Needed: A New Direction for US-Russian Relations

This past Sunday, on Meet the Press, would-be-Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards and one-time-Republican presidential candidate Jack Kemp, used the fiftieth anniversary of Winston Churchill's Fulton speech to promote their new Council on Foreign Relations' Task Force Report, Russia's Wrong Direction: What the US Can and Should Do.

Edwards and Kemp didn't use Churchill's rhetoric of 1946. Neither spoke of "an iron curtain" descending across Europe. Yet in 2006, there are whiffs of a new-fangled Cold War. This new chapter in US-Russian relations already has its own codewords, checkpoints and nuances. (Underlying the rhetoric is an American triumphalism, as represented by John Lewis Gaddis's new history of the Cold War.) There is a hectoring tone and a familiar double standard, for example, when it comes to condemning Moscow for seeking allies and military bases abroad just as the Bush Administration is doing. As Russia expert and New York University Professor Stephen Cohen ( as well as longtime Nation contributing editor and, full disclosure, my husband) lamented at a conference on the Cold War held at the Gorbachev Foundation in Moscow last week, US-Russian relations are being remilitarized.

Talking before a group of nearly 200 Russian and Western scholars, journalists, and diplomats, Cohen observed that "most alarming, negotiations for reducing nuclear weapons have, in effect, been terminated by the Bush Administrations' unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and by the essentially meaningless nuclear reductions agreement it imposed on Moscow in 2002. And all this, including new buildups on both sides, while Russia's means of fully controlling its existing nuclear devices are less reliable than they were under the Soviet system."

No one can claim that these are hopeful times in Russia. Twenty one years after Gorbachev came to power, little is left of the historic opportunities his reforms opened up for his country and for the world. Instead, as The Nation pointed out in a June 2000 editorial, (at a time when the US government cautiously welcomed Vladimir Putin as a man committed to "democratic" reform), the new President was more accurately described as "instinctively authoritarian." And as The Nation also understood at that time--unlike so much of the American press--Putin's rise to power was an outgrowth of Yeltsinism, which Washington had so assiduously supported through the 1990s.

It reflected "the emergence of an iron-handed leader who, by exploiting Russians' desire for law and order, has struck a sympathetic chord among millions sick of the corruption" of the Yeltsin years. The anti-democratic consequences of Yeltsinism are still evident. Last month, a survey conducted by the Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, revealed that nearly 60 percent of Russians polled believe the country needs an authoritarian ruler. (Not all of these were older people, as the conventional wisdom has it; a substantial number were young.)

There is no question that the US needs a new policy toward Russia--one that is neither triumphalist, Cold War-like, or ignorant of the fact that the pro-Western liberal groups in Russia today--so called "democrats" who were chiefly responsible for Yeltsin's policies of the 1990s--are in fact supported by a tiny fraction of the Russian electorate. What is needed is a policy that understands why Russia has become a semi-authoritarian state--or what some call a "managed democracy." But understanding usually requires a sense of history--something missing from too much of media coverage of Russia today. It means placing Putin in historical perspective, never forgetting that he was put in the Kremlin to be Yeltsin's loyal praetorian successor. (Indeed, one of Putin's first acts was to issue a decree protecting Yeltsin from future prosecution for corruption.)

The Edwards-Kemp report also fails to make clear that after the looting and plundering of Russia's natural resources by a handful of oligarchs in the 1990s, abetted by Yeltsin and also endorsed by the US as "reform," it was virtually inevitable that Putin, or any post-Yeltsin leader, would reassert state control over the country's essential resources, particularly oil and gas.(This does not mean that the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky should be in a prison camp today, but it does mean that some financial retribution for the oligarchical looting was unavoidable.)

Yes, there is much to condemn in Putin's handling of the brutal war in Chechnya. Yes, democratization--which was launched by Gorbachev in the late 1990s--has been rolled back. (It should be pointed out, however, that while the Kremlin has reasserted state control over television, few in the US media seem to be aware that Russia's print press is still politically diverse. On a typical day in Moscow, you can read a fuller range of political views in the many newspapers published in that city than in New York.)

