Respond to prefers-color-scheme dark in app web views

Follow section front redirects in Spectrum

Enable NLP source in PCS for load testing

Switch off the News Alerts Survey Widget when we have enough responses

Poll to determine if new LUF updates are available

Allows the winning A/B test variant to be turned on without Spectrum deployment

Show infinite scrolling sections in Assembler MultiView

Show option for NLP article summaries in Action Bar

Show NLP summaries collection recirc on article pages

A general feature flag for Recipe Features that aren't yet released

Feature flag for media team features that aren't yet released

Use new Orca video player for preroll plugin in Spectrum

Show the snow tracker (instead of the heat tracker) on Spectrum

Did Trump’s lawyers catch Michael Cohen in a ‘lie’? Let’s take a look.

Now playing off-Broadway: Trump’s synchronized sycophants

Biden faces pressure to pardon ex-Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby

Joey Gallo returns, but Nats endure another quiet offensive night

A taco will always be a taco — no matter what we call it

Walter Johnson’s jersey from 1920 showdown with Babe Ruth is up for auction

With its energy network nearly destroyed, Ukraine already fears the winter

Mexican taquería’s new Michelin star puts street eats on par with gourmet food

IDF recovers bodies of 3 Israelis killed on Oct. 7

In photos: The scene in Houston after severe storms killed at least 7 people

D.C.’s secret garden

Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2023

Puppy abandoned with heart-rending note is adopted, named Minerva

Man, 91, shocks tiny firehouse with $500K gift: ‘Nobody knew how much I’d saved’

Retired cop meets abandoned baby he helped 23 years ago: ‘What are the odds?’

Ask Amy: Can’t a single woman eat alone without interruption?

Miss Manners: Miss Manners: Gag gift falls flat

Carolyn Hax: Is it weird to ask other people to care about you?

Biden continues outreach to Black voters; Trump heading to Minnesota

At campus protests, ‘DO NOT TALK TO THE MEDIA’!

CNN gets a presidential debate — and a much-needed win

Trump promises tax cuts and fewer rules. CEOs shouldn’t fall for it.

Tariffs against China hamstring the transition to a clean energy future

The Post’s choices in Northern Virginia’s U.S. House primaries

Boeing delays spaceflight again as it continues to struggle with leak

These ISIS news anchors are AI fakes. Their propaganda is real.

Why this company’s biggest fans turned against it

The world’s coolest hotels want to tell you a story

Cruise ships to return to Baltimore two months after bridge collapse 

Some cruise prices are about to get a little more clear

Trump

<em>The following is a guest post by political scientist <a href="http://www.rand.org/about/people/o/oliker_olga.html">Olga Oliker</a> of the RAND Corp. </em>

This past month, Russia published a <a href="http://eng.kremlin.ru/acts/23447%C2%A0">new military doctrine</a>. It had promised a new text in September 2014, in the wake of <a href="http://www.nato.int/cps/po/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm">NATO’s Wales Summit Declaration</a> condemning Moscow’s actions in Ukraine. Assuming that the document released Dec. 26 was started at that time, it was roughly four months in development — remarkably fast for a government bureaucracy that has traditionally taken years to vet such documents.

The new policy is a revision of <a href="http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461">Russia’s last doctrine</a>, published in February 2010. The new version repeats much of the language of the old and largely follows the same basic precepts. As in 2010, Moscow sees a general reduction in the likelihood of large-scale conflict involving Russia, combined with an increasingly dangerous overall security environment. The Kremlin’s nuclear deterrent approach has also not changed: Russia’s arsenal is meant to deter both nuclear and conventional conflict, but nuclear forces can be used only in the event of an existential threat. As before, this doctrine differentiates between “dangers” and “threats:” the former designates concerns, the latter possible sparks for conflict. As in 2010, the NATO alliance, or, more accurately, its behavior and intentions, is classed as a danger, as are terrorism and violations of international agreements.

But if many of the specifics are much the same, the tone of the overall document represents a shift, and a few of the individual changes are notable. This doctrine, in many ways something of a national security strategy document, is meant not only to describe Russian policy but also to send messages to friends, adversaries and others. The challenge lies in understanding Russia’s signals, as well as their repercussions.

