The Road Forward With Russia

This article at Foreign Policy by Thomas Graham and Matthew Rojansky on how the U. S.-Russian relationship has gone wrong is the best thing on the subject I’ve read in a long time. Here’s a snippet:

The most common U.S. policy responses to Russia — from both Republican and Democratic administrations across three decades — have depended either on the hope that Moscow can be fully defeated or that it can become a friend and fellow democracy. But Russia is not a democracy, nor is it democratizing, and although Russia may be in secular decline, it is a major power on the world stage. The next president needs to accept that Moscow cannot simply be defeated or contained in the emerging multipolar, globalized world order. It must be engaged through a comprehensive balance of cooperation and competition.

The next president will have to persuade Moscow to cooperate where cooperation is needed on things like preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) while limiting room for Russia to maneuver where its interests largely oppose American ones, such as in Syria. And this new U.S. policy must also recognize that tensions with Russia do not divide neatly along the lines of geography or individual issues, and that even shared interests will seldom overlap entirely. The goal should involve constructing a web of interactions, both cooperative and competitive, that yields the most beneficial balance for our national interests. But above all, rather than setting out to defeat or transform Russia, a new U.S. approach should deal with Russia as it really is.

They go on to present six steps for improving the relationship between the two countries:

  1. Understand That It’s Not Just About Putin
  2. Stop Ukraine From Becoming a Frozen Conflict
  3. Have an Honest Talk About Europe
  4. Push for More Arms Control
  5. Work With Russia in Asia
  6. Recognize That Syria Is About More Than Syria

I think that can be distilled into just three principles. First, we need to consider clearly what the U. S. interests are. Germany is not our friend and Russia is not our enemy. The U. S., Germany, and Russia are different countries and sometimes our interests coincide with each of theirs and sometimes they’re different. For the last thirty years we’ve been pushing Germany’s interests even when they aren’t consistent with our own and opposing Russian interests even when they don’t interfere with ours.

Second, a war between the U. S. and Russia isn’t in anybody’s interest. That isn’t idle speculation. Russia is taking the very bellicose words and actions that have come from the United States seriously.

Third, it’s legitimate for Russia to have interests different from ours, just as it’s legitimate for Liechtenstein or Spain to have interests different from ours. That’s what it means to live in a Westphalian order rather than an American empire. We can’t dictate to the other countries of the world what’s in their interests.

8 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    Germany is not our friend and Russia is not our enemy.

    Right. So long as there are no humans involved. Or beliefs. Or history. Or egos.

    The American people, the voters, are the ultimate arbiters of American foreign policy, as are German voters in their country. And there is quite clearly a great deal of what could be called friendship between our two peoples. Ask the average voter whether we should loan a dollar to Germany or to Russia. Now, imagine being a politician posing that question.

    This is the kind of thing men think makes them sound wise and tough and alpha male. They clench their jaws and put on their best scowls, but really it’s just funny. When the Falklands happened we had no interest in the outcome but we helped the Brits. Why? Friendship. Same reason poor old Tony Blair got dragged into Iraq. We care about some countries, and we don’t care about others, and no, it is not about interests because if it was we’d care a hell of a lot less about Israel.

    Any analysis that starts with “Let’s pretend people don’t exist,” is a waste of time. Putin isn’t pursuing Russia’s interests, he’s pursuing his interests. It’s about his ego, his need for significance. He doesn’t genuinely fear NATO, he fears being dismissed as a little KGB thug in charge of a corrupt, second-rate country. He wants respect.

    Put it this way. We have one anti-asteroid missile. Just one. But two asteroids are on a collision course with Earth. One will obliterate New Zealand’s south island, which is lovely but completely insignificant. The other asteroid will obliterate Okinawa which is extremely useful to us strategically. (Similar populations) Guess which target the American people will insist on saving. If you put it to a referendum the vote would be 90% for saving Gondor. And as long as we have a democracy it will continue to be the case that yes, we do indeed have ‘friends,’ and we also have enemies, and foreign policy will be driven by human emotion at least as much by talk of interests.