But what is rarely, if ever, acknowledged in the American media is that--as Cohen forcibly argues in his book Failed Crusade--de-democratization began not under Putin but under Yeltsin. (Yeltsin's use of tanks against an elected parliament in 1993 was a grievous blow against democracy.) And at a time when anti-Americanism has reached all-time highs, US government and media lectures to the Russians about democracy may well do more harm than good. (Indeed to hear the Bush Administration lecturing others on democracy--in Russia or anywhere in the world--seems surreal.)

Instead of counter-productive lecturing, we should be developing a cooperative relationship with a Russia that is reengaging pragmatically in the Middle East--by testing Hamas's willingness to moderate its anti-Israel militancy, or controlling Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. And as essential is the need to restart negotiations on reducing each countries' bloated nuclear arsenals. (Indeed, we'd all be instantly safer if Moscow and Washington took their nuclear warheads off of hair-trigger alert.)

In short, those looking for a measured and knowledgeable understanding of Russia today will not find it in the Edwards-Kemp Council on Foreign Relations report. (Though it can hardly be considered a compliment, it should be said that the Report is sane when compared to the Washington Post's hectoring, Cold War-style editorials about Russia.)

Instead, I recommend recent articles by New America Foundation Fellow Anatol Lieven, especially his Financial Times op-ed of last month. Also, Tony Judt's meticulous critique of John Lewis Gaddis's "The Cold War," in which Judt exposes the historian as a key representative of the unapolegetic triumphalism that afflicts our political class. And there is also Cohen's book, Failed Crusade, which is both a critique of US policy toward Russia and a blueprint for a new policy.

Finally, in regard to the indignant braying about whether Russia deserves to be in the G8--a major topic of the new CFR report--I suggest reading former securities' analyst Eric Kraus's amusing, insightful web article, Does America Deserve to be in the G8? After all, as Kraus writes, if democratization is a litmus test for membership in the G8, "over the past six years, the US has seen a substantial erosion of her old but still-fragile democracy, along with an increasingly aggressive foreign policy and growing tendency to ignore the will of the international community. Indeed, any international law whatsoever. This clearly poses a growing threat to regional security and to world peace."

A personal coda: When I met John Edwards last year, I suggested that if he focused on Russian-American relations, as he said he might, he should consider addressing the poverty ravaging that beleaguered country. (According to official Russian statistics, 18 percent of Russians live in poverty; but, according to many eminent Russian economists and other scholars, the figure is certainly closer to 50 percent.) After all, there seemed a natural coherence to that focus--since Edwards has made American poverty a central issue of his political campaigning.

I also suggested to Edwards that he avoid seeking the Council on Foreign Relations's seal of approval to shore up his national security credentials. Why not take a less predictable, more populist route? Why not turn to other, alternative, perhaps less established thinkers on Russian -American relations whose ideas have not already failed and who are more suited to the new realities of the post-Cold War world?

Comments (29)

1. Given the Left and "The Nation" were dead wrong about the Soviet Union back in the bad ol' days....

   why in this world would anybody listen to their advice NOW?

   If Ms vanden Heuval had had her way, we would have let the Soviets reduce their military budget, propped up their failing system with American and European largesse, and let Gorbachev lie his way around REAL reform.

   Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 12:21pm

2. Firstly, I nominate Katrina and Stephen as the "first couple" of post-Camelot liberalism.

   Secondly, thanks Katrina for attempting to educate John Edwards, a fellow progressive southerner. Who has the king's ear wields the power, n'est-ce pas? And, Strangelovian, Kissinger-esque neo-classical, neo-conservative or neo-liberal strategists are literally fiddling (or golfing) while post-modern opportunities are seemingly unimagined.

