In addition to its nuclear capability the USSR maintained conventional military forces that were sufficient to functionally balance the forces of NATO, which were essentially the US military, in Europe. With the collapse of the USSR most of those forces devolved to the Russian Federation. Under the government of Boris Yeltsin that entire state went into a period of severe decline. Much of the military found itself stranded with troops that were going unpaid. Equipment was allowed to rust away and there were no funds for technological upgrades. Most people in the west were inclined to see this as a positive development.
The situation in Ukraine was moved from a chronic problem to a full crisis by mass protest and the deposition of the elected president. There is a temptation to see Russia's aggressive response of detaching Crimea from Ukrainian control as being entirely a reaction to this specific crisis. However, in observing the nature of that response, there are some definite indications it is part of a longer term plan to rebuild Russia's statue as a major power on the world stage.
In Crimea, Russia Showcases a Rebooted Army
Across Crimea in the past several weeks, a sleek new vanguard of the Russian military has been on display, with forces whose mobility, equipment and behavior were sharply different from those of the Russian forces seen in the brief war in Georgia in 2008 or throughout the North Caucasus over nearly two decades of conflict with Muslim separatists.
Past Russian military actions have often showcased an army suffering from a poor state of discipline and supply, its ranks filled mostly with the conscripts who had not managed to buy deferments or otherwise evade military service. Public drunkenness was common, as were tactical indecisiveness and soldiers who often looked as if they could not run a mile, much less swiftly.
“The development of Russian armed forces is going in two big trends, first strengthening of strategic nuclear forces, giving a guarantee that no one country in this world will try to attack Russia,” said Aleksandr Golts, an independent military analyst in Moscow.
“Second, the development of these rapid deployment forces,” he said, “to deal with any kind of local conflict, such as the war against Georgia, or this operation in Ukraine or anywhere.”
“As a result of these reforms,” Mr. Golts added, “Russia now has absolute superiority over any country in the post-Soviet space.”
One of the realities of the USSR was that they maintained their military strength at the expense of the consumer economy. The US with a larger and more robust economy was in a position to do both in the post WW II era. One plausible view of the collapse of the USSR was that this economic imbalance was one of the major causes. The Russian government under Putin now seems to be moving in a similar direction. Military spending has increased substantially in recent years. It is currently at $80B and is expected to increase to $100B by 2016. If the west were to impose significant trade sanctions on Russia it would add to the economic complications, unless Russia can develop alternative sources of trade.
The confrontation between Russia and NATO has been building for a long time. NATO was established as a defensive alliance for its member states. After the end of the cold war it began to expand in alliances beyond that and established agreements with states who are not members. In places like the Balkans and Libya it has taken on something of the character of a global police force. Russia is adamantly opposed to its expansion into what it considers its proper sphere of influence.
The US has been attempting to persuade the European members of NATO to assume a greater share of the financial burden of maintaining the military capacity on which NATO depends. The actual US presence in Europe is a very pale shadow of what it was at the height of the cold war. The US and it allies are all facing severe budget constraints. While Obama and other members of his administration have been making pledges to countries such as Poland and the Baltic republics to honor their commitment of military support, there is some question as to what level of support is likely to be forth coming.
These developments are convincing reasons to believe that we have a changing picture in the balance of global security that is not going to settle down quickly. The notion that if the US would simply leave Russia alone all would be well seems to me to be a bit of wishful thinking. I have long been a critic of the US efforts to maintain global domination. However, I don't see that basic posture as likely to change. It really isn't a matter of Democratic vs Republican policy. However, the world is a very different place than it was at the end of WW II. Where other countries ultimately line up in this confrontation will be very important.