27 February 2009

Engagement, Firmness Should Guide U.S. Russia Policy

Observers debate challenges and chances in U.S.–Russian relations

Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott

By Jaroslaw Anders
Staff Writer

Washington — As the Obama administration tries to shape its policy toward the Russian Federation and seeks areas of mutual interest and potential engagement, U.S. observers say the United States should approach the task with realism and readiness to hold to its values.

On February 19, the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution in Washington hosted a panel discussion on a range of issues in U.S.-Russian relations — from the aftermath of the Russian intervention in Georgia to NATO enlargement, missile defense and nuclear disarmament.

Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution, a public policy research center, said the West is dealing with a Russia focused “on regaining great power status and recovering the power and the influence that Moscow lost in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

This is a Russia, he said, that does not want the West’s advice on its politics and economy, is seeking a reduction in U.S. influence in the world, speaks openly about a “sphere of privileged interests” in the former Soviet lands, and wants a seat at the table whenever major European or international issues are being discussed, “almost regardless of whether they can bring something to the table.”

It is also a Russia that would like to improve its relations with the United States, but do so on its own terms.

The recent global economic crisis, which has hit Russia particularly hard, can push the Kremlin in one of two directions, Pifer said. The Russian leadership may choose to cling to an “adversary image of Washington” and use it to distract the population from economic woes, or they may “conclude that a calmer international context, a better relationship with the United States and the West, will make it easier for them to focus on their very difficult situation at home.”

In recent Russian statements, especially in positive reactions to Vice President Biden’s speech in Munich and to the Moscow visit of Under Secretary of State William Burns, Pifer sees signals of Moscow’s willingness to pursue a more positive engagement with the United States.

But another participant, Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution and former deputy secretary of state, said that although the tone of Russian statements has clearly softened, the substance of Moscow’s message has not changed much.

Speaking about Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s proposal for a new Euro-Atlantic security architecture, Talbott said it essentially consists of “very familiar complaints and airing of old resentments,” as well as demands which “cannot and should not be met.”

Talbott mentioned Russian claims to a sphere of privileged interests, which, he said, “translate quite directly into a Russian veto over NATO expanding further to the east.”

But under the Obama administration Talbott expects a chance to reactivate the NATO-Russia Council, especially on the issue of missile defense, which, in his view, has to be addressed before there is progress on a new post-START strategic arms agreement.

Strengthening the NATO-Russia Council was also suggested by the third panel participant, the German ambassador to the United States, Klaus Scharioth. He faulted both sides with what he saw as the council’s failure to fulfill its promise, and said the United States should consider putting the proposed missile defense system in Europe under the council’s supervision.

The fourth participant in the Brookings Institution panel, Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the West should reject the idea that Russia “is behaving the way it is behaving because we, in the West, did things to it.” In his view, Russian behavior is driven by the ambition to “undo the post–Cold War international settlement, renegotiate it and reestablish as best as possible a Russian sphere of influence.”

Kagan also dismissed suggestions that Russia is feeling encircled by the West and threatened by NATO expansion as well as by U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. “All ambitious, expansionist, revanchist states feel encircled” because they are pushing outward and encounter resistance, he said, citing the cases of the United States in the 1890s, Germany in the early 20th century and Japan later in the 20th century.

The West should go ahead with arms-control negotiations and pursue economic cooperation with Russia, Kagan said, but should resist “with some firmness” Russian desire to reestablish its local hegemony.

The four participants agreed that “turning the temperature down” in U.S.-Russian relations would be desirable, but they said the goal can be achieved only if both sides show equal willingness to do so.