You might want to take a look at this analysis (more of a gripe, really) about which of the presumptive U. S. presidential candidates would be best for Russia, translated and presented by World Meets U. S. (hat tip: The Moderate Voice). As you might guess the answer is “none of the above”:
McCain’s straightforwardness is truly strategic (which, as already mentioned, he will have to retract if he is elected – but this doesn’t matter here). This is the quintessence the views of Washington’s political establishment on relations with Russia.
U.S. specialists don’t conceal even conceal this fact. Just listen to Richard Holbrooke, who advises Hillary Clinton; or Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is trying to conceal his involvement with Barack Obama’s team. They are Democrats, but the problem is that they think the same way as Republican McCain. No, not on health care, abortion, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the right to carry firearms – God Forbid! – on these issues they are prepared to argue until they’re hoarse. But in regard to Russia (I dare say a marginal issue for American voters), there is a complete consensus.
I’m an outlier on this matter. I think that for the last nearly 20 years our relationship with Russia has been mismanaged and that a glorious opportunity has been missed. Now Russia drifts ever farther from what it might have been to our detriment, its own, and that of the world.
I think there’s plenty of blame to spread around for who lost Russia. Obviously, the Russian Communist Party is a primary culprit. 75 years of their control of the country had reduced Russia’s domestic institutions other than the Party, the military, and organized crime to rubble.
The West, collectively, shares some of the blame. The torrent of Western experts who flooded into Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, ignorant of the Russian situation, and offering bad advice didn’t help.
I do think that, proportionally, Europe bears more blame than the U. S. if only because a prosperous, liberal democratic Russia is even more in European interests than in ours. The Europeans have become so accustomed to standing around holding our coats while we worked and kvetching from the sidelines that they have problems in discerning when it’s in their collective interest to act.
I do think that, proportionally, Europe bears more blame than the U. S. if only because a prosperous, liberal democratic Russia is even more in European interests than in ours.
If Europe has decided that it needs to become a strategic counter-weight to the US (in effect establishing itself as a strategic enemy), then why would they want yet another strong nation to their east? I think Europe would prefer a strong dictator in an economically and militarily weak country – but perhaps without the 20,000 or so nuclear warheads.
Plus, I don’t know what the West could have done to have given Russia better chances to turn out as a Western-style country. It’s not like our nation building efforts have worked out anywhere we’ve tried them. If we can’t summon the wherewithal to build up Iraq (or even pitiful little Haiti) then how would we have ever been able to tackle the emmense set of problems presented by Russia? Some problems can’t be solved, and I suspect that Russia is one of them.
I have no problem with one significant White country being authoritarian nationalist and proud. The world needs it, the healthier elements of Europe need it, as an exemplary bulwark against decadent Americanization, Islam,
overwrought Zionist machinations destabilizing the Mideast and of course
a strengthening China otherwise tempted to impose Oriental hegemony on the world. Doestoyevsky said we needed it too.