What Putin got wrong

In his speech last Thursday to the Valdai Club, Vladimir Putin said the following:

The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.

Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.

This isn’t the first time that Putin has denounced the proposed American missile shield in Europe, nor the first time that he has expressed his disbelief that the project is meant to protect Europe against Iran. See, for instance, this video in which he bursts out laughing when the idea is suggested to him.

I understand why Putin laughed, but he’s mistaken to conclude that the Americans ‘were lying’. I have said this before but, given Putin’s Valdai speech, I think it is necessary to explain why in more detail, as Putin’s error explains a lot about what has gone wrong in Russian-Western relations. At heart, the problem is probably that Putin is assuming a form of rationality which isn’t a good model of how Western states actually make decisions.

Putin appears to think that Western defence policy is a product of what is termed ‘threat-based planning.’ In this model, states determine what strategies they require to defend themselves, and what military structures and equipment they need to enact those strategies, based on what threats they face. This is a very rational way of going about business – after all, if a threat doesn’t exist, there is no point creating a strategy to counter it, let alone spending large sums of money building up military forces. For many years, the Russians have rejected the idea that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. I have agreed with them on this. After all, even the US National Intelligence Council declared in 2007 that, ‘We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.’ If you follow the logic of threat-based planning, then there is no need to build a missile shield to defend Europe against Iranian nuclear missiles. Those missiles don’t exist, and aren’t going to exist. That means that if you assume that the USA follows threat-based rationality, then the missile shield must be directed against an alternative missile threat, and since the only non-allied state capable of hitting Europe with nuclear weapons is Russia, then it makes sense that the shield must be designed with Russian in mind.

That is all completely logical, but it rests on a couple of false assumptions: first, that the Americans are rationally assessing threats; and second, that the missile shield is in reality designed to defend against a threat. Neither of these assumptions is true.

Threats are both objective – in the sense that either they exist or they don’t – and subjective – in the sense that what you feel threatens you may not reflect what actually does threaten you. Just because the Iranian nuclear threat does not exist, one should not assume that people do not believe that it exists. American policymakers often don’t assess threats very well, as seen by the hysteria about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Iran has for years been a bogeyman. The conviction that it is relentlessly hostile and extremely dangerous has become an established fact. Reality no longer has very much to do with it. Cognitive bias ensures that any evidence that the threat does not exist is simply ignored. The Iranian threat is a truth, which defeats any attempts to debunk it.

The threat, therefore, is a matter of belief. So too is missile defence. As I was once told, it is a ‘religion’. According to the established narrative, it was Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program which brought down the Soviet Union. For the Republican right in particular, missile defence is thus unquestionably a ‘good thing’. In the past 20 years, the USA has spent tens of billions of dollars developing a national missile defence system for continental America, despite the fact that the system has never worked and even if it did work, could only shoot down a handful of missiles at a time, which would be insufficient to protect the USA against any power capable of actually threatening it. It is a gigantic waste of money. But that hasn’t stopped it.

The reason is not that national missile defence is directed against Russia – even its strongest proponents admit that the Russians could easily overwhelm it. Rather, the relentless progress of pointless policy is a product of the way a certain group among the American elites think, described by sociologist C. Wright Mills as ‘crackpot realism’. Crackpot realists are technocrats and incrementalists; they work logically from one step to another, but do so in a bubble which is somewhat detached from reality. The result is a bit like an Impressionist painting, but in reverse – up close it makes perfect sense, but from far away it doesn’t make sense at all. Psychologists differentiate between a ‘deliberative’ and an ‘instrumental’ mindset. With the former, people consider what to do and why; with the latter, they are only concerned with how to do it. Missile defence has long since moved beyond the deliberative stage; it’s purely a question of implementation. You don’t need to look for a threat to justify it; its justification isn’t important any more.

Furthermore, missile defence is a multi-billion dollar industry. This has led to the creation of powerful lobbies in the military industrial complex who have a strong interest in promoting it. Committees have been formed, policy papers have been written, contracts have been signed. At this point, the policy has a momentum of its own which carries it forward no matter what.

Western states have blundered spectacularly and repeatedly in recent years – invading Iraq, bombing Libya, supporting the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. Viewing all this, Putin, along with a lot of Russians, seems to be telling himself, ‘They can’t be that dumb. They must have some sinister motive.’ And that’s where he makes his big mistake. We are that dumb. If only Russians could understand that, they would realize that they don’t need to feel so threatened by us, and Russian-Western relations might become a whole lot better.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “What Putin got wrong”

  1. The problem is that being “dumb” does not make the West a lesser threat to Russia.
    Being “dumb” means that trying to reason with the Western leaderships is less likely to work.
    That diplomacy is less likely to work.

    Like

  2. Is it be possible to underestimate the higher level wisdom of policy planners?

    When faced with multiple elements of strategy and policy, with no sure way to know which one is right, the safest thing may be to implement all of the above. What’s so dumb about that?

    Like

  3. – Ben Carson supports supplying the Ukraine with lethal weaponry and dispatching tank brigades to Baltics to deter “potential aggression” – in clear vialation of 1997 accords.

    – Jeb Bush demands more and more international economic sanctions against Russia.

    – Both Ted Cruz and Chris Christie openly speak and demand to install Missile-Defense system in Poland to “curb Russian ambitions”.

    – Carly Fiorina speaks about regular and “aggressive” maneuvres of NATO forces in Baltic plus he argues in favor of sending several thousands more of troops to Germany. He also said that he would “refuse to speak to Putin”.

    – The less is said about Hillary – the better.