   It's truly the Age of Aquarius folks. And those of us with the capacity of holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously (some wag's definition of intelligence) in mind; logically knowing that thesis and antithesis generates a synthesis which becomes the new thesis, and so on and so on; we mustn't lose heart.

   I know we won't. We've got classy couples galore, most principally Katrina and Stephen.

   LAWMAN

   Posted by lewwelge at 03/07/2006 @ 12:47pm

3. MASK:

   As usual, you ignore the substance of the article, and instead just impugn the author. I'm curious -- are you a hater of thoughtful Republicans like Jack Kemp or just someone with way too much free time?

   Posted by trabaris at 03/07/2006 @ 2:25pm

4. Posted by TRABARIS 03/07/2006 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person

   Sorry, TRAB....but the Left's conduct post-Vietnam about relations with the Soviet Union and Soviet expansionism really tainted my view of their "expert" opinion on the matter of us and them.

   From the nuclear freeze to Soviet-American "children cultural exchanges" to this mis-placed adoration of a Soviet who wanted NOTHING to do with freedom or democracy (Gorbachev)....liberals in the 70s and 80s were supporting policies that would have PROPPED UP the Soviet system, not helped to collapse it.

   And most of the difficulties of Russia came in the 1990s....and there weren't any "thoughtful Republicans" running the State Department throughout 90% of that.

   Posted by Mask at 03/07/2006 @ 2:47pm

5. RIO BRAVO:

   We could say the same to you, but fortunately the Nazis lost the war.

   Posted by jorcheim at 03/07/2006 @ 3:55pm

6. MASK:

   I love your selected remembrance of history. (That's sarcasm, in case you missed that.)

   I find it interesting that we in the West forget precisely why the Soviet Union became so totalitarian in the first place. First off, we forget that Russia and most of that region had been authoritarian for centuries, mostly as a result of the desire for protection from outside threats, like the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Huns, etc etc. As soon as they were given the opportunity to turn their backs on that history, we gave them reason to turn inward again, finding refuge in the epitome of authoritarianism, Josef Stalin. We, along with the Brits, invaded Russia in the middle of WWI, to try and reestablish the monarchy. So instead of the relatively moderate Mensheviks, we got the Bolsheviks. That set the tenor for almost a century of bad relations. All because WE INVADED THEM. You need to learn your history.

   Posted by jorcheim at 03/07/2006 @ 4:08pm

7. MASK:

   You proved my point. Your response to me, once again, ignored the substance of KVH's article, and instead offered speudo-history. Instead of focusing on past positions (and I'm afraid I agree with you that the Left in the USA had it generally wrong about the Soviet Union), how about focusing on her excellent article?

   Posted by trabaris at 03/07/2006 @ 5:51pm

8. Regarding: "since Edwards has made American poverty a central issue of his political campaigning."

   Kerry didn't convey the same image to me as Edwards on this issue during their presidential campaign.

   Last two elections:

   Liked Lieberman, didn't like Gore. Liked Edwards, didn't like Kerry.

   Neither team got my vote. Keep working at it though, I remember there used to be more concern in the democratic party for those less well off. Did it stop after Carter?

   Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Love to hate Katrina on Hardball.

   Thanks again.

   Posted by schizobeck at 03/07/2006 @ 8:30pm

9. the scariest thing i have seen coming out of old russia recently has been that 7 foot tall, 300+ pound monster of a boxer, nikolai valuev... what a beast.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 9:44pm

10. Posted by Bushfools at 03/08/2006 @ 12:29am

11. Posted by JORCHEIM 03/07/2006 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, JORCH, that I didn't go back to the Russian Civil War to make my point about post-1960s liberals and their naive, even dupliticious attitudes towards the Soviets in the 1970s and 1980s.

    BTW, IF Britain had "re-established the monarchy" in Russia....isn't it likely that it would have been a REFORMED one that would have been based on the BRITISH form of monarchy at that time....which was, if you remember you're history....a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY?

