What is the nature of the Russian-American relationship?

Mon, 07/06/2009 - 4:00pm

With Obama in Russia today, there are soome different blog takes on what to expect from bilateral relationship. 

Dave Schuler thinks Russian and American interests are increasingly incompatible: 

[T]here isn’t much basis for a good relationship between Russia and the United States. Russia’s population is dwindling, its economy languishing, it survives largely by selling its natural resources. Russia would be a difficult market for American goods and its natural customer for its oil and gas is Europe. We don’t really need Russia’s cooperation on pressing world issues like climate change.

Russia has had consistent and clear interests over the period of the last 200 years or more: annexing or at least neutralizing its neighbors.

Matt Yglesias has a slightly different take: 

The US-Russia relationship is multifaceted, and there’s plenty of stuff we disagree about. And within the category of “stuff we disagree about” there’s a particular sub-category of stuff that it’s exceedingly unlikely we’re going to agree about. Most notable among these is Russia’s relationship with the post-Soviet countries....

There’s a certain amount of sentiment in the United States that not only should the U.S. continue to disagree with Russia’s perspective on this, but that we ought to somehow elevate such disagreement to the very top of the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship. The president should go over there, denounce the Russians, get denounced back, and then come back to Washington empty handed but full of self-righteousness. This is part and parcel of the phenomenon whereby people don’t grasp the difference between a pundit and a president. It makes a lot more sense to focus a visit on something like the nuclear issue, where U.S. and Russian interests are roughly in alignment and some high-level discussions stand a decent chance of bearing fruit.

I'm gonna side with Yglesias on this one, mostly because I don't think I buy Schuler's logic connecting Russia's strategic situation and the absence of any basis for a good relationship between Washington and Moscow.  I agree with Schuler that the reservoir of anti-Americanism in Russia runs long and deep.  That said: 

  • There are issues where Russia's interest and America's interests coincide (Arms control, Afghanistan);
  • There are some pressing world issues where Russian cooperation would be very useful (Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea);
  • I'm pretty sure that Russia would be a useful market for American producers. 

Am I missing anything? 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Link to a blog!

by Zathras on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 10:35pm

Will Inboden had some useful observations on this subject on the Shadow Government blog (http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/06/the_sources_of_russian_conduct_same_as_ever), pointing out that some of the same motivations that drove Soviet behavior more than sixty years ago drive Russian behavior now.

This is an argument that can be overdone, but the periodic unpredictability of Russian behavior is not easily explained without noting Russia's historic tendency toward paranoid xenophobia -- sometimes felt by its government's leaders, and sometimes exploited by its government to divert the Russian public's attention to a foreign enemy of convenience.

Well, it all depends... If

by blue13326 on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 12:51am

Well, it all depends...

If Obama is able to get a decent deal on nuke reduction, then Yglesias may be right.

If Obama doesn't get a good deal, or if the Russians take his measure as N. Korea, Iran, Chavez, etc. have done, and conclude he's a pushover and decide to, say, park nukes or some such in Cuba, then Shuler is right.

It all depends on your level of confidence in Obama's ability to negotiate. There's no evidence at this time that he's even close to having the savvy to get a decent deal or change their minds.

Neccessity

by Grant on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 2:19pm

It's true that in terms of economics Russia and the U.S aren't really natural friends, however what the U.S wants from Russia isn't markets; it wants an ally on certain geopolitical matters. In turn, I think that it's clear to the Russian leadership that they will have to work with the U.S on certain matters whether they like it or not. Neither nation wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, neither nation wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons, and neither nation wants to see the Taleban return to power. So even though we honestly don't like each other and are more than willing to criticize each others every move, the irritating fact is that we need each other.

You might be right that

by zjin on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 4:09pm

You might be right that neither country wants NUKE in Iran or NK's hands. But that is a remote concern of Russia. It will be good for them that Iran or NK does not have NUKE. But it is not that bad for them if this wish does not come true.

So, unless you pay a high price. They can just sit back and take a ride on your effort .

Cause and Effect

by Grant on Tue, 07/07/2009 - 6:52pm

For most things, you would be absolutely correct. If the problem was economic, involving conventional weapons, geographic (and not in Eastern Europe)or many other types of issues Russia wouldn't lose much if U.S efforts failed. However nuclear weapons are vastly different from any other issue simply because of the sheer amount of short and long term devastation that they cause. Remember that two crude atomic bombs were more than enough to destroy two cities and kill 210,000 people instantly, not to mention the 310,000 believed to have died over the past sixty years as a consequence of the bombs.
Now think of a major American city which probably has a population in the millions, the explosive power of modern nuclear weapons, and the fact that radiation sadly does not stay confined to one place but moves with dust and wind. I can't even begin to accurately predict what the ultimate death toll would be, but it isn't paranoid to guess that it would be at best one million.
Further, to my understanding the current belief on the effects of a limited nuclear war is that even an exchange of a few dozen weapons would still be enough to wipe out the planet from massive amounts of smoke in the skies, radiation, and the incredible disturbance such a war would be to global food growth. If the leaders in Moscow and D.C recognize this (which I hope that they do, politicians generally do not make good scientists) then it would be well within their continued interests to ensure that potentially unstable nations such as Iran and North Korea never gain such weapons. Frankly I consider it a massive policy failure by both the U.S and the U.S.S.R to allow India and Pakistan to develop their own programs.
As for the Taleban, I think that you are correct on that one. While their ressurrection would be a problem for the Kremlin, it isn't as though they destroyed Russia the last time the extremists were in power. In that area the U.S will have to pay a high price for Russian and Central Asian aid.