Dispatch November 2008

Medvedev Spoils the Party

It will take more than Obama's electoral triumph to improve the United States' strained relations with Russia

The question then arises: what should the incoming Obama administration do to improve relations with Russia?  Bearing on this are the nature and aspirations of the present Russian regime – a regime that seems likely to remain in power for a long time.  True, the (chaotic) freedom Russia knew under Yeltsin is no more.  The press has been emasculated, and political opposition dispensed with or marginalized.  But by most indices, some of the United States’ closest allies, such as the Gulf states and most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, rank as poorly as Russia does, or worse, with respect to human rights.  China is still nominally Communist, but can anyone imagine the United States showing it the kind of disregard that the Bush II and Clinton administrations have displayed toward Russia?  There are obviously pressing economic and strategic reasons for treating China carefully.  The same holds true for Russia.

And what of Russia’s heavy-handed actions in its “near abroad?”  Do they make Russia unworthy of Western partnership?  By all appearances Russia is seeking not to conquer or subjugate Europe, let alone the West, but to reestablish its role as the dominant power in some—not all—of the domains of the formerly Soviet and tsarist-era Russian empire, and protect what Medvedev has termed the country’s “privileged interests.”  That Russia claims “privileged interests” in Eurasia poses problems for Western leadership circles that seek to woo countries away from Russia, largely to assure access to those countries’ massive hydrocarbon reserves rather than for any reasons pertaining to “support for democracy.” Humiliations inflicted by the West on Russia in the 1990s continue to stoke nationalist sentiment, and ensure that the Kremlin’s efforts in safeguarding its “privileged interests” enjoy popular Russian support. 

“Privileged interests” might be a phrase of recent coinage, but the issue is age-old.  Since Russia’s transformation from an eastern European confederation of Slavic princedoms (Kievan Rus’), in the Middle Ages, into a multiethnic empire stretching across sparsely populated, resource-endowed terrain from Europe almost to Alaska, Russian leaders have conflated security, stability, and prosperity with dominance of “their” part of Eurasia, much as the United States has considered the Western hemisphere inherently its own (hence the Monroe Doctrine).  The United States—geographically distant, culturally remote, and eyed by most former Soviet citizens with suspicion (especially in Muslim Central Asia)—can do little to stop Russia from reasserting itself in its “near abroad.”  Even if Russia is taking a beating in the financial crisis, its energy reserves guarantee it a measure of independence that will confound Western attempts to pressure or counter it. 

In view of all these factors, what steps can the United States take to redefine its approach to Russia, and show that it means business? First, Obama should seek to overturn the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007, which advocates, and allocates funding for, the accession of Georgia and Ukraine. NATO expansion hardly made the news in the United States until the Russia-Georgia war, but it has stoked unprecedented suspicion, incredulity, and even ire both in the Kremlin and among the Russian population at large.  American and European assurances that NATO expansion “isn’t directed at Russia” sound fatuous, laden with the tone-deaf arrogance of their bearers.  NATO was created to counter the Soviet threat, and its expansion is meant to check Russia’s potential for reviving its influence beyond its borders.  But to end the “Russia threat,” the West needs to engage Moscow as a partner.  Sooner rather than later, Obama should decisively announce that NATO will grow no further, citing, perhaps, the expense involved in bringing the Ukrainian and Georgian militaries up to speed, and the many strategic problems those two countries would pose as members. 

Second, Obama should put a halt to U.S. missile defense plans.  He has not been very forthcoming on this subject, though he has stated that he will evaluate the program based on its cost and likely effectiveness. Those two factors alone should doom it, and could serve as adequate reasons for its termination, without reference to Russian objections.  For those who don’t know: if “missile defense” sounds innocuous, the system—even limited to only ten interceptors, as plans have it now—in fact would grant the United States potential offensive leeway vis-à-vis Russia, in that it could conceivably serve to shoot down the few Russian missiles that would survive an American first strike.  True, this presupposes that Russia would not launch its rockets upon determining that it was under attack.  But what if the technology substantially improves?  What would stop the United States from increasing deployment of interceptors in bases already established?  In any case, a U.S. missile defense capability would amount to one more aspect of the Pentagon’s sought-after “full-spectrum dominance.”  Basing this system so close to Russia makes it inherently provocative, especially in view of Russia’s aging nuclear arsenal and decaying military. 

The third matter that the Obama administration must address concerns, more broadly, America’s role in the world, about which President Obama should initiate a national dialogue.  Will America pursue hegemonic policies that date back to the end of the Second World War?  Or will it truly aspire to help fashion a revitalized, more just, world order, in which Russia is a partner rather than an adversary?  Here Obama has his work cut out for him.  He could start by repudiating the Bush administration’s two National Security Strategies.  The Strategy of 2002 announced, “[American] forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States” (thereby abandoning deterrence, the key peacekeeping principle of the Cold War).  And the Strategy of 2006 declared, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world” – an unstated threat to the autocratic regime Putin has established in Russia, and in fact a threat to any country the United States deems oppressive.  Obama should issue his own Strategy, one that pays due attention to principles of international cooperation and respect for the rule of law by all—including the United States.  If America wishes to confront terrorism and stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, it will need the help of other countries – most notably Russia.

In devising a new Strategy, the U.S. defense budget should come under intense scrutiny.  It is only in support of hegemonic policies that America can justify spending $695 billion on weapons and wars, as it did during the fiscal year 2008.  The Western press has taken notice of the military build-up Putin has begun, but this has amounted to raising the Russian defense budget from $25 billion in 2006 to a projected $50 billion in 2009—a figure that, even with $100 billion a year flowing into state coffers from petroleum receipts, the Kremlin would presumably be happy to reduce.  The U.S., facing no threat of Soviet magnitude, should cut back its defense expenditures and redirect taxpayer dollars to other priorities. 

Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation.  Russia commands the largest landmass on earth; possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust.  Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin government.  The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.”

Once the world financial crisis passes, we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the greatest challenges facing humanity.  No country can confront these problems alone.  For the United States, Russia may just prove the “indispensable nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.

Presented by

Jeffrey Tayler is an Atlantic correspondent living in Moscow.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus


A Stop-Motion Tour of New York City

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open For 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.


What Happens Inside a Dying Mind?

Science cannot fully explain near-death experiences.
More back issues, Sept 1995 to present.

Just In