When it comes to Russia, the differences among the US presidential candidates are so slight that there is little reason for Russians to prefer one over another.
Senator McCain's foreign policy advisory team mixes "realists" Robert McFarlane, Brent Scowcroft, Stephen E. Biegun, Lorne W. Craner, Richard Armitage, and Henry Kissinger with neo-con "hawks" Max Boot, R. James Woolsey, Niall Ferguson, Robert Kagan and William Kristol.
This combination is likely to produce the same sort of intellectual schizophrenia that it did at the outset of the Reagan administration. During its first two years initiatives were generated opportunistically within the NSC and the CIA, culminating in the spectacular but ultimately pointless sabotage in June 1982 of the new trans-Siberian gas pipeline. Ronald Reagan eventually put a stop to these dangerous shenanigans in April 1983 and dramatically changed his thinking, thanks in no small part to Suzanne Massie, who helped him develop an appreciation for the culture and religiosity of the Russian people.
Senator McCain, however, shows little sign of developing the intellectual flexibility or personal empathy that Ronald Reagan was famous for. McCain's foreign policy toward Russia is therefore likely to drift listlessly between overt hostility and grudging tolerance.
On the Democratic side, I would not dismiss Senator Clinton's chances of becoming president. Her senior foreign policy advisors, Madeleine K. Albright, Richard C. Holbrooke, Strobe Talbott, like those of Senator McCain, are all from a generation that dealt either with a weak and rudderless USSR, or a weak and vulnerable Russia. It was largely under their leadership that Washington stopped paying any attention to Russia at all, so perhaps it is an indication of things to come that, with the exception of Steven Sestanovich, Senator Clinton's advisory team seems unusually light when it comes to expertise on Russia.
Senator Obama says he represents "change," but there is very little of it to be seen among his Russia advisors--Zbigniew Brzezinski and his son Mark, W. Anthony Lake, Dennis B. Ross, and Michael McFaul.
In his latest interview on Echo of Moscow radio (March 8, 2008) Zbigniew Brzezinski calls president-elect Dmitry Medvedev a "nominal leader," compares Putin to Mussolini, dismisses Russian security concerns as "paranoia," and refers to NATO as "the dividing line between the Atlantic community and Russia." Later, in the same interview, Brzezinski draws a distinction between young Russians and "the dinosaurs" still in power. Bafflingly, he fails to see how appropriate this label would be to his own thinking.
For now, the dinosaurs are firmly in control of US foreign policy toward Russia, on both the Republican and the Democratic side. Senior advisors from all three campaigns took part in the March 2006 Council on Foreign Relations report, "Russia's Wrong Direction," co-chaired by Jack Kemp and John Edwards.
Criticized by Russian commentators as hopelessly out of touch with today's Russia, it remains, nevertheless, the touchstone of US thinking about Russia. So long as that is true, the only thing to expect from US policy toward Russia is a further slide into irrelevancy. The initiative for change, it seems, will have to come from Russia.
Nicolai N. Petro is professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island. He has served as special assistant for policy in the U.S. State Department, and as civic affairs advisor to the mayor of the Russian city of Novgorod the Great. His books include: The Rebirth of Russian Democracy (Harvard,1995), Russian Foreign Policy (Longman, 1997), and Crafting Democracy (Cornell, 2004).
Great post! I was directed here by my friend Kyle Keeton, author of Windows To Russia. I am an American politico and found your post very interesting. Thanks again for a great post!
One reason that they should not support Obama is Zbigniew Brzezinski. He used the same tactic of using NGOs to mobilise Serbian youth against Milosevic when we were sponsering KLA terrorism against Serbs in Kosovo who have ethnically cleansed the Serb population from that province. Of course it doesn't really matter who is elected as all there senior advisor hate Russia anyway.
McCain 's the best bet. At least some of his advisors are thinking like adults about Russia.
man i hate usa 4 life and 1) wat the freek white country and now they have a black president?? many countries in the world make fun of this especial europians african rull the usa this will be fun and he wil respect more black and make the hier than whites because 1)always white presidents in usa respected more whites not blacks now will be other way
Let's hope Barak Obama will visit Russia, look into the Mr.Medvedev's eyes and see his soul.:-) the old guard would be discarded as soon as he would become the President of the USA. Not for the sake of Russia, but for the sake of America I hope to see B.Obama in the Oval Office.
US positions on Russia have much changing to do. As a personal supporter of Obama, I would advise not to take such a hard-line stance on Russia's fears. Historically Russia's fears are justified. And the US should understand that fear and rather the try and take advantage of it, work to eliminate it. A fearful Russia means an unstable Europe, as Russia will use its increasing economic leverage against the US allies in Europe and its ties with what America calls "rouge states". The US does not want a fearful Russia. Russia will turn to military means to defend itself. Brezinsky is flawed as dismissing Russia's fear as "just paranoia". This paranoia is justified from Russia's historical dramas that have often decimated the country time after time. We should be lenient towards them in that respect, yet unless Russia threatens our national security to the point we cant ignore. Yet unless that occurs we should be understanding of Russia's fear and work with that to create a better world for both countries.
I spent more then three years as a USG adviser in Moscow (2000-2003) working with Victor Zubkov (before he became Prime Minister). During that time, I came to realize that US policy towards Russia was fundamentally flawed and unlikely to change during this administration.
What I observed during my time there was a policy, that in practice, worked at cross purposes. Our professed "friendship" manifested itself in the form Technical Assistance whereby billions were spent in aftermath of the Soviet break-up, largely to fill the coffers of institutional contractors. These so-called experts dispensed mostly irrelevant and sometimes, downright bad advice to a Russian government who, by and large, hoped for a closer relationship with the the US. At the same time, while the US was preaching stability and Economic Development to the Russian Government, they were doing their best to organize the former Soviet States along the borders of Russia to organize in a manner that could be best described as hostile to Russia. This is a policy which seems duplicitous at best, and provocative at worst, in the eyes of most Russians. Trust is earned, not imposed, and we (the US) has done little to earn the kind of trust that results in real friendship between nations.
There was, and maybe still is, and opportunity for a real strategic partnership, if not friendship, with Russia. The best offer from this administration (and likely continued by either McCain or Clinton) has been to treat Russia like America's 'retarded little brother'.
Brezinski aside, the general foreign policy approach of Obama seems far more likely to result in the kind of partnership of equals (respect) that Russia expects from those seeking a constructive relationship with it. If the situation with Russia is going to improve rather than continue to deteriorate, it will require an entirely fresh initiative from the US not encumbered by the "ghost of Cold Wars past". There are reasons why Russia has not developed in the way that many Westerners hoped. Understanding those reasons is key to fashioning a new and successful policy towards Russia.