Andrew Graves
When considering the threats the United States faces in the contemporary world, Russia is seldom at the top of the list, and for good reason. In the minds of the majority of Americans lies a vision of a defeated Soviet Union, crumbling under the weight of its own dysfunctionality. This definitive defeat of the United States’ greatest geopolitical threat of the 20th century allowed the US as a polity and nation to move on. Mission accomplished, and job done. Not quite. Russia, while still weakened from its former position as a global hegemon, still serves as the United States’ biggest threat due to its disregard for international norms and willingness to wage war on multiple fronts.
Addressing the elephant in the room, it is true that China today remains the greatest threat to the United States, maintaining its spot as the sole global hegemon. While the PRC does have aspirations to take over Taiwan, there is a growing sentiment that due to internal economic conditions and a worsening demographic crisis on the horizon, Chinese leadership will no longer consider an invasion a viable option.
To qualify as a security threat, an actor must be acting in direct defiance of international law. It must pose a severe threat to the status quo and aspire to fundamentally contradict a peaceful global order. While China does have these aspirations, it continuously stalls on any future military campaigns. The same cannot be said for Russia. This means that Russia is a far bigger security threat because of its fundamental lack of restraint and blatant disregard for consequences.
In the past 2 years of war in Ukraine, Russia has displaced 3.7 million Ukrainians, causing mass migration into the rest of the European continent. This invasion has killed over 35,000 civilians, as well as domestic and international military personnel, and an estimated 70,000 deaths have occurred per US estimates. Due to this, it has been designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the European Parliament.
The Russo-Ukrainian War has caused an international crisis due to a blockade of grain to the rest of the world via the Black Sea. This is important because Ukraine produces roughly 10% of the entire world's grain supply, as well as 46% of sunflower oil and 12% of its corn, thus earning it the moniker ‘breadbasket of the world.’ The depletion of Ukrainian resources in the global supply chain prompted an international response to create the Black Sea Grain Deal, an agreement to let Ukraine ship its resources through the Bosporus straight.
Due to this deal, Ukraine can safely export its grain to over 8 African countries that desperately rely on it for food security. However, Russia still has the theoretical capacity to blockade this deal, rendering it null and void as it has its foot on the jugular of a critical supply route that dramatically affects the grain market.
In a time of increased prices on basic commodities, Russia can manipulate a key resource market on an international scale, which affects the US. This does not necessarily mean it is the greatest security threat to the US; however, as it stands, Russia is also one of the most irrational actors on the international stage. In the past year, reports have emerged of Russia actively preparing for an all-out war with NATO.
If Russia declares war or militarily intervenes in any NATO country, Article 5 of NATO will be invoked, causing all 32 NATO member countries to go to war against the aggressor (Russia). This is an eventuality that officials have been anticipating for years as Russia’s aggressive behavior becomes increasingly apparent.
Specific to the United States, Russia has also been instrumental in coordinating and conducting cyber-attacks on US infrastructure, especially in attempts to influence the presidential elections of 2016, 2020, and now 2024. This makes Russia the sole great power that regularly engages in this type of behavior. China, conversely, has not exercised a fraction of the same interference as Russia despite its legitimate attempts.
The leader of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, is largely to blame for much of the hawkish policy the country has taken on in the past 25 years, starting with the Chechen wars. Clearly, Putin has no quarrels with ruthlessly crushing dissent and strongly believes that all former USSR nations should once again be under the control of the Kremlin. This ideological position has informed his foreign policy for decades and is one of the key reasons why he has chosen to invade former Soviet-sphere nations like Ukraine.
Putin has made it known that he would not stop at Ukraine. Putin has publicly threatened Poland, stating that it is a dangerous enemy and that it risks “losing its statehood” if it keeps supporting Ukraine militarily. Poland, being a NATO ally, makes any potential aggression an extremely dangerous prospect. This same sentiment was parroted by US presidential candidate Kamala Harris, stating that if Ukraine were to lose the war, Putin would be “sitting in Kyiv, with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland.”
A common counterpoint to this is that if Russia cannot successfully invade Ukraine, what risk does it pose to the United States? However, while it is true that Russia has failed to make large gains since the beginning of the war, it is steadily improving its strategy and making gains incrementally. This view also fails to consider the enormous population reserves that Putin has at his disposal, as so far, he has only resorted to calling up conscripts when absolutely necessary.
Russia has been fighting with one hand behind its back. If it felt sufficiently threatened, such as by a potential war with NATO, it would be unleashing its full military might. In support of its war effort, it has begun mass production of weaponry, such as artillery shells, despite extensive sanctions on its military-industrial complex.
In the modern world, nations may compete against each other by comparing the size of their economies, the height of their buildings, or even the culture they export. No longer are the days of widespread military posturing and nuclear saber-rattling. The interconnectivity of economies allows for this. Despite this, Russia incessantly keeps portraying itself as an irrational actor in the international community and a pariah state to the existing world order.
It is no longer the 1990s. It is 2024. With a new generation comes a new set of challenges, as well as a continuation of those caused by familiar faces. Russia continues to prove itself unable to peacefully coexist in a liberalized world order, and both US foreign policy and public perceptions should begin to reflect that reality and the danger it poses.
Comments