Finally, after 40 replies we at last encounter someone who lifts his gaze a few degrees toward the horizon. I've given this some thought and find myself uncertain about the paradigm that suggests support for Russia in its fight against ISIS is bifurcated between the myopic, "short-termers" and the long term, "visionaries."
When I look out at the horizon I don't see Russia's offensive as a minor actor in a grand geostrategic move to alter the balance of power in the world. I see a nation that says if you hit me I hit you back, harder. It's binary. Furthermore, when one looks beyond the fight against ISIS and Islam it's a hard sell to think that after everything is over we will find ourselves in a position where Russia, China and the remaining BRICS nations will have reduced the United States to a second or third world power. If that does happen, it will be our own doing.
Secondly, if one wants to consider long term I think the existential threat that Islam poses to civilization the fight to be had. There seems to be this suggestion that Russia is fundamentally at odds with Western civilization in much the same way Islam presents. I haven't seen that case presented here. Sure the Russian people and culture seems hardwired for authoritarian forms of governance but that doesn't equate to being diametrically opposed to us.
Which is why I don't necessarily agree with the position held by those who ask, "and what happens after?" This is a war of peoples and cultures, not so much governments. So I find the references to recent history i.e., Post-WWII and the Cold War to be lacking. Particularly for the times we find ourselves.
So the short-term fight is the long-term fight. What will occur in the "mid-term" will be determined by what we do. Not what Russia does. And right now the mid term calculus doesn't look good for us. If one takes a 15-20 year time horizon and looks at a variety of categories, whether it be demographically, socio-culturally, politically, morally etc., the prognosis is not good. 2016 is not going to fix these things. We might get a reprieve but its doubtful that it will alter the trajectory.
We all talk about a return to Judeo-Christian principles and constitutional governance. The thing that is not often asked, "is that likely?" If we fall it will because we, as a nation, have abandoned those ideals. Of course, there will be some who will refer back to a narrative that goes along the lines of something like, "this is all because of KGB infiltration and subversion of a whole generation of 60's kids on the college campuses." It might even be true, but are we prepared to hang the hat of national survival on that? Did the Russians actually deliver a fatal blow and did we actually lose the Cold War and our nation as a result?
If that is the case all I can say is, "well played." And if so, then we better pray that the mid-term view is that Russia rises with its autocratic nominally Christian society.
A reply of mine from the 18th of this month lays out the case that there are broader geopolitical considerations at play than merely fighting Isis. The probability of the scenario playing out might be small but the damage would be huge and it should not therefore be discounted out of hand.
Here is that reply:
The implications on a strategic level are very frightening.
Consider the whether the Russian raids, especially as they are directed not against Isis but against United States supported rebels, are in service not so much in the Russian grudge against Isis but in service to its new allies, Iran, Iraq and Syria, constituting a new caliphate possessed with Russian might and nuclear weapons and determined to upset the balance of power in that part of the world which still produces the most oil.
Consider whether the participation by France with the Russians and their evident tactical coordination with the Russians suggests that the always fickle French might be the first in a series of European powers to consider forsaking the NATO alliance (and that really means forsaking America) to throw their lot in with the Russians. The same Russians who are supplying Europe with oil and gas and who are bidding fare to take over or at least interdict Mideast oil and its flow toward Europe. If so, could Germany be far behind?
Are we witnessing the formation of a new world power put together with elements from NATO, Russia and China? If so, the implications are utterly catastrophic.
Consider whether such a new strategic alliance would somehow align itself with Islam. Before rejecting that possibility out of hand we ought to consider the extremely high minority in France who support Islam, some large portion of which is "Christian." Could any of these considerations be behind a massive display of firepower designed not just to destroy Isis, against whom apparently they are only partially directed anyway, but to intimidate neighboring Arab nations and, ultimately, Europe? Is this really a tactical or a strategic matter?
All in all, we had better consider who the enemy in the theater really is. Are we being diverted toward shiny objects in our reaction to Isis when the real enemy is more than a bunch of murderous diaper heads but a real nuclear caliphate bent on global dominance? In our obsession with Isis are we enlarging the Obama created vacuum which leaves a perfect opening for very dangerous forces?