As 2015 dawns, it seems that Russia sees the world as more perilous than in early 2010. The specific dangers, whether from NATO or elsewhere, may be much the same, but from Russia’s perspective, they appear to have grown more immediate. For example, the 2010 doctrine spoke of NATO’s (illegal, according to Moscow) intent to develop a global role and capabilities, to deploy military infrastructure near Russia’s borders, and to continue to expand. The current doctrine describes these same things as actions already underway. Similarly, where before Russia worried about efforts to destabilize countries and regions, today it is concerned about the reality of destabilization.

The new doctrine is more specific about the Western weapons systems that endanger or threaten Russia. Global Strike, long a concern, is for the first time specifically called out in doctrine. Russia promises to oppose the efforts of others to “attain military superiority”[1] by deploying missile defenses, space weapons or strategic conventional precision weapons. It calls for an agreement, under U.N. auspices, to regulate the use of space.

New in the 2014 doctrine is discussion of the danger of unnamed actors using information warfare and political subversion, as well as force, to destabilize and overthrow regimes. Russia itself, it seems, is at risk, and Russian youth particularly vulnerable to subversion. The Kremlin also fears its adversaries’ use of “special forces and foreign organizations.” A discussion of the attributes of modern warfare begins by describing it as “complex usage [integration] of military force and political, economic, information, and other non-military means, accomplished [in part] through the extensive exploitation of the potential of popular protest and special operations forces.” The description also notes the increasing prevalence of high-technology weapons, high-speed maneuver, irregular and contract forces, and so forth, but comes back at the end to “foreign-financed and controlled political forces and social movements.” While Western readers might immediately see aspects of this as strikingly descriptive of Russia’s activities in Ukraine (and the <a href="http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/10/why-us-needs-strategy-counter-hybrid-warfare/97259/">Western</a> <a href="http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/on-not-so-new-warfare-political-warfare-vs-hybrid-threats/">debate</a> on so-called “hybrid” warfare), from Moscow’s perspective, these are threats to Russia. This recurring theme of combined military, “information,” “communication,” and political methodologies includes a call for dialogue with other states on how to counter such approaches. And while extended sections on mobilizing Russia’s economy and society for war are similar to what was in the 2010 doctrine, they seem a bit more ominous in this context.

Some changes are more important than others. The 2010 doctrine described Russia’s most important task as the prevention of nuclear and other war. The new doctrine describes war prevention as a cornerstone of military policy. Is this a change in emphasis? Given how much of the old language has remained in place, even minor shifts may have meaning, but some signals are clearer than others. This new doctrine for the first time explicitly mentions Russia’s interests in the Arctic. This is perfectly in line with Russia’s recent actions and statements, so not a surprise, but its inclusion in military doctrine is an important affirmation of Russia’s position. Also new is a discussion of Russian plans to strengthen global ties, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region and with its fellow BRICs. Moscow also pledges to work with Abkhazia and South Ossetia towards common defense and security. These, too, underscore, but do not change, Russian positions. In addition, the 2014 doctrine highlights for the first time the deterrent capacity of Russia’s conventional weapons (as opposed to only its nuclear arsenal) — perhaps a reference to the country’s growing conventional might.

The new doctrine talks less of proliferation threats than did past versions, although the basic goals remain unchanged. The language on cooperation with NATO and the E.U., while mostly similar, emphasizes the need for new, “non-bloc” security models. The discussion of cooperation in missile defense development emphasizes “equal” Russian involvement.

Russia maintains, as it has in the past, that it will use military force only defensively, when other options have failed. But this is the doctrine of a state that sees a lot to defend against, even as its interests expand globally. While neither Moscow’s overall goals nor the threats and dangers it faces have truly changed, it seems the Kremlin has grown more nervous that others are seeking ways to harm it, militarily and otherwise. Little here is new, but nothing here suggests an opening for compromise. Rather, the Kremlin wants the world to know know that Russia is settling in for a long siege, preparing to rally its resources and determined not to back down. This is a country that will be very difficult to reassure, even if other states are inclined to try. The resulting danger is that Moscow’s view of threats everywhere may thus prove self-fulfilling.

[1] All translations are the author’s own.

Olga Oliker

The Washington Post

name

prism://prism.query/site,/politics/monkey-cage?limit=20

Monkey Cage

Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage. -- H.L. Mencken

prism://prism.query/site-articles-only,/politics&limit=20

Politics

Post Politics from The Washington Post is the source for political news headlines, in-depth politics coverage and political opinion, plus breaking news on the biden administration and White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, elections and more.

prism://prism.query/site,/politics/the-fix&limit=6