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 08:30am

12. Posted by TRABARIS 03/07/2006 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, TRAB....have this nasty habit of REMEMBERING things....like how people like Ms vanden Heuval thought the Soviets could be trusted, that "one more treaty would make us safe" (ref. latest data taken from old KGB files on how the Soviets were violating nearly every treaty we signed with them), and that if we "just understood each other better" that we could prevent WW-III.

    Such naivete was dangerous....and not to be rewarded 20 years later with trust that "they know what they're talking about" NOW!

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2006 @ 08:33am

13. JORCHEIM

    Sorry, you can't blame the Bolshevik coup on the Anglo-American incursion into North Russia. The Bolsheviks were the leading element in the October Revolution and they dissolved the Constituent Assembly and banned the Mensheviks in January 1918 while the Anglo-American landing at Murmansk didn't take place until June 1918.

    Although KVH is right about the Yeltsin coup of 1993 her description of Gorbachev as having started democratization is questionable. Certainly Gorbachev loosened the reigns but it's debatable as to whether he intended anything more than a more efficient USSR as a result. Further, although the Congress of People's Deputies elected in 1990 was closer to democratic than anything else to date, it would probably be a mistake to call it democratic. The election took place so soon after the legalization of non-Communist parties that the Communists were the only ones to have an effective organization.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/08/2006 @ 11:45am

14. What's Russia doing now to create/foster real/legitimate direct or representative (or ersatz) democracy?

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/08/2006 @ 12:34pm

15. BTW, IF Britain had "re-established the monarchy" in Russia....isn't it likely that it would have been a REFORMED one that would have been based on the BRITISH form of monarchy at that time....which was, if you remember you're history....a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY?

    Posted by MASK 03/08/2006 @ 08:30am |

    "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Winston Churchill

    Yes, Mask, the British were so honorable and highminded at this particular moment in history. They taught us well, didn't they? The British, with great dignity, were busy killing Commies while also liberating the Kurds from their right to life...but it was under a Constitutional monarchy. That's very impressive.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/08/2006 @ 8:45pm

16. Seems absolute power corrupts absolutely when human beings become pawns in nation-state geo-politics. What about direct democracy as a means of generating enthusiasm/participation in "we the people" decision making rather than tacitly accepting the abuses, inefficiencies and general ineffectiveness of our current oligarchic representational form? Each state's two senators could oversee the lone or multiple congressperson(s) themselves educating and verifying and insurering this admittedly revolutionary process is fairly (one person, one vote) conducted whereby a people's plebiscite, akin to polling to best determine the people's will, is implemented. What an appealing concept!

    We could pay to implement this as a pilot project in just one red and one blue state and, my oh my, what an interesting post-modern experiment in furthering the evolution of civilized society.

    Forget my last question about democracy in Russia, it's obviously moot given the Kafka-esque bureacratic heirarchies extant in this cynically corrupted world of ours.

    Not I! Skeptics unite! Who's with me?!

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/08/2006 @ 9:19pm

17. I think the most consistent thing about KVH (and her husband) is their love affair with Gorbachev and all things Russian. For as long as KVH has been part of the media scene, she has been an unabashed supporter of the Russians.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2006 @ 1:15pm |

    Hello Liberty. I have been quite busy with school and some traveling, but I just wanted to thank you for your civil manner in responding to some comments I posted a week or so ago.

    As far as Katrina and her "love" for Russia, I would suggest that she is more interested in treating them as human beings and pursuing rational dialogue over the primitive and aggressive-minded demonizing characteristic of the Reagan-era; which only served to further empower the like-minded hardliners representing the other side.

