Russia: Other Points of View

THE U.S. NEEDS A RUSSIA STRATEGY

REPRINTS

By Andrei Tsygankov

March 24, 2013

The new conventional wisdom among Russia experts in the U.S. seems to be that the U.S.-Russia relationship will be limited to issues of nuclear arms control only. Even in this area, it is difficult to expect breakthroughs. According to this view, the U.S. and Russia cannot increase their level of cooperation due to the divergence of their political systems and interests.

The two nations are divided over how to handle the Middle East, missile defense, human rights, differences in how fast Russia can become a full-fledged democracy, in addition to lesser issues––further, Washington doesn't see a meaningful role for Russia in today's changing world. Why? Russia's leadership prioritizes stability over democracy––and this runs counter to America's values and policies. Also the U.S. doesn't view Russia as sufficiently strong to be a global partner on issues from the Middle East to Asia. Finally, the United States advocates arms reductions, whereas Russia (in anticipation of greater instability in its nearby Eurasia neighborhood) feels it must rebuild its nuclear capabilities.

What is missing is real leadership: leadership that will offer a bold vision to tackle the world's problems jointly, acting on this vision––and accepting possible risks. As Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, reminds us, a good example of real leadership is how former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev jointly ended the Cold War in the late 1980s thereby moving the world toward a new era of cooperation.  

REAGAN ENVOY SLAMS LECTURING RUSSIA ON HUMAN RIGHTS

REPRINTS

by Martin Sieff Moscow Times, March 14, 2013 One of America’s most respected, and experienced, veteran diplomats has seriously criticized the policy of publicly lecturing foreign governments, especially Russia, on the issue of human rights. Veteran arms negotiator Richard Burt, who served two Republican presidents, also warned that the controversial Magnitsky Bill, penalizing Russian nationals for their alleged involvement in the imprisonment and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, had started a “spiral of response and counter-response” that would prove extremely harmful for both the United States and Russia. “I don’t think it’s very productive to publically castigate foreign governments,” Burt told a meeting in Washington, DC organized by the Center on Global Interests (CGI) on March 12. “It just embarrasses and humiliates the other party and it is counter-productive.” “A quiet strategy of working with foreign governments to reform in my judgment is far more effective than the public criticism that is so popular in Congress and indifferent parts of this town,” the ambassador said. Burt reminded his audience that in the 1980’s, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz “convinced (President) Ronald Reagan that we had to engage with the Soviet government.” “The Magnitsky Bill was the price the Obama administration had to pay to get Jackson-Vanik lifted,” he said. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment linked U.S. trade relations with countries that had non-market (originally nations in the Communist bloc) and made free trade with such countries conditional on them permitting freedom of emigration and other human rights. It remained in force for 20 years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union (its primary target) and was only repealed on Dec. 14, 2012, the same day that President Obama signed the Magnitsky Bill into law.

CHINA TIGHTENS BONDS WITH MOSCOW

REPRINTS

Xi tightens bonds with Moscow

By Brendan O'Reilly

Brendan P O'Reilly is a China-based writer and educator from Seattle. He is author of The Transcendent Harmony. He may be reached atoreillyasia@gmail.com

Xi Jinping highlighted the essential nature of the Sino-Russian relationship by making Moscow his first foreign destination after his appointment as president. In talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, Xi promised to expand economic, military, and strategic cooperation between the two nuclear powers.

The deepening bond between Beijing and Moscow has immense implications for the entire world - especially the United States. Indeed, it appears that Washington may have made a failed attempt at a "divide and rule" stratagem before Xi's Russian trip.

PUTIN 2.0 - YEAR ONE

By Gordon M. Hahn

It has been just about a year since Vladimir Putin 2.0 was inaugurated in the Kremlin as Russian president.  He was succeeding his own interregnum successor Prime Minister Dmitrii Medvedev and the liberalization policy carried out under the Medvedev-Putin tandem, referred to be the present author first as a ‘thaw’ and then with deepening liberalization, ‘perestroika 2.0. 

Perestroika 2.0 left several tasks unresolved: democratization, market liberalization, and political instability characterized by opposition mobilization, splitting within the Putin elite, and a malaise among Putin’s constituency within the population.  With Putin’s return to the Kremlin, democratization and market liberalization were no longer near the top of the agenda; stabilizing politics moved unequically to the top.  This does not mean that democratization and marketization are off limits for the mid- to long-term, but rather that they will not be pursued as ends in and of themselves and without pressure from below exerted by the opposition or external circumstances.

