The perils of wanting to be loved

Posted By David Rothkopf Friday, February 13, 2009 - 4:18 PM Share

I worry sometimes that we are going to suffer the international consequences of a bad case of don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-butt-George, we-want-to-heal-the-wounds-so-can't-we-all-get-along-now, with muscle-atrophying complications caused by the double onset of Iraq fatigue and financial disaster.

It struck me as I read first of Joe Biden's "reset button" comments re: Russia at the Munich Security Conference and then as I followed the progress of the Obama Administration's other outreach to Russia.

There is a view among some very senior Dem foreign policy types that now we can make a deal with Russia, that using our charms and our deftness we can coax Vladimir Putin and his little dancing monkey Medvedev back into acceptable behavior. The theory is all we have to do is a give a little on missile defense (cave completely to the Russians), give a little on the ideas that underlie NATO expansion (accept their idea of the entire near abroad, and then some, being in their sphere of influence), treat Russia like the virtuous superpower it wishes it were (except for the virtue part), and we can resume our path to the democratic dream of Russia that intoxicated Clinton administration foreign policy makers more severely than any of the anti-freeze that had the President's buddy Boris Yeltsin on his ass half the time.

Of course, in the Kremlin, like elsewhere in the world, they are viewing this slightly differently. They see an administration tending to a fire at home and eager to heal the wounds of the Bush years and they are calculating that it will be soft, pliable, and easier to negotiate with than anyone Elliot Spitzer was seeing at the Mayflower.

In Teheran, in Damascus, in Havana, in Pyongyang, and around the world leaders are thinking, never has the United States been in such a position -- one where concessions will look like diplomacy and play on Main Street U.S.A. better than have in years. Joe Biden was right, Obama will be tested.

Some of the tests -- Russia's move in Kyrgyzstan (which has the Chinese very unhappy too as they had wanted to avoid seeing the "great game" between them, Russia and the muslim world creep deeper in Central Asia), North Korea's missile maneuvers, the Iranian provocations that accompany their sporadic "let's make nice" vibe -- will be of the saber rattling variety. But some will be subtler and will actually appear to the naked eye like the United States is making progress, achieving our goals of a better functioning international system while all it is really doing is strengthening potential adversaries or rivals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for healing the multiple wounds (self-inflicted and otherwise) of the Bush era. I also think we should seek to find common ground where it exists. But it's worth remembering that just because we have restored the character of American leadership doesn't mean we have changed the character of everyone else's leadership. Trust me on this, Putin is a bad guy. He can be charming, and as Bush said, he has those romantic deep blue eyes (although personally, I wish he would keep his shirt on in photos), but he will accept what he is given right up until he feels he has to take what he wants.

I understand Russia has deep financial, social, demographic, environmental and almost every other sort of problems. I understand that can make them appear more inclined to concessions. I understand that much good has happened in Russia in the past decade and a half. But, Georgia, the Ukraine energy stand-off, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya, their stance with regard to Iran and a host of other instances underscore that they believe that within certain geographic boundaries they should be allowed to set the rules and that is in no one's interest. (And given the recent ugly bromance that has popped up between the narcissism twins, Vlad and Hugo, we can calculate those geographic boundaries may expand in ways that would have offended even James Monroe.) We've seen that movie before and they need to know that not only won't we tolerate it, but that we will do everything within reason to stop it...including pushing them away from the head table of nations.

ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:BUSH ADMINISTRATION, BUSH'S LEGACY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, RUSSIA

(2)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BRETT

4:26 AM ET

February 14, 2009

I think people need to

I think people need to remember that there are always deep, structural components in a country's foreign policy that usually transcend the leadership (unless he's a completely autocratic psychopath with a personality cult). We need to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that too many things are a "reaction" to American policy, that if we only changed Behavior X it would change the other state's Behavior Y.

In Russia's case, we need to remember that they invested a significant amount of money into ICBMs and missiles in general as the primary means of their strategic deterrent. They have done so for decades, back into the Soviet era, although they also had bombers and a significant submarine fleet back then too (which has since gone heavily to ruin and seed). Missile Defense is a serious problem for that, and would be a problem no matter where it is placed in Europe. It's not just a matter of Russian pride over US ties with Poland.

Of course, if we ever want to get away from that type of situation, where we believe we must check Russia constantly, we need to ultimately pull Russia back into the European framework, and stop treating them like an Asiatic power (even though they are, to some extent). That's what Russia was before communism - its royalty and nobles intermarried with those of Europe, it fought in European wars (particularly the Napoleonic Wars, where it played a crucial role), and its trade and commerce were heavily tied into that of Europe. Of course, that means that at some point, we must pull Russia into a security framework with Europe.

That seems like a long way off, though, particularly with deep Eastern European distrust of Russia.

But, Georgia, the Ukraine energy stand-off, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya, their stance with regard to Iran and a host of other instances underscore that they believe that within certain geographic boundaries they should be allowed to set the rules and that is in no one's interest.

What bothers them, deeply, are attempts by other powers to expand their influence into the territory of the now-defunct Soviet Union itself (i.e., Georgia, Ukraine, and so forth). As for Chechnya, keep in mind that Chechnya was part of Russia itself, and had become a staging point for crime, kidnapping, smuggling, and human trafficking. Think about how the US would react if China insisted on telling the US how to deal with an insurgent New Mexico that had become a thriving center for international crime and trafficking, including into the US itself.

BRETT

10:03 PM ET

February 15, 2009

Russia is second to America,

Russia is second to America, in geopolitical might. It may not be the USSR, but it still has a far stronger global political presence, than China.

I'd question that. Russia tends to figure strong in foreign policy discussions in the US because

1. They are next to Europe, and

2. They have quite a few nukes.

Clinton is good on this - trade the current Missile Shield project, for Russian cooperation on Iran.

That depends on whether you trust the Russians to actually co-operate with economic and technological sanctions on Iran. I don't, particularly since they've just announced that they're going to play a major role in civilian Iranian nuclear technology, helping Iran to build a nuclear power plant.