By: Jonathan Bogen

A major topic of discussion within modern Russo-American negotiations is the installation of missile defense systems in allied nations across the globe. American officials justify their country’s defensive buildup by citing Russia’s deployment of land-based offensive missile launchers. Russian officials, conversely, vehemently decry such “American subversion” and threaten to deploy their capabilities if the West continues to infringe upon their sovereignty. From an American perspective, it’s easy to see why newly tested Russian weaponry is a problem: deployment could mean a step backwards into Cold War era politics in which peace talks become corrupted by the omnipresent tension caused by missiles being pointed at each other’s capitals. It can be hard to understand Russian opposition to Western defensive capabilities when the West has never exploited its tools to breach their security. Where is this deep-seated insecurity coming from?

Russian skepticism of American defense systems is far more complicated than merely a remnant of Soviet-era suspicion. In fact, it originates from a tumultuous history and geographical perspective the United States could never even imagine. Since the Mongol takeover of Kievan Rus that took place during the 1200’s, the Russian people have faced numerous invasions of their border that have left them determined to keep their country secure. Most people are aware of famous instances like Napoleon’s failed winter invasion or Hitler’s notorious betrayal and march to Stalingrad, but many forget that Russia has been forced to wage war against the Japanese, Swedish, Ottoman, Polish, and Chechen militaries on its own soil (the final being as recently as 1999!). The United States, separated from the world by two oceans and situated between two friendly nations, has not had to worry about an invasion in over 200 years. Furthermore, Russia and NATO clearly have a tense relationship, similar to that of its relationship with the United States, but where the latter is largely separated from its adversaries geographically, Russia has NATO member states right on its border!

The expansionist policies that Russia has pursued within the last few years make much more sense when placed in the context of its precarious geopolitical dilemma. Even the strong support that President Putin received in the past becomes far clearer given that his focus is largely Russian security and strategic international positioning. I won’t deny that he has made questionable decisions in Syria, Ukraine, and Belarus, but I won’t ignore the problematic tendency of U.S. diplomats to tackle Russian issues from a solely American perspective. Before we can make real progress in diminishing the tensions and the threat of (potentially nuclear) conflict, United States politicians must be more compassionate toward their Russian counterparts, and ensure that future peace deals include safeguards that protect Russian security while preventing the military and political interference that has clouded Russia’s international reputation.