With political stabilization at the top of the agenda, Putin needed to accomplish three tasks: weaken the street opposition, consolidate the elite, and re-mobilize his popular constituencies.         

A U.S.-RUSSIAN BILATERAL AGENDA: PREVENTING A FULL MELTDOWN IN RELATIONS

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M. Hahn

Just as resets can crash computers, the U.S.-Russian ‘reset’ has crashed relation between Washington and Moscow. 

In the end, the U.S./Russia reset was overloaded by the challenges posed by the so-called ‘Arab Spring’,Vladmir Putin’s return to the Kremlin, and his institution of a soft, selective crackdown on some Russian opposition elements.

Moscow has given up on integration with the West.  The reset was the last gasp in the mid- to long-term of post-Cold War aspirations for such integration.  For the foreseeable future – the rule of Putin and perhaps his successor – Russia will seek to establish its place as one of several global powers in a multipolar world playing an important role in both the East and the West.

This does not mean Russia will be antagonistic towards the West and the United States or that the dream of a democratic Russia is dead.  It does mean, however, that Russia will be guided by its national interests and those will at times run counter to the interests of Washington.

There will be some opportunities for Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin to establish U.S.-Russian cooperation, but they will be confined largely to general threats to global stability.  Moreover, there are several issues over which relations could devolve into confrontation.  Therefore, the task for at least the next four years will be to reduce and manage tensions so the relationship does not meltdown entirely.

BACK ON TRACK TO NORMALCY INSTEAD OF RESET. IN THE WAKE OF MUNICH CONFERENCE

REPRINTS

by Pyotr Iskanderov

http://www.strategic-culture.org/

The 49^th Munich international security conference had some hidden obstacles. First of all, it took place at the time of utter uncertainty concerning the Syria’s situation. A solution requires close cooperation between the USA and Russia just exactly when the bilateral relations go through hard times. 

There were two major issues defining the agenda. First: is it possible to find a solution to the Syrian conflict aggravating the whole situation in the Middle East? Second: is the reset still in force or its initiator Barack Obama decided to alter priorities after being re-elected for the second term? 

The answers are still hanging the air. No reset speeches were heard this time. In February 2009 Vice President Joe Biden used the term, but this time he said something else. According to Biden, the USA want to get the relations with Russia «back to normal». 

The US Vice President didn’t hide the fact that there were many contradictions between the United States and Russia. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Syria’s crisis, the missile defense and further expansion of NATO and, finally, the human rights and democracy, the issues that have come to the fore recently. The Vice-President emphasized, «These differences are real, but we continue to see opportunities for the United States and Russia to partner in ways that advance our mutual security interest and the interest of the international community».. That’s what defined his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. 

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP

by Patrick Armstrong

Putin. On the 12^th Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly and on the 20^th his marathon press conference (not such bad health, after all). Nothing new – principal emphasis on domestic issues: corruption, qualitative growth, infrastructure and transparency. Foreign issues are what we’ve heard for years: Russia will pursue its own interests and resist being pushed around. An understandable pride in the Team’s achievements: from the press conference, in the last ten years “we have nearly doubled the country's GDP… We have increased the real incomes of the population by several fold…. The birth rate is the best in 20 years. We are taking the necessary steps, it is not enough so far, but progress is evident in healthcare, education and so on.” And, as always, slow and steady is what he wants in Russia and in the world. Perhaps it would not be too much of a stretch to say Putin I was about stopping the downward momentum; Medvedev was about loosening things up and starting towards qualitative growth; Putin II will be a continuation of that and, perhaps, (quite a lot in the Federation Council speech) a heavy attack on corruption. But, I say again: same program, same team.

Dima Yakovlev Bill. So named after a baby who died from negligence, the bill passed both houses with heavy support and Putin signed it into law. It’s retaliation for the US “Magnitskiy Bill” (and in my opinion a rather ineffective and misguided one. Although some amusing reactions: “callousness unusual even by Vladimir Putin’s standards” and the US Senate is offended.). There are a number of adoptions already in the pipeline; it’s not clear what will happen in these cases but Prokhorov says his Civic Platform party (ie he) will pay $50,000 to Russian families that adopt one of them.

