And should the cease-fire break down and Russia go so far as to invade Ukraine to defend ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers, as Putin has threatened and more nationalist elements of the Russian elite desire, the United States—along with its allies—would almost certainly encourage Ukraine to resist. They would also begin to provide the equipment—non-lethal and lethal—and intelligence support with which to do so, with the goal of raising the prospects of a repeat of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

Finally, the United States could impose ever-stricter controls on technology exports to Russia and press its allies to do the same in order to retard the modernization of Russia's defense sector, which continues to face formidable problems and obstacles to growth. Its domestic machine-tool industry can no longer produce modern, advanced tools and is compelled to rely on foreign sources, while the military has turned to imports—such as Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the French Mistral amphibious assault vessel—for items which it cannot obtain domestically.[15] France’s recent decision to withhold delivery of the first Mistral—the Vladivostok—reflects strong U.S. and NATO pressure to limit arms sales to Russia that could grow in the future.

The United States will portray all of these steps as defensive, intended to reassure allies and to deter Russian aggression. Moscow, however, will see them as elements of a burgeoning strategic threat. European security, which for the past generation has been a more or less cooperative endeavor in dealing with challenges that emanate largely from outside Europe (WMD proliferation and international terrorism, for example) and pursuing arms control and other confidence-building measures to ease tensions, will once again become a competition in maintaining an appropriate military balance between Europe and Russia in and around Europe. The danger for Russia is that it will believe it is in an arms race, in which it starts at a significant disadvantage: Its military is no match for NATO, whose members spend over ten-times more than does Russia on defense and possess superior technical capabilities,[16] and who maintain that superiority while spending less on defense as a share of GDP than does Russia. It is a race that Russia will be no better placed to win than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

* * *

In the field of energy, the United States also has at least three major options for pursuing two goals: diminishing Russian leverage in European markets (Russia supplies 45 and 33 percent of the EU's gas and oil imports, respectively, and about one-quarter of its gas resources overall[17]), and undermining Russia's federal budget (oil and gas account for over half of revenues, with oil contributing 7-8 times more than does gas[18]).

Firstly, as many commentators have already suggested, the United States could take advantage of the accelerating production of shale gas and tight oil to export significant volumes into global markets. That in itself would put downward pressure on prices to Russia's disadvantage. The implications for European markets are less straightforward. The overwhelming share of LNG now goes to Asian markets, where prices are higher and the infrastructure is better developed.[19] As a result, the United States—and the EU—would have to put in place significant incentives to persuade private companies to export to Europe.

Secondly, the United States could work toward the normalization of relations with Iran—a development that becomes more practicable as a deal on Iran's nuclear program approaches and both countries face the threat of the growing power of the militant Islamic State terrorists in Iraq. Normalization would open up the possibility of exports of Iranian gas into European markets. That would pose much more of a threat to Russia's market position. Not only does Iran hold the world's second-largest reserves of natural gas, but its gas would be exported by pipelines into the very markets that Russia now dominates in East-Central Europe. As part of this effort, the United States and the EU would need to work together to expand plans for the Southern Corridor, now being built primarily to compete with Russia's South Stream project.

Thirdly, as with the defense sector, the United States could also put in place further sanctions and restrictions on technology exports that would retard the development of Russia's energy sector, expanding those imposed so far. As the old fields that were first developed during the Soviet period are depleted, Russia will have to move into geologically and climatically more challenging regions—offshore in the Arctic and onshore in East Siberia and in the Far East—to maintain adequate production levels. It does not, however, possess the technology or managerial skill to develop those resources on its own, and the only place it can get them is in the West. That is the primary reason why Russia's energy giants, Rosneft and Gazprom, have partnered with Western majors, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and Total, on projects in Russia.

To be sure, none of those three measures would have a significant and immediate impact on Russia's energy position. It would, for example, take a few years and billions of dollars in investment to build the infrastructure for the export of liquefied natural gas from the United States. But over the medium to long term, those steps would have the desired effect of squeezing Russia on both the demand and supply side, reducing Russia's presence in European markets, and putting pressure on its budget revenues.

Russia will be challenged to formulate an effective response. Aware of the vulnerabilities, Putin has for some time promoted the diversification of Russia's energy export markets, with special emphasis upon China. Indeed, as the Ukraine crisis intensified in May, he traveled to China as if to demonstrate that Russia had alternatives. There he made a special point of heralding progress toward the formation of a "Sino-Russian energy alliance," which he said would be a critical element of energy security throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The showpiece of the alliance is the 30-year, $400-billion gas contract signed by Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corporation. Under its terms, Gazprom will, beginning in 2018, gradually build up to annually exporting 38 billion cubic meters of gas (roughly one-quarter of the amount it now sends to Europe[20]). The project will entail building a tremendous amount of infrastructure, creating, as Putin put it, "the biggest construction project in the world, without any exaggeration."[21]

A decision by the United States to move vigorously against Russia's energy sector entails serious risks. With reduced possibilities in Europe, less upside for domestic production, and the absence of the West as operator or investor in regions of prospective growth, Russia would find itself in a much weaker bargaining positions vis-à-vis China. The Chinese have a well-earned reputation for being tough negotiators, and they are not about to make concessions simply to curry Russia's favor. (There is already considerable speculation that, to close the gas deal, Russia made concessions on the issue—price—that had been holding talks up for a decade, which Gazprom said was a "commercial secret,"[22] presumably to conceal the scale of its concessions.) Russia will likely find itself at a great disadvantage not only in energy negotiations, but also across the board. The long-term danger is that Russia, or at least its East Siberian and Far Eastern provinces, will become a raw materials appendage of China.

* * *

Measures taken in the security and energy realms threaten to have the most devastating impact on Russia in the medium to long term. Additionally, there are less dramatic steps the United States could take to erode Russian power and influence. Frustrated by Russian obstructionism, it could, for instance, actively seek, along with its European allies, ways to circumvent the UN Security Council in ways that reflect little regard for Russia's interests, especially in regions where it enjoys a preponderance of force, such as in the Balkans in the 1990s.  Similarly, it could work to limit Russian influence in other international and regional organizations, from the OSCE to the IMF and the WTO. And it could erode Russia's development prospects by encouraging greater brain drain by adopting more welcoming visa and immigration regulations. Creative minds will imagine further measures the U.S. could take in this area.

The point is that the United States has a broad range of options to counter what it sees as a resurgent Russian threat. None of the options is cost-free, and the administration will not decide on any of them lightly, given the public mood against an activist U.S. foreign policy and America’s other priorities, including the Obama administration’s expanding military action against the Islamic State. And there are downsides that few of the most ardent proponents of containment have considered, including, ironically, the weakening of Russia to such an extent that it could no longer govern its own territory effectively or serve as an effective element in creating a global equilibrium.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake for Moscow to discount the possibility of a more concerted and assertive anti-Russian American policy. In the past few months, the mood in the United States has turned on Russia. That turn came not as a consequence of a single act or a specific crisis, but rather as the result of a long period of frustration in dealing with Russia and of skepticism that it approached relations in good faith—much the way the Russian mood about the United States has turned over the past decade. Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine and elsewhere along the Russia periphery remains unsettled. There are ample opportunities for unanticipated events that could cause all sides to overreact. Moscow might believe the United States is mired in disarray and self-doubt, but it should remember that the American political establishment, despite Russia's recent assertive policy, continues to consider Russia to be in decline with a one-dimensional—and vulnerable—economy based principally on oil and gas. Rightly or wrongly, the Washington foreign policy establishment believes Russia will eventually succumb to American pressure.