    Paul – are you still sure that Russia’s fears are so “baseless” after all? As the saying goes – “just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not after you”. .

    Like

  4. I at one point spent about two years studying ABM systems, and I agree: it is irrational for Americans to imagine they can stop an adversary with anything like Russia’s capabilities. You don’t have to defeat the whole system, just its weak points. Another thing I learned from that study: in the US, often the best way to get something built is to make it very expensive. I mean for the government, of course.

    Like

  5. “I at one point spent about two years studying ABM systems, and I agree: it is irrational for Americans to imagine they can stop an adversary with anything like Russia’s capabilities.”

    The idea is not to stop Russia by just using ABM systems. The idea is to destroy Russia by a combination of surprise attack, destroying most of its nuclear capability, and then to use ABM systems to block the retaliatory strike, when the original capability has been greatly diminished. Or, to block *most* of it, anyway. Some loses might be acceptable.

    And I completely disagree with the idea of irrationality of the US military and foreign policy planning. Reagan has nothing to do with it; politicians don’t decide these things. There are professional planners and strategists; politicians just do the theatrical part.

    Like

    1. The US ABM system has two functions. The simplest was to force Russia to waste resources developing a specific deterrent or workaround. The main reason was to allow the US to destroy the concept of MAD and survive a first strike. The surprise first strike would take out say 90% of the land based missiles and ABM would theoretically mop up the remainder that survived the strike to be launched by Russia. However, this concept totall ignores Russian capabilities such as mobile land ICBM launchers, let alone sub launched systems, and MIRV warheads with dummies. As usual, the US spends a large amount of money to fight the last war of massive static ICBM silos. That money is a big win for the MIC as they get the money now. The ideal US weapon system as far as the US profit-driven MIC is concerend should be a) ridiculously expensive and b) relatively ineffective, to give the possibility of further development work / profits.

      Like

  6. I find this article amazingly naive. The author writes, “At heart, the problem is probably that Putin is assuming a form of rationality which isn’t a good model of how Western states actually make decisions”.

    Putin isn’t assuming “a form of rationality”: he is assuming rationality. And it’s entirely lacking. You know what that means? American decision makers are either nuts, or deliberately acting as if they were nuts. That’s what a lack of rationality means.

    And no reasonable adult would concede for a moment that threats are either real or unreal. An “unreal threat” is what we would call a fantasy, or perhaps paranoia. Again, it’s insane. An ordinary citizen who goes through life continually defending against imaginary threats would soon be deemed crazy, and might well end up in the laughing academy.

    “Reality no longer has very much to do with it. Cognitive bias ensures that any evidence that the threat does not exist is simply ignored”. And there you have it again. A better short description of insanity would be hard to write.

    So the question is not, “How could the Russians fail to understand that the entire political leadership of the USA is really, really stupid (and possibly raving mad as well)?”

    It is “How could the citizens of the USA, which prides itself on being the most wonderful nation in the world, possibly have allowed their government to be run by a bunch or morons and lunatics?

    Like

  7. Irrationality is not a uniquely American phenomenon. It affects all humans, and all governments. But I would caution here that it depends on how you define ‘rationality’and ‘irrationality’ – one could argue that would we call ‘irrationality’ is simply a different type of reasoning, which is why I wrote about Putin assuming a certain ‘form of rationality’.

    Like

    1. “one could argue that would we call ‘irrationality’ is simply a different type of reasoning, which is why I wrote about Putin assuming a certain ‘form of rationality’.”

      Huh, that’s probably true, in a sense. My take on it would be this: non-Europeans (and the Russians are half that) are never (or almost never) capable of assessing correctly the full extent of White Man’s wickedness. Putin certainly is a sufferer of this phenomenon.

      But that is not irrationality. It’s actually the opposite of ‘irrationality’. It’s the perfect professionalism, *pure* rationality, the kinds of strategizing, modeling, odds-calculation that are completely free from all the flaws and limitations inherent in human nature.

      Like

      1. Putin was part of the KGB, which was in some ways the most “honest” and least propagandistic institution of the USSR. This was mostly because the foreign branches of the KGB interacted considerably with non communist states.

        Andropov et al were under no illusions of the state of the Soviet Union.

        The problem with “serious people” (and that archetype existed very much in the USSR) is that “serious people” in one country automatically create and empower “serious people” in other countries.

        Like

  8. I have 2 comments. One is technical: you probably meant not impressionists, but pointillists – they are matching your description better.

    Second is that irregardless of current state of anti-missle systems if their development and build up is actually ongoing one day they might start working…

    Like

  9. @Yonatan
    “However, this concept totall ignores Russian capabilities such as mobile land ICBM launchers…”

    Well, another way to see it is that while modern ABM systems are capable of achieving some goals, they are not capable of achieving the whole task. There are, of course, many ways to address this issue: improving the existing systems, looking for different ways, perhaps different technologies to address the special cases (disabling subs by a software virus, for example), waiting for an opportune moment, building shelters, etc. This is not illogical. This is purposeful and methodical.

    “As usual, the US spends a large amount of money”

    I don’t see Warren Buffett and Bill Gates suffering. In fact, spending money might be a *positive* side-effect. Keynesian economics, you see.

    Like

  10. Mr. Paul is trying to convince that exuberant schizo with a chainsaw – NATO, which tormented half the world into a bloody noodles, is not dangerous for Russia ))

    He’s really stupid!

    Like

    1. You nailed it, what a lame try by the author to explain away the Us/Nato plans to close in to get first strike capability. The type of missiles can rapidly be interchanged. Crackpot realism – those liars even take to rape the language.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s