    When I was a kid, I recall my first real contact with the "evil" Russians (prior to the fall of the Soviet system). I was attending a hockey game between my local NHL team and the Russian National team. I had heard all the horror stories at school regarding the Evil Empire, and was expecting to see some scarey-looking monsters. My disappointment was significant after laying eyes on the young boys singing the Russian National anthem; they looked just like me. The Soviet hockey players were skilled and talented; playing with grace, dignity and seemingly more respectful to the NHL players than vice versa (though the Russians were exceptionally more talented). In any event, I believe that most of the leaders that you support (Bush JR., Reagan) do not exhaust all necessary options before resorting to violent language and military action. Such policies only serving to increase violence and military aggression.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/08/2006 @ 9:22pm

18. Not I! Skeptics unite! Who's with me?!

    Posted by LEWWELGE 03/08/2006 @ 9:19pm | ignore this person

    Lew,

    I would be very nice if the top 10% were stripped of their ability to dominate the political process through political bribery. I'm with you, man!

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/08/2006 @ 9:46pm

19. Liberals are so funny. They love to kiss the boots of tyrants, whether it's Putin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, or Chavez. :)

    Posted by Tymbrimi at 03/09/2006 @ 03:34am

20. I don't recall any threads by her recently which showed polling in Russia where democracy is not gaining as much with the people as some may think. Here is one example.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/08/2006 @ 1:15pm

    This is a quote from Katrina's article which is the subject of this thread:

    "Last month, a survey conducted by the Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, revealed that nearly 60 percent of Russians polled believe the country needs an authoritarian ruler."

    It's a good article- why don't you read it? That might be backward from the way you usually do things but it certainly would make your comments more interesting.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 09:58am

21. Liberals are so funny. They love to kiss the boots of tyrants, whether it's Putin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, or Chavez. :)

    Posted by TYMBRIMI 03/09/2006 @ 03:34am

    If you "conservative" numbskulls were statutorially required to think rationally you would be complaining about the oppressive tyranny of the requirement. A foreign policy that more effectively serves the national interests of the US could only be portrayed as "kissing the boots of tyrants" by someone who is incapable of reason.

    How intelligent can a person be who thinks that endless nuclear brinkmanship and a perpetual military mobilization is in the best interests of anyone in the world, least of all the US.

    You are fools whose simpleminded bigotry is being exploited to the full by a self-serving, corrupt elite who care not a whit for America's long-term interests.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/09/2006 @ 10:09am

22. OK!!!! (O)ll's (K)orrect, Oustbush! In fact, now that we've teamed up, please allow me to suggest we work from "within" the system to effect these desired changes. That stipulated, David Bruderly is running for Florida's 6th congressional district and I'm confident he's "not the only one" whose election this November will lead to substantive change, most prominently impeachment proceedings initiated against these corrupt purveyors of failed neo-conservative policies.

    "Let's GO!"

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/09/2006 @ 12:13pm

23. Thought experiment: Billionaires support a corrupt American administration through their financial clout and control of media. After said administration comes to power, America sells off its strategic assets for pennies on the dollar to said individuals who are later linked to the Chinese government. Healthcare, education, and social services are starved of funds. Fifty percent of children are born with health issues due to lack of medical care. Life expectancies plummet to 58 years for men, less than 100 years ago. New adminstration arrives, selective prosecutes some of the billionaires who are now openly negotiating to cede control of remaining assets to the Chinese government in return for protection of ill gotten gains. Other billionaires now under U.S. indictment flee to safe haven in Great Britain and Israel. Chinese government demands that said prosecution stop - demands observation of norms of equality and rule of law. Finances political parties in America. Chinese government extends its military alliance to Mexico and Canada, but suggests this poses no threat to America. Media in China and Europe trumpet the sad case of civil liberties in the USA. Think tanks receive generous support from the wealth stolen from the sale of American assets and add their expert opinion. Lots of hand wringing. Meanwhile, new administration in US has turned the economic situation around - GDP grows 50%, debt to GDP plummets from 100% to less than 20%. Orphans actually get to eat real meat, teachers actually get paid ? China, and perhaps Swiss bankers, are furious - what the hell is going on ! Idiots write respones to Chinese websites deploring the state of affairs in America. You can never trust those American bastards - they are congenitally inferior. Insert Russia for America and America for China and you have the whole story about Russia from an American who lived it and saw it first hand.