RUSSIA AND THE ARAB WINTER: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC DILEMMAS

COMMENTARY

by Gordon M. Hahn

As the Arab 'Spring' continues to devolve into an Islamist winter for Moscow and the U.S., both find themselves increasingly on the horns of multiple dilemmas. Russia's dilemma is rooted in its previously forced bet in favor of the Islamic world's Shiite populations over the Sunnis––which has been anchored in Russia’s trading partner and periodic support for Iran, a Shia nation. Unfortunately for the Kremlin, this bet was staked out just as a wave of revolutionary Sunni Islamism/Jihadism was rising across the ummah (Arabic for “nation” or “community,” but not necessarily a common ancestry or geography).

Nowhere is this dilemma better demonstrated than in Syria, where Moscow has been lending diplomatic support to Iran's chief ally, the minority Alawite (Shia) regime of Bashar al-Assad.

A geostrategic calculus also influences Russia’s reticence about the downfall of the Assad regime. Syria has been Russia’s chief ally and weapons buyer in the Middle East for decades––and in addition provides the only warm water port in the region for the Russian Navy. Unfortunately for Moscow, which initially hoped the Syrian crisis could be resolved through negotiations or restabilization, the Assad regime appears to be doomed––and any new regime coming next is likely to seek revenge, especially if it is an Islamist one (which most likely it will be). This means the next leadership could be worse than the former.

IS RUSSIA'S PUTIN A SECRET FAN OF MITT ROMNEY?

COMMENTARY

"Is Russia's Putin a Secret Fan of Mitt Romney", asks Moscow bureau chief of Voice of America?

See article at end of this rebuttal 

by Gordon M. Hahn

US taxpayer-funded Voice of America (VOA), Moscow bureau chief James Brooke must be mirror-imaging.  In his article “Is Russia’s Putin a Secret Fan of Romney” published by VOA, Brooke argued, in essence, that Putin is glad that Republican Party presidential candidate might regard Russia as ‘the No. 1 geopolitical foe’ of the United States.  Such statements will allow him to maintain the 'fortress Russia' atmosphere and boost U.S. defense spending should he be elected. 

Ironically, Brooke backed up this claim by asserting that “Putin has inflicted on Russians the kind of anti-American campaign not seen here since the Soviet era. With 'foreign agents,' and 'treason' the flavors of the political season, today's Kremlin might be better off without an 'Amerikanski partnyor' in the White House.”  

I say “ironically” because Brooke continues to engage in an already overly exaggerated U.S. journalistic campaign which has targeted Putin’s Russia for human rights and democracy violations––one that goes far beyond what Moscow's violations really deserve.

To be sure, Russia is not close to a full democracy.  Since his return to the presidency in May, Putin has put the brakes on Dmitry Medvedev’s political thaw and cracked down on Russia's street opposition considerably beyond what Russian law and general propriety require.  And, yes, he may be responsible for anti-American propaganda on state-controlled media.  But in some respects it has been America's "Russophobia" that has driven "America-phobia" in Russia, as well as visa versa.  There are long-standing self-fulfilling prophecies that are responsible, in part, for driving the downturn in U.S.-Russian relations.

RESET? WHAT RESET?

REPRINTS

by Patrick Armstrong

http://us-russia.org/

An important part of the Obama Administration’s new approach was the improvement of US-Russia relations and accordingly Obama, soon after taking office, began to speak of a "reset” in relations. Secretary of State Clinton formally launched the "reset” in Geneva with Lavrov on 6 March 2009. She presented him with a "reset button”. Nothing wrong with that as a symbol and something to put on his desk except for the fact thatthe wrong word was used and that wrong word was written in the Latin alphabet. Are we to assume – Clinton said"we worked hard to get the right Russian word”– that the US State Department has no Russian translators or no people who know that the Russians have their own alphabet? Of course not, but she evidently couldn’t be bothered to consult them. Microsoft and Apple, by the way, know the right word and what alphabet to use. An amateurish beginning to something that was presented as a serious policy change.

But, in my opinion, revealing: if she got something so simple so wrong, was the "reset” ever a thought-out policy? Or was it just a transitory rhetorical flourish?

Yes missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic were cancelled.But missile defence is very far from off the table and Russia’s concerns are still brushed off as not being worthy of a serious response.

Continue reading here