Russia is having a good month in the near abroad.... which isn't necessarily bad for the United States

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 4:02 AM Share

Last week Russia used some economic coercion to get a friendlier government in Kyrgyzstan. This week, Russia uses some financial inducements to secure a strategic base in Ukraine, as Roman Olearchyk and Stefan Wagstyl report for the Financial Times.

Russia on Wednesday agreed to slash gas prices to Ukraine by 30 per cent in exchange for far-reaching economic and political concessions, including a long extension of the Russian navy’s lease of a strategic Black Sea port....

Mr Yanukovich agreed to grant permission for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to remain in Sevastopol for an additional 25-30 years – far beyond 2017 when the current lease expires.

Mr Medvedev said Russian gas giant Gazprom would grant Ukraine a 30 per cent discount on gas, bringing the price down by about $100 per 1,000 cubic meter from a current rate of just above $300. “Our Ukrainian partners will receive a discount on gas. These funds will turn into a real resource for [Ukraine’s] business and economic aims,” he said.

The deal also appeared to secure lucrative contracts for Russian companies to build two nuclear reactors in Ukraine, and preserve their roles as monopoly nuclear fuel suppliers.

So, Russia is finally getting its way in the near abroad, which is bad for the United States, right? Well, not exactly. No question, the new governments in Bishkek and Kiev are an improvement for Moscow compared to the ones installed by the color revolutions of the past decade. On the other hand, the legality of the base deal remains murky under Ukrainian law.

More importantly, these new governments are not acting in an unfriendly manner towards the United States. Kyrgyzstan's interim president Roza Otunbayeva has told Western reporters that the U.S. lease on its airbase in Kyrgyz will be extended automatically. Meanwhile, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych gave Barack Obama his biggest deliverable at the Nuclear Safety Summit earlier this month when he pledged that his country would eliminate its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The familiar language in talking about the near abroad is whether a government is a friend of Russia or a friend of America. These governments are clearly more friendly to Russia than the previous ones, but there also appears to be no strategic loss for the United States. Which appears to be a win-win for both countries.

DMITRY KOSTYUKOV/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, FINANCIAL STATECRAFT, GREAT POWER POLITICS, RUSSIA, UKRAINE

(5)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

BLUE13326

1:16 PM ET

April 22, 2010

Yes, the fact these countries

Yes, the fact these countries have flipped to Russia but have learned how to play both sides of the fence to get money from us at the same time is a real victory for...

Meanwhile, if this report is true, North Korea is now sinking South Korean warships, which must be yet another sign that Obama is doing a great job!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/7619087/South-Korean-ship-sunk-by-crack-squad-of-human-torpedoes.html

BRETT

3:43 PM ET

April 22, 2010

Which appears to be a win-win

Which appears to be a win-win for both countries.

True. It's also important not to over-state Yanukovych's chumminess with the Russians - he wants Ukraine to join the EU, for example.

The reduction in gas prices is quite a coup for Ukraine. Hopefully it will discourage them from stealing from the pipelines that pass through there (if you're wondering why Russia occasionally cuts off the gas passing through Ukraine, it's because Ukraine regularly siphons off a certain amount of the gas without payment).

The Sevastopol extension is a good idea, too. The area around there is Russian - not "Russian-speaking Ukrainian", but Russian - and keeping the base opens ensures a lot of jobs stay available there.

SCOTT MONJE

3:57 PM ET

April 23, 2010

Who wins?

It seems pretty clear that the Russians were unhappy with Bakiyev and actively undermined him, contributing to his collapse. Otunbayeva will be careful not to cross them, but it doesn't necessarily follow that she is in their pocket. Balancing the Russians, the Americans, and also the Chinese is likely to be the pattern in that area for some time to come.

As for Ukraine, the biggest apparent difference between Yushchenko and Yanukovych is the issue of NATO membership, but Ukrainian membership in NATO, if it actually happened, would have contributed tremendously both to international tension in Europe and to political tension within Ukraine. It's hard to see who would have gained from it. Also, many reports fail to mention that Yanukovych balked at selling shares in the Ukrainian pipeline network to the Russians, something that they have sought for a while now.

BUBBLE BURSTER

9:56 AM ET

April 29, 2010

win-win?

Where was the win for the US Dan? Looks more like a big win for the Ruskis and perhaps no major change for us...yet. Sounds like a relative loss to me. You rosy IR liberals always forget about that relative power thing!

DANIEL W. DREZNER

12:46 PM ET

April 29, 2010

Relative power, eh?

You could interpret it as a zero-sum loss, yes. Or you can think about the security dilemma. What's worse -- governments in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan that are closely aligned with the U.S. but make Russia feel encircled and vulnerable, or governments in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan that are ore neutral in their disposition, but make Russia feel more secure and therefore less provocative?