    Posted by teevog at 03/09/2006 @ 12:30pm

24. Liberals are so funny. They love to kiss the boots of tyrants, whether it's Putin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, or Chavez. :)

    Posted by TYMBRIMI 03/09/2006 @ 03:34am |

    Hey jackass, Chavez has been repeatedly supported by his people through the democratic process (with much higher numbers than Bush, Blair, etc.), and survived a military coup supported by the U.S. government; til they had to withdraw with much egg on their miserable faces due to massive, popular demonstrations conducted in support of Chavez. Not to mention for the first time ever, regular, poor Venezuelans are actually able to participate in society, as worker cooperatives are being constructed throughout the long neglected rural areas. Educational programs are reaching the impovershed, along with medical assistance-including eye treatment provided by Cuban doctors. Sorry, but people in those regions actually have much to be excited about as the process is working from the bottom up, rather than top-down, like here; where the top 5% receive most of the political/economic rewards through wealthy manipulation of the so-called democratic process. The other Latin American nations are also waking up, and shaking off the influence of the disasterous American neo-liberal policy (Argentina after suffering the worst economic crisis in its history after following all the rules via IMF, is embarking on an independent course- the rewards being economic recovery and optimism) and electing leaders more committed to addressing the plight of the poor majority rather than "licking the boots" of the long-established ruling elite minorites.

    Castro is actually a hero throughout the region for his courage and leadership in defying the local hegemon. In behavior quite foreign to the spoiled, cowardly, Chickenhawk mentality of our leaders, Castro risked all despite a life of privilege (he was a young lawyer) and was with the people from day one; working to overthrow the American supported dictator, whereas Bush and cronies employ all their resources and energy towards the futher enrichment of their fellow elite (class-based solidarity). Despite the stange obssession of the most powerful nation in history, and its hateful and illegal attempts to destroy Castro and the Cuban Revolution through violence and terrorism and anti-free market sanctions (due to the lack of "freedom" existing in Cuba, we Americans are not free to travel there), he has persevered for over 40 years. Here's a link from the BBC for you regarding the less than modest, success of the tiny nation in developing the best health system in Latin America-despite 40 years of oppressive sanctions from the country that pratically ruled over it as an imperial power for decades. I challenge you to offer a more successful model for the region, jerkoff.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4583668.stm

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 12:58pm

25. David Bruderly is running for Florida's 6th congressional district and I'm confident he's "not the only one" whose election this November will lead to substantive change, most prominently impeachment proceedings initiated against these corrupt purveyors of failed neo-conservative policies.

    "Let's GO!"

    Posted by LEWWELGE 03/09/2006 @ 12:13am |

    "District Profile: Stearns received 64.4% in '04. Dave is committed to bringing progressive ideals to Congress, as he seeks to unseat a man who has been a 95 percent rubber stamp for the Bush Administration, a man who donated $5,000 dollars to Tom Delay's defense fund and a man who 18 years ago promised to only serve 12 terms."

    Lew, this candidate looks to be a very good one. I especially like his background in environmental technologies. His republican opponent looks to be as heinous as the one representing my home town (Congressman Bob Goodlatte, VA). Unfortunately, we (I am affiliated with the local dems) are attempting to reform their pathetic asses and have yet become strong enough to challenge Goodlatte, who receives mucho dinero through agricultural financiers. Our district typically resembles the old Soviet system, where only one candidate is on the ballot. The local demographics are changing, however, as many liberals of some means are transporting themselves from the crowded northern VA suburbs to the more pleasant rural areas, where the creepy, republican pigs still dominate the political landscape (though to a lesser degree).

