Everyone is talking about Obama’s pointing out that if Iran didn’t acquire a nuclear weapon there would be no reason for the U.S. to build a missile shield. I’m going to contribute my two cents first on the specific story, and later on my thoughts on the bilateral relationship.
Sheer Genius
Let no one say that Barack Obama lacks the savvy to run the free world. The missile defense shield was President Bush’s pet project during the pre-9/11 campaign of 2000. The technology is unproven and expensive. While it would be nice, I imagine it isn’t high on President Obama’s to do list. So, the question begins, what can he get in the bargain?
Enter the Bear
Russia hates the missile shield. A viable shield would erase Russia’s prospects for mutually assured destruction, or deterrence, or whatever they’re calling it this century. Russia does have something that the U.S. doesn’t have. Russia has good relations with Iran, and has been the chief supplier of their legitimate nuclear technology. (The press keeps calling them allies, but I’m not aware of any alliance; let me know if I’m wrong.) In exchange for dumping a project he doesn’t like, President Obama could earn some major early foreign policy points by improving relations with Russia and nipping a long-standing thorn in the West’s side.
Challenges
There are challenges to be dealt with. Poland and the Czech Republic both made unpopular decisions to host missile defense bases, despite terrible threats from Russia. Back-tracking on two allies for improved relations with a major power may not be send the right message to the world. To handle the situation correctly, the U.S. should make some sort of offer to them.
Rethinking Russian Relations
Taking the historical context out, maybe it’s time that we re-think our relationship with Russia. Let’s look at our interests:
The United States
|
Russia
|
Clearly I’ve oversimplified a bit, but it seems to me that our interests are more in line now than they have been at any time since the Second World War (the last time we were allies). While recreating the “Big Three” of the original United Nations may be impossible, at the very least we should have pretty good relations. Of course there are problems, and I’ll leave you with a quote from a long telegram once written about Russia,
“At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area…And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.”
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Nice quote. It’s from the same gentleman who said “Russia can have at its borders only vassals or enemies.”
While some of the interests appear to coincide, I’d say a closer look at several reveal some big problems. Yeah, we want to buy energy, and they want to sell, but look at Gazprom’s record with its neighbors. Gazprom is essentially a branch of Kremlin foreign policy. Yeah, we both want to fight terrorism, but their action in the North Caucasus (Chechnya, Dagestan, etc) are atrocious.
Then we have the ideological battle to top it off: democracy vs their centralized state. If Russia’s neighbors can have a democratic form of government *and* prosper, it makes the Kremlin look bad. Therefore, these states are undermined, through Gazprom and other means.
And then we have the ideological aspect that derives from their view of history. The Soviet system is openly praised, and the state-run media oozes nostalgia for those good ol’ days. A majority of Russians, according to polls, believe the collapse of the USSR was a bad thing, and that Stalin, on the whole, was a good leader. The current majority Russian mindset is one of a longing for an empire, and scoffs at the very idea of independent states such as Ukraine, to give the easiest example.
If we can cooperate, for example, on the economic crisis, Somali piracy and Iranian nuclear power, awesome, I’m all for it. But this cooperation has to entail *both* sides getting something, because on many other issues I see what Kennan would deem “irreconcilable differences.”
NB: First time commenter, but been a reader for about 2-3 weeks. Aspiring FSO undergoing Orals in May/June!
How convenient: let’s dismiss Russia as too backward, barbaric, and neurotic to ever be able to consider compromise and enlightened foreign affairs, and that way we can justify our fear of relinquishing an ineffective and immature worldview.
The Kremlin, the establishment, the old people clinging to ridiculous, out-dated ideas, may feel one way, but to denigrate an entire country full of individuals isn’t so enlightened. That’s why we’re in this stupid mess to begin with.
By the time I was cognizant of world affairs, the Soviet Union was long gone. Why are we still thinking like this? The reason we’re suspicious of Russia is because they’re suspicious of us — it’s idiotic.
Would Russia really bomb us? Granted, I don’t know much about recent Soviet history and I’m not in the professional foreign affairs world. But they want our trade as much as we want theirs. As the Hegemonist said, as countries we have congruent interests (let alone the interests we all share as human beings, of which we could all do with a reminder). If we don’t think they’d actually fire missiles on us, then building a missile defense shield while complaining about their lack of friendliness is a hypocritical slap in the face.
If anyone has anything that would help me understand how this is not just about blind fear and stubbornness, I’d love to hear it.
For the record, I oppose the missile defense, seeing it as wasteful, impractical, and yes, not worth antagonizing Russia over, and agree that Russia has no interest in launching missiles at the US. The new president is right to reach out to Russia and swap the missile defense for help in dealing with Iran’s nuclear potential.
However, on the points specifically made in the first two notes, where am I factually wrong? Gazprom acts with impunity against Russia’s neighbors; Ramzan Kadyrov acts with impunity in Chechnya; protests against the Kremlin are broken up daily, elections are frequently falsified (even though by all honest polls Putin’s party would still easily win elections!) and more journalists are killed in Russia than in Iraq (and nevermind the overseas assassinations); the Kremlin and its reps continuously put forth material questioning Ukraine’s case for being a united nation-state, saying half should be returned to Russia; school textbooks tell children that on the whole Stalin’s policies were just as they led to a stronger Russia, and the Kremlin has been rehabilitating Soviet symbols and imagery for years.
It is only in the most recent months that we have seen a growing number of Russians question their own government and Putin’s leadership, and that is because of the dire economic situation. I hope for everyone’s sake that this trend for accountability and transparency grows.