  • We care about some countries, and we don’t care about others, and no, it is not about interests because if it was we’d care a hell of a lot less about Israel.

    I agree but I don’t interpret that as a rejection of the idea that we need to start thinking about interests more clearly. I take it as support for the idea.

    I could list a half dozen things that have happened over the period of the last 30 years that were not in our interests at all but were vital German interests and which we supported and which have subsequently proved harmful to us and our other allies.

    When do we return to the “keeping Germany down” bit about the rationale for forming NATO?

    Michael, I think you’ve got it backwards. If you’ve got evidence that ordinary Americans have overwhelming support for Germany, please produce it. I don’t think most of us are that interested. What I think has actually happened is that American elites think the idea of Germany’s dominating the European continent is a pretty good one. Just exactly as they did in the 1930s.

    Have you ever heard of the tertium non datur fallacy? There are other alternatives besides lending money to Germany or lending money to Russia, your analogy for supporting Germany or supporting Russia. My sense of the American people is that given the choice “Neither” would win in a landslide.

  • steve Link

    Have at least one nit to pick. He says Russian interests in Syria oppose ours. I just don’t se it that way. We don’t have many, if any, real interests in Syria. The Russians have real interests. We both would like to get rid of IS. Would make sense to work with them towards that end if we are going to do anything in Syria.

    I kind of think changing our attitudes towards the Russians will be a lot like making advances in science. You need a bunch of the old folks to die before you can accept change.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    A lot of this is one big reason why I can’t vote for Clinton. Her closest advisors all seriously consider an attack on Syria as a legitimate option. The Russians have made it clear that they would defend Syria against any US attack.

    Her foreign policy regarding Russia seems to be stuck in the 1990’s when we were able, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, give the Russians plate after plate of shit to eat. Russia isn’t the weak and disorganized power it was back then. Libya was the last straw and they’ve drawn a line with Syria – we cross it at the Earth’s peril.

  • He says Russian interests in Syria oppose ours. I just don’t se it that way. We don’t have many, if any, real interests in Syria. The Russians have real interests.

    Yep, that’s pretty much the way I see it. IMO those who believe that our interests and the Russians’ are opposed generally take the view that if it hurts the Russians it’s good for us.

  • A lot of this is one big reason why I can’t vote for Clinton.

    Sec. Clinton has frequently spoken in support of a “no-fly zone” in the name of fighting terrorism. No terrorists are flying in the skies over Syria but the Russians are. The only coherent reason to support such a zone is to counter Russian activities.

    Leaving aside that it would be in opposition to international law, it would be courting the nightmare scenario which as I see it would be U. S. flyers being shot down by Russian fighters and then picked up by DAESH to be burnt alive on video seen all over the world.

    Is eliminating Assad really worth destroying the world over?

  • ... Link

    The Russians have made it clear that they would defend Syria against any US attack.

    Yay, it early 1914 all over again! You do realize we’re doing all this just to fuck with future historians heads, right? Serbia & Syria are even very similar words, at least in English, the lingua franca of our time. Feels good, man!

    All praise Kek, frog-God of chaos!

  • ... Link

    Is eliminating Assad really worth destroying the world over?

    I’ve been told by no less an authority than Jeff Bezos (through his official propaganda organ, the Washington Post) that Trump is Worse Than Hitler(tm). And Putin is even Worse Than Trump(tm)*, as he actually owns Trump. (As opposed to the Saudi relationship with the Clintons, which is merely a partnership to bring the peace and joy of some damn thing to the world.)

    So, since eliminating Assad would be a thumb in the eye to the man who is Worse Than Trump(tm)*, it must be worth risking Humanity itself to accomplish. Q.-the-fucking-E.D., bitchez!

    * Yeah, I’m trademarking Worse Than Trump(tm). Like, last Friday.

Leave a Comment