Tweet
OBAMA AND PUTIN'S RUSSIA
Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOKJULY 6, 2009.
An American President lands in Moscow today to negotiate an arms
control treaty. Befitting that retro theme, thousands of Russian
troops are in the midst of the biggest war games in the south Caucasus
since the end of the Cold War, menacing the small, independent nation
of Georgia.
President Obama's two days in Moscow are supposed to foster, in an
adviser's words, "a more substantive relationship with Russia" --
the substance being Iran's atomic ambitions, the war in Afghanistan
and a replacement for the soon-to-expire Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty. You know, the stuff of a quasi-superpower partnership. But
Russia hardly looks super, or inclined to forge a partnership, except
on its own terms.
Instead, Supreme Leader Vladimir Putin wants to settle old scores
and establish what he calls "a zone of privileged interest." He must
appreciate Mr. Obama's eagerness to change the subject from Russian
belligerence to nuclear weapons, which plays up Russia's remaining
claim to superpower status. How that serves America's interests
isn't clear.
As in the weeks before Russia invaded Georgia in August, tensions
are again on the rise. At least 8,500 Russian troops are involved in
exercises around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, breakaway Georgian regions
recognized as independent solely by Russia and Nicaragua. Last month,
Moscow vetoed the renewal of U.N. and European observer missions
in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both had been there since the early
1990s. President Mikheil Saakashvili, a young Columbia-trained lawyer
who turned Georgia westward, remains an irritant for Russia. A
pro-Kremlin regime in Georgia would give Moscow control over the
energy routes through the Caucasus and influence independent-minded
Azerbaijan and Armenia.
While Russia has failed even to comply with the terms of the truce, the
U.S. and its allies are acting as if that war never happened. At this
summit, Mr. Obama is to announce the restoration of bilateral military
relations with Russia suspended by the Bush Administration. The
NATO-Russian Council is also back in business. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama
has put on hold plans by Poland and the Czech Republic to allow the
U.S. to deploy American missile defenses on their soil. In a letter to
Kremlin frontman Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year, Mr. Obama floated
the idea of trashing those deals if Russia can prod Iran to give up
its nuclear ambitions.
U.S. officials say they've ruled out quid pro quos on missile defense
or Ukraine and Georgia's future. Nonetheless, Russian officials are
all too happy to consider grand bargains. All start with America
abandoning any future NATO expansion. In pre-summit interviews,
Mr. Obama also skipped over such touchy Kremlin subjects as human
rights and its designs on neighboring states. "The main thing that I
want to communicate to the Russian leadership and the Russian people
is America's respect for Russia," he told Russian media, noting that
"it remains one of the most powerful countries in the world." Someone
keeps telling American Presidents to stroke the bear's fragile ego
above all else. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also pursued this
strategy, to little good effect.
Here's an idea. Set aside the dime-store national psychoanalysis
and return to first American principles and interests. This summit
rests on a fiction: That Russia is an equal power to the U.S. that
can offer something concrete in return for American indulgence. Some
Russians see through the pretense. "Let's be frank: There's not a
single serious global issue where the United States is dependent on
Russia today," the pro-Kremlin political analyst, Gleb Pavlovsky,
wrote in Nezavisimaya Gazeta last week. Russia's decision to let the
U.S. resupply its Afghan troops over Russian airspace is a goodwill
gesture, but it was only offered after Russia failed to stop resupply
via Kyrgyzstan.
>From the moment Communism collapsed, America's overriding national
interest in Europe and Eurasia has been to extend prosperity and
freedom. In short, to offer formerly captive nations a choice to join
the West. This can be done in part through membership in NATO, the EU
or the World Trade Organization. The "West" is an idea as well as a
place, a voluntary and open association. Successive U.S. Presidents,
when push came to shove, have defended the right to make this choice
freely and ignored Russian caterwauls.
The choice to join the free world is open to Russia, too. Mr. Putin
is the one who has taken that option off the table -- most recently
by pulling Russia's application to join the WTO. In the Putin decade,
nationalism, corruption and cronyism have flourished while Russia
has missed another chance to modernize. That's not America's fault.
Any U.S. administration will have plenty of business to carry out
with Russia. But an American President in Moscow needs to keep his
eyes on the bigger prize in Russia and the region. And that prize is
an expansion of freedom, not a new START treaty.
Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOKJULY 6, 2009.
An American President lands in Moscow today to negotiate an arms
control treaty. Befitting that retro theme, thousands of Russian
troops are in the midst of the biggest war games in the south Caucasus
since the end of the Cold War, menacing the small, independent nation
of Georgia.
President Obama's two days in Moscow are supposed to foster, in an
adviser's words, "a more substantive relationship with Russia" --
the substance being Iran's atomic ambitions, the war in Afghanistan
and a replacement for the soon-to-expire Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty. You know, the stuff of a quasi-superpower partnership. But
Russia hardly looks super, or inclined to forge a partnership, except
on its own terms.
Instead, Supreme Leader Vladimir Putin wants to settle old scores
and establish what he calls "a zone of privileged interest." He must
appreciate Mr. Obama's eagerness to change the subject from Russian
belligerence to nuclear weapons, which plays up Russia's remaining
claim to superpower status. How that serves America's interests
isn't clear.
As in the weeks before Russia invaded Georgia in August, tensions
are again on the rise. At least 8,500 Russian troops are involved in
exercises around Abkhazia and South Ossetia, breakaway Georgian regions
recognized as independent solely by Russia and Nicaragua. Last month,
Moscow vetoed the renewal of U.N. and European observer missions
in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both had been there since the early
1990s. President Mikheil Saakashvili, a young Columbia-trained lawyer
who turned Georgia westward, remains an irritant for Russia. A
pro-Kremlin regime in Georgia would give Moscow control over the
energy routes through the Caucasus and influence independent-minded
Azerbaijan and Armenia.
While Russia has failed even to comply with the terms of the truce, the
U.S. and its allies are acting as if that war never happened. At this
summit, Mr. Obama is to announce the restoration of bilateral military
relations with Russia suspended by the Bush Administration. The
NATO-Russian Council is also back in business. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama
has put on hold plans by Poland and the Czech Republic to allow the
U.S. to deploy American missile defenses on their soil. In a letter to
Kremlin frontman Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year, Mr. Obama floated
the idea of trashing those deals if Russia can prod Iran to give up
its nuclear ambitions.
U.S. officials say they've ruled out quid pro quos on missile defense
or Ukraine and Georgia's future. Nonetheless, Russian officials are
all too happy to consider grand bargains. All start with America
abandoning any future NATO expansion. In pre-summit interviews,
Mr. Obama also skipped over such touchy Kremlin subjects as human
rights and its designs on neighboring states. "The main thing that I
want to communicate to the Russian leadership and the Russian people
is America's respect for Russia," he told Russian media, noting that
"it remains one of the most powerful countries in the world." Someone
keeps telling American Presidents to stroke the bear's fragile ego
above all else. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also pursued this
strategy, to little good effect.
Here's an idea. Set aside the dime-store national psychoanalysis
and return to first American principles and interests. This summit
rests on a fiction: That Russia is an equal power to the U.S. that
can offer something concrete in return for American indulgence. Some
Russians see through the pretense. "Let's be frank: There's not a
single serious global issue where the United States is dependent on
Russia today," the pro-Kremlin political analyst, Gleb Pavlovsky,
wrote in Nezavisimaya Gazeta last week. Russia's decision to let the
U.S. resupply its Afghan troops over Russian airspace is a goodwill
gesture, but it was only offered after Russia failed to stop resupply
via Kyrgyzstan.
>From the moment Communism collapsed, America's overriding national
interest in Europe and Eurasia has been to extend prosperity and
freedom. In short, to offer formerly captive nations a choice to join
the West. This can be done in part through membership in NATO, the EU
or the World Trade Organization. The "West" is an idea as well as a
place, a voluntary and open association. Successive U.S. Presidents,
when push came to shove, have defended the right to make this choice
freely and ignored Russian caterwauls.
The choice to join the free world is open to Russia, too. Mr. Putin
is the one who has taken that option off the table -- most recently
by pulling Russia's application to join the WTO. In the Putin decade,
nationalism, corruption and cronyism have flourished while Russia
has missed another chance to modernize. That's not America's fault.
Any U.S. administration will have plenty of business to carry out
with Russia. But an American President in Moscow needs to keep his
eyes on the bigger prize in Russia and the region. And that prize is
an expansion of freedom, not a new START treaty.