Today’s objectives

 

  1. Define: concepts of power, grand strategy, offensive, defensive
  2. Identify: key elements of Russian grand strategy
  3. Evaluate: sources of continuity/change in Russian strategy

Is Russia a “Great Power”?

What is power?

Power is the capacity to influence other actors

Power is not absolute (is A powerful?)

 

Little power

Big power

Power is relative (is A more powerful than B? \(\checkmark\))

 

Power parity

Power asymmetry

To be a great power, you have to be good at more than 1 thing

  • population size
  • natural resources
  • technological base
  • industrial capacity
  • territory
  • education
  • defense spending
  • diplomatic skill
  • domestic unity/cohesion

Are some of these more/less important than others?

What’s missing?

What is polarity?

Polarity is a term that “realists” use to denote the number of great powers in the international system

  • unipolar: one center of power
  • bipolar: two centers of power
  • multipolar: multiple centers of power

These terms appear a lot in Russian diplomatic rhetoric. Why?

Measuring power

Example: Composite Index of National Capability (CINC)

Proportion of world’s

  1. total population
  2. urban population
  3. iron and steel production
  4. energy consumption
  5. military personnel
  6. military expenditure

Criticism: captures “hard power”, not “soft power” (Joseph Nye)

  • power to co-opt rather than coerce

    (e.g. attractive culture, political values, moral authority)

Composite Index of National Capability (1800-2016)

Russia’s Grand Strategy

What is “grand strategy”?

Grand strategy is a state’s theory about how to best defend itself

(definition from Posen, Sources of Military Doctrine, 1984)

 

A grand strategy must:

  1. identify major threats to the state’s security
  2. devise political, military, diplomatic, economic and other remedies for these threats
  3. establish priorities across these threats and remedies

 

Examples:

  • Containment
  • Bush Doctrine
  • Obama Doctrine

 

Does every state have a “grand strategy”? How can we tell?

Can a grand strategy exist without a state ideology?

What does it mean for a strategy to be offensive vs. defensive?

 

  1. military doctrine and force posture

    • offensive: rapid mobilization & deployment, motorized armor

      (Offensive a outrance, Blitzkrieg, AirSeaBattle)

    • defensive: defense-in-depth, air/area/sea denial

      (Maginot Line, AirLandBattle)

  2. arms procurement and offense/defense investment ratios
    • offensive systems: long-range, mobile, capable of penetrating defenses (artillery, tanks, aircraft, cruise missiles, drones)
    • defensive systems: mobility-reducing, firepower-enhancing (moats, machine guns, anti-air defenses, nuclear weapons)
  3. geography
    • offensive advantage: flat, rolling terrain, short distances
    • defensive advantage: mountains, rivers, swamps, long distances

 

Why does this distinction matter?

Is it possible to discern offensive vs defensive capabilities, intentions?

How has Russia’s grand strategy evolved?

Who makes “grand strategy” in Russia?

 

  1. President

    • sets main contours of foreign policy, per Constitution
    • authority to enact new strategy and doctrine

  2. Security Council

    • interagency working group develops national security strategy

  3. Ministry of Defense

    • civilian control loosened after USSR collapse
    • able to “freelance” foreign policy in 1990s
    • takes lead on formulating military doctrine

  4. Intelligence and Security Services

    • increasingly influential
    • but little interagency coordination (FSB, SVR, GRU)

  5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

    • managers, not makers of foreign policy

  6. State Duma

    • has a Committee on International Affairs
    • but no policy-making or oversight authority

Where is Russia’s “grand strategy” articulated?