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/09/2006 @ 1:34pm

26. Is the absence of a legal system for conflict resolution between CIS members a larger problem than corruption alone? An example of the need for a legal conflict resolution system between Russia and her neighbors is this year's incident involving the distribution of natural gas from the pipeline system that laces together several former Soviet states. When Russia shut-off gas to Ukraine in January, it was actually hurting Europeans who were importing the gas from pro-west Ukraine. Hungary, Austria, France, et al reported drops of between 33% and 40% in natural gas imports from Ukraine when Putin closed the valve. After an appeal by the Organization for the Security and Co-Operation in Europe, Russia restored about 80% of the amount it cut-off to Ukraine.

    Another example of disputed rights occurred in the 1990s. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan lost out on sharing Caspian Sea boundaries when Russia unilaterally reversed itself on the matter.

    Why did it take an appeal from Europe's OSCE to get Putin to reverse his decision? It would seem natural for one or more of the existing associations of former Soviet states, e.g., CACO, EURASEC, GUAM, and CST to step in an offer to mediate the dispute. However, the viability of these associations, even the CIS itself, is on shaky ground.

    Current bickering has Russia accusing Ukraine of stealing gas and Ukraine alleging price gouging and underpayment of natural gas transit fees from Russia. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have been arbitrarily preempted from exercising any rights to the Caspian Sea. The international community should encourage Russia and her neighbors to establish multilateral legal systems for conflict resolution as a hedge against a rising economic and military powerhouse that asserts its will at the expense of the weak.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 03/09/2006 @ 6:07pm

27. .

    US-Russian Relations

    If US diplomacy needs an example of a success, the handling of the USSR in its last gasp qualifies. That came off amazingly well, and it happened mostly under Reagan and George H W Bush (and Chancellor Kohl).

    From Russia's perspective it was of course badly managed, most especially the economic metamorphosis. Enormous wealth was squandered. It was a disaster for the Russian people. But the speed of the change made those mistakes, that thievery, inevitable. It is argued that that tempo was necessary for the true death of the Soviet Union and the rebirth of Russia to happen. At a slower pace it would have bogged down and not gone through completely.

    From our perspective, the transformation was a great successful. The deconstruction of the Soviet Union into a host of small states at the periphery of Russia, which need out frienship, and NATO's, against their fear of the bear, serves us well. It is a geopolitical success. That our policy was "triumphalist" is however meaningless and nonsense.

    An open question is whether this successful handling was due to deft US actions, or a wise standing back and letting the ball of wax unroll. I think mostly the latter. And probably this reestablishment of an autocratic Russia is also something we cannot change. We have to put our chips on the fact that Russia is no longer isolated economically. It will respond to world economic forces. To compete Russia will need to give her people access to accurate information, free travel, a convertible currency, etc. She will adopt a western mindset and western human rights standards. That will limit autocratic tendencies more than any specific US policy.

    In short, we don't need a new Russian policy.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 03/09/2006 @ 10:34pm

28. Thanks much Oustbush! I'm a '73 Hayfield H.S. and '77 Randolph-Macon graduate. Please e-mail me "off blog" so I can add you to my "speed-dial" e-mail address book and not distract our fellow Nation contributors with our amicable, yet personal, good fellowship, at lewwelge@ufl.edu. By the way, I read and still possess an English translation of Fidel's "History Will Absolve Me" which, in memoir format, amply demonstrates his democratic underpinnings. Although, I must say, I would like him to develop a transparent plan to encourage future practices toward "direct democracy" on his island nation, so as to depart from the appearance of however benevolent dictatorship. I'm with him/them on healthcare and baseball, but, the public image of governance there, however skewed, could certainly use some modification, in my opinion.

    Looking forward to future discussion with you, Oustbush, my fellow "birthplace of presidents," the Old Dominion.

    Respectfully,

    LAWMAN

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/10/2006 @ 09:30am

29. Resident-citizen!

    Posted by lewwelge at 03/10/2006 @ 09:31am