Watch with interest: Thursday, Bush meets with Vladimir Putin for the first time since his inaugural speech extolling the virtues of democracy. As the WaPo correctly points out, this meeting is a big test. If Bush’s speech wasn’t just pretty words (and I hope it wasn’t), there’s a clear imperative to take Putin to task for his behavior of late: meddling in the Ukrainian election, internal moves toward renewed autocracy, and recent backing of Iran, among other things.
But.
Unfortunately it’s not that simple. While it may have lost some territory and power, crumbled financially and changed its name, Russia is still our nemesis of old and has not lost the pride associated with its erstwhile superpower status. If our concern is pushing for democracy, Bush could take two approaches with Putin: the hardline tough-talk he’s so well-known for, or the advice between friends tactic he’s taken with Putin in the past. Frankly, neither is likely to accomplish anything with Russia. Its post-Cold war dealings with the west have actually been fairly consistent: it has shown a willingness to engage with us and with Europe, but it does not want to get too close and it certainly does not want us to have any say in its internal policies. The domestic future of Russia is largely out of our hands.
So whatever comes of Thursday’s meeting, it is likely to be more symbolic than substantive. As I said, Bush has two choices, each with its benefits and consequences. If he takes a harder line, and takes Putin to task for his anti-democratic behavior, he stays true to the principles he’s embraced. But he risks alienating Russia, which is already feeling alienated in its own backyard as the EU moves ever closer to its borders and the Ukraine so recently slipping from its grasp. Now, one could say, “who cares?” Russia is a second-rate power today, and does not for the forseeable future present a threat in the way it once did. It is primarly important as it relates to our strategic interests elsewhere. But this is where it gets really tricky.
Clearly, democracy promotion is central to our strategic goals in the war on terror. For this reason, appearing to be consistent and not hypocritical is crucial. On the other hand, the vestiges of Russia’s former power (i.e., ill-secured nukes and bioweapons programs) present appealing targets to terrorists. It has been the spirit of engagement and cooperation with Russia that has allowed us to have a hand in monitoring the security of those targets. Russia has also been involved in other diplomatic efforts (such as the apparently dead six-party talks with North Korea) crucial to our security. Alienating Russia could reverse that trend of cooperation. And while Russia is not nearly as formidable as the Soviet Union was, they remain significant enough for us to prefer them on our side than against us.
Then again, can we trust a country sliding back into authoritarianism?
I don’t have the answers here. But watch the signs coming out of Bratislava this week. They’re likely to be subtle, but significant.
Like Soviet leaders before him, and even Yeltsin though probably not to quite the same extent, Putin is simply another Tsar by another name. Russia was not quite as much a straightforward enemy before 1917, but it was never historically a friend. Tocqueville predicted that the definining strategic feature of the future would be increased hostility between the US and Russia as their land expansion reached toward eachother and across the Pacific: indeed, it was partly the Russian presence in Alaska that originally lead to the formulation (in reality by John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State) of what became known as the Monroe Doctrine. There is something of very long standing in the Russian political psyche, going back at least as far as the time of Peter the Great if not earlier, that NEEDS to be perceived as one of the world’s leading powers, and never since defeating Napoloen has that impulse lead to anything but disaster for Russia itself, yet it persists and if anything the catastrophes it brings about just deepen it further. That’s reminiscent of France in some ways, actually.
I had hope for real change in Russia until recently, for something that was more than skin deep. Maybe that was just wishful thinking on my part, but I sincerely hope that sort of wishful thinking is not guiding the policy of a president who said he had looked into Putin’s heart and seen a good man, or whatever the quote was. That might work for public consumption, but for God’s sake I hope no one in the White House actually believes it, certainly not the son of a former CIA director who should know better than to think such things of a man who still barely even tries to hide the mindset of the imperial police state.
My impression is that Bush has backed off that statement, which was made very early in his presidency, back when most still viewed Putin as a positive force in Russia. We know they have a reasonably good working dynamic together, but I think that dynamic has become more strained of late and is likely to become more so.
Bush’s speech – what are the blogs saying?
Bush’s ‘peacemaking’ tour of Europe began with a speech in which he called for Europe (well, the EU) and America to work together to spread freedom and peace throughout the world.