 

National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation

  • 2021, 2015, 2009, 2000 (National Security Concept)

Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation

  • 2021, 2014, 2010, 2000, 1993

Foreign Policy Concept

  • 2023, 2016, 2013, 2008, 2000, 1993

Subsidiary documents

  • Maritime Doctrine, Information Security Doctrine, Energy Security Doctrine, Food Security Doctrine

Russia’s grand strategy has constant and variable elements

 

constant elements (always salient, from Peter I to Putin):

  • perceived threats:
    • Western great powers
    • territorial claims against Russia
  • favored remedies:
    • strategic depth (geopolitical sphere of influence / buffer zone)

variable elements (these change in salience/priority over time):

  • perceived threats:
    • regional instability / “local conflicts” in neighboring countries
    • interference in Russian domestic political affairs
    • mistreatment of Russian speakers abroad
  • favored remedies:
    • nuclear retaliation for conventional attack
    • political, economic integration with West
    • isolation / economic self-sufficiency
    • pursuit of “multipolar” balance of global power
    • promotion of traditional values / natalism

 

How has Russia’s grand strategy changed in last 30 years?

Moscow, 1993


Moscow, 2024

Russia’s grand strategy in 1993 (1993 MD, 1993 FPC)

 

perceived threats

  • military threat from NATO, Western powers
  • territorial claims against Russia
  • regional instability, local conflicts (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • interference in domestic affairs
  • transnational terrorism (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • malign cultural influence from West
  • mistreatment of Russian speakers abroad (New! \(\checkmark\))

favored remedies

  • strategic depth / buffer zone
  • nuclear retaliation for conventional attack
  • political, economic engagement with West (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • isolation / economic self-sufficiency
  • pursuit of “multipolar” balance of global power
  • promotion of traditional values / natalism

Russia’s grand strategy in 2000 (2000 MD, 2000 NSC, 2000 FPC)

 

perceived threats

  • military threat from NATO, Western powers
  • territorial claims against Russia
  • regional instability, local conflicts
  • interference in domestic affairs
  • transnational terrorism
  • malign cultural influence from West
  • mistreatment of Russian speakers abroad

favored remedies

  • strategic depth / buffer zone
  • nuclear retaliation for conventional attack
  • political, economic engagement with West
  • isolation / economic self-sufficiency
  • pursuit of “multipolar” balance of global power (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • promotion of traditional values / natalism

Russia’s grand strategy in 2010 (2009 NSS, 2010 MD, 2008 FPC)

 

perceived threats

  • military threat from NATO, Western powers
  • territorial claims against Russia
  • regional instability, local conflicts
  • interference in domestic affairs
  • transnational terrorism
  • malign cultural influence from West
  • mistreatment of Russian speakers abroad

favored remedies

  • strategic depth / buffer zone
  • nuclear retaliation for conventional attack
  • political, economic engagement with West
  • isolation / economic self-sufficiency
  • pursuit of “multipolar” balance of global power
  • promotion of traditional values / natalism

Russia’s grand strategy in 2024 (2023 FPC, 2021 NSS, 2021 MD)

 

perceived threats

  • military threat from NATO, Western powers
  • territorial claims against Russia
  • regional instability, local conflicts
  • interference in domestic affairs
  • transnational terrorism
  • malign cultural influence from West (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • mistreatment of Russian speakers abroad

favored remedies

  • strategic depth / buffer zone
  • nuclear retaliation for conventional attack
  • political, economic engagement with West
  • isolation / economic self-sufficiency (New! \(\checkmark\))
  • pursuit of “multipolar” balance of global power
  • promotion of traditional values / natalism (New! \(\checkmark\))

What explains these shifts in Russia’s grand strategy?

 

Which of these do you think has been most impactful?

  • external events (outside Russia)
  • role of individual leaders
  • economic developments
  • technological changes
  • domestic politics
  • something else?

Additional questions

 

How seriously did Russia seek acceptance by the West?

 

How willing was the West to accept Russia?

 

Does growth of military power make foreign policy more “aggressive”? Or is it the other way around?

NEXT MEETING

 

Backgrounder: National Security Policy Analysis (Tuesday, Sep. 10)

  • introduction to methods for evaluating policy options
  • application:

    • U.S. military support for Ukraine

      (esp. HIMARS, F-16s, cluster munitions)