for perspective, but what I am offering is an actions/outcomes description.  The conclusions are opinion, but the opinions of informed persons are information for decision making. 

Historically Russia has consistently pursued three goals.  Russia needs warm water ports (like Sevastopol in Crimea) for trade and military purposes.  They need ports that remain ice free all year long.  The French under Napoleon and the Germans under Hitler invaded Russia from the West, and Russia was nearly conquered.  Russia wants a buffer zone of client states between itself and Western Europe in which to stop invasions before they reach the motherland.  Since the time of Peter the Great, the Russians have worked to develop and modernize their industrial base. 

Following the Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons in 1949, the Soviet Union rapidly developed into a nuclear power.  More recent Russian national goals have included becoming a military and economic superpower that has the ability to project power on a worldwide scale.  To further those ends, they have also sought to develop a network of friendly countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and South America as a market for their goods, a location for their military bases, a source of raw materials, and as potential allies against the United States and other NATO nations. 

Beginning with the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Soviet Union gradually began to fall apart, and by 1992 it ceased to exist.  During the Soviet Era, Russia controlled the other Soviet Socialist Republics and the nations that made up the Warsaw Pact (Eastern Bloc).  The fall of the Soviet Union was a major setback for Russia.  The countries she had formerly dominated and oppressed declared independence. 

Russia’s currency was worthless.  The transition from a centrally directed economy to a market driven economy initially resulted in economic chiaos. 

Great numbers of Russians took advantage of the relaxed controls on emigration and left the country.  They often joined Russian speaking minority populations in the Baltic States and former Soviet Socialist Republics. 

Eventually, Russia began to recover economically, with the help of aid and expertise provided by the United States and other industrialized nations.  After the election of Vladimir Putin as prime minister in 1999, Russia has regained its position as a major military power and a provider of raw materials for European energy production. 

Historically, the Russian economy has been based on exporting raw materials and importing finished goods.  Real prosperity has eluded them due to economic mismanagement under the czars and communists, lack of diversified industrial development, and the nature of their foreign trade.  In the last 20 years, Mr. Putin and a collection of industrialists known as “oligarchs” have brought prosperity to Russia’s urban areas by exporting energy products, but the rural areas have remained poor. Due to this prosperity, Mr. Putin has enjoyed high job approval and personal popularity among the Russian people. 

At first, Adolph Hitler brought prosperity to the German people, and they loved him for it.  Later, he enhanced his popularity with the people by successfully dominating Austria and Czechoslovakia.  He squandered the prosperity of his people, and his political capital, by engaging in foreign military adventures that ended in failure and Germany’s destruction.  Will the same be true for Vladimir Putin? 

As long as Joseph Stalin was the dictator, everyone was afraid to dissent.  After Stalin died in 1953, unrest among the Eastern Bloc nations that were oppressed and controlled by the Soviet Union began to surface.  It began in Poland in 1956 when a workers’ strike was suppressed by the Polish Army.  In subsequent negotiations, however, the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) agreed to withdraw its troops from Poland. 

Some feel this emboldened the resistance movement in Hungary, and a rebellion began.  It was crushed by the Soviet military, and those rebels who were not killed in the fighting were executed.  I was eight years old when television newscasts of the fighting were aired in the United States.  I will never forget how I was affected by the scenes of Hungarians beating their fists on Russian tanks.  Their only antitank weapons were Molotov cocktails, but they still fought and died for freedom. 

I was 20 years old in 1968 when the Soviet Army led troops from the other Warsaw Pact countries into Czechoslovakia to suppress efforts to liberalize the communist government there and achieve greater independence from the USSR.  Nobody came to Czechoslovakia’s defense. 

It was my Junior year in college, and I was taking a Military Science class taught by an Infantry Lt. Colonel.  We asked him if he thought we would be going to war to help the Czechs.  He said didn’t think so, and that he hoped we wouldn’t have to fight “Ivan” any time soon.  He thought we could win, but he was aware of the price we would have to pay. 

With Russian support and encouragement, the provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia declared independence from the Republic of Georgia in 2008.  In response to shelling by separatist forces, the Georgians attacked.  Russia entered the conflict and defeated the Georgians.  Although defeated militarily, the Republic of Georgia has continued to seek closer ties with the West. 

There was very little response from the nations of Western Europe, who just called for a ceasefire.  The Obama Administration was in the process of trying to “reset” relations with Russia, after what they thought was ham-handed and offensive treatment of them by George W. Bush.  So they did nothing.  It is generally believed that these mild reactions caused the Russians to believe they could do what they pleased with the former Soviet Socialist Republics in Eastern Europe.  Some think it emboldened Vladimir Putin to start trouble in the Donbas Region of Ukraine and to annex Crimea.  I recall saying at the time that if we did not help Georgia, Russia would continue its aggression elsewhere. 

One way of looking at the war between Russia and Ukraine is by thinking of it as one long and sporadic conflict that began in 2014 and continues to this day.  As in the case of Georgia, the excuse for beginning hostilities was alleged mistreatment of Russian speaking minorities in Crimea and Ukraine’s Donbas Region.  Militias that were organized and trained by Russia entered into conflict with the Ukrainian Army, which continued fairly steadily until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.  It has been open warfare ever since. 

In a 2014 election, “supervised” by Russian paramilitary operatives, Crimean voters opted for Crimea to be annexed by Russia.  The Crimean plebiscite is not regarded as a free and fair election.  Ukraine is attempting to return Crimea to Ukrainian control as part of its war effort to expel the Russian invaders. 

In this Blog, and in emails and letters, I have repeatedly called upon the US Government to provide Ukraine with greater assistance, short of committing US troops to the conflict.  I urge every American to contact their US Senators and Representatives urging them to give Ukraine everything they need to win. 

Why? Because in the last 67 years, Russia has repeatedly used military force to thwart their neighbors’ desire for freedom, independence, economic ties with the European Union, and NATO membership.  It is generally recognized that past behavior may be predictive of future behavior.  If Vladimir Putin and his supporters among the “hardliners” and oligarchs in Russia are not stopped – if they are allowed to succeed in Ukraine – it will only be a matter of time before they strike somewhere else.  Then the cost in lives and treasure for ending their aggression will be far, far greater.