Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The dissolution of the Soviet Union represents a significant turning point in global geopolitics, marking the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. This geopolitical shift led to a reevaluation of global threats, particularly concerning Russia, which had long been considered the primary adversary of the United States. The immediate post-Cold War period saw American policymakers relegating Russia to a lower priority in national security strategy documents. This decision stemmed from the perception that Russia, weakened and fragmented after the collapse of the Soviet Union, no longer posed an immediate threat to U.S. interests. Consequently, Russia was largely omitted from key national security assessments, a move that reflects the broader strategic recalibration of the U.S. in a rapidly changing global landscape.
One of the most notable aspects of this period was the removal of Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a Cold War-era legislation that imposed trade restrictions on non-market economies that violated human rights. This legislative shift was indicative of the broader American policy approach that sought to integrate Russia into the global economic system, with the hope that such integration would foster democratic reforms and reduce the likelihood of future conflicts. However, this period of relative neglect towards Russia proved to be short-lived. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia reasserted itself as a significant global power, challenging the U.S. and its allies on multiple fronts. The resurgence of Russia as a strategic threat underscores the exceptional nature of the brief period during which Washington downgraded Moscow as a national security priority.What makes this episode particularly noteworthy is the extent to which the U.S. bureaucracy adapted to the changing threat landscape. It is rare for a nation to completely remove a significant adversary from its National Security Strategy and even more unusual for there to be a broad consensus among foreign policy officials regarding such a decision. This period highlights the dynamic nature of national security priorities and the challenges that come with recalibrating these priorities in response to global changes. The case of Russia demonstrates that threats can be downgraded but not necessarily eliminated, as geopolitical realities often shift, bringing old adversaries back to the forefront of national security concerns.
This fluidity in threat assessment is not unique to the case of Russia. Transnational threats, such as terrorism, also fluctuate over time but rarely disappear entirely. The U.S. National Security Strategy of 1987, for example, identified terrorism as a major national security concern, a threat that persisted into the 1990s and intensified following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The 9/11 attacks were a watershed moment that reshaped U.S. foreign policy, leading to the declaration of a global war on terror. For nearly two decades, this war on terror dominated U.S. security discourse and policy. However, over time, U.S. officials began to successfully downgrade terrorism as a central threat, both in official documents and in public discourse.Despite this downgrading, the threat of terrorism has proven resilient. The attacks by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023, served as a stark reminder that terrorism remains a potent threat that can quickly reemerge as a top priority. This resurgence of terrorism as a significant security concern underscores the challenges in managing and prioritizing transnational threats. Even when a threat appears to have been contained or reduced, it can reassert itself, forcing policymakers to once again elevate it in national security considerations.
Technological innovation, particularly in the development of new weapons, adds another layer of complexity to managing national security priorities. The proliferation of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies, for example, has required continuous reassessment of which countries or groups pose significant risks. As technological barriers to acquiring weapons of mass destruction have decreased, the list of potential threats has expanded. This expansion now includes not only major powers like China and Russia but also smaller states such as Iran and North Korea and even non-state actors like the Islamic State and the Houthis. The diffusion of advanced military technologies to a broader range of actors complicates threat assessments and forces constant reevaluation of national security priorities.This challenge is further compounded by the evolving importance of resources in global security. Historically, resources such as coal and petroleum were critical to war efforts and thus were central to national security strategies. Today, however, the focus has shifted to critical minerals like cobalt and lithium, which are essential for the development of green technologies. The competition for these resources has raised concerns about potential conflicts, as countries vie for control over the supply chains of these critical materials.
The transition from traditional to new resources presents a dilemma for policymakers: should they prioritize securing access to these emerging resources, or should they continue to focus on traditional energy sources that remain vital to current economic and military operations? This question has become particularly pressing in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The conflict has placed immense pressure on global energy supply chains, particularly in Europe and Africa, where countries have been forced to secure access to oil, coal and natural gas to maintain energy stability. At the same time, the urgency of addressing climate change and the shift away from carbon-based energy have driven nations to seek out the components necessary for green technologies.The tension between these competing priorities—securing traditional energy resources versus transitioning to green energy—has sparked a growing debate within the United States. This debate centers on whether the federal government should prioritize the security of traditional energy sources like oil and gas or focus on accelerating the transition to renewable energy. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for U.S. national security, as the direction taken will influence both the country’s energy independence and its ability to compete in the global arena.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent recalibration of U.S. national security priorities illustrate the fluid nature of global threats. The brief period during which Russia was downgraded as a strategic concern is an exception rather than the rule, as most threats, whether transnational or resource-based, fluctuate but seldom disappear entirely. The challenges of managing these threats are further complicated by technological advancements and the evolving importance of resources. As the global landscape continues to shift, U.S. policymakers must remain vigilant and adaptable, constantly reassessing and reprioritizing national security concerns to effectively address the complex and interconnected challenges of the 21st century.
