Establishing Long Term Cooperation with the Russian Bear
The main question that many leaders in NATO and the EU are asking themselves after Russia’s adventure into Georgia is how to stop Russian forces from invading another country at will. But looking forward, beyond the recent incident in Georgia, the West has a bigger question to ask itself. The question is whether or not the West needs Russia as a strategic partner in solving pressing world issues such as terrorism or energy security. The answer, of course, is yes. Working side by side with, as opposed to against Russia will undoubtedly lead to lasting solutions to many critical problems of the world.
In order to achieve genuine cooperation, it will be necessary to develop a complete and more thorough understanding of Russia’s policy goals and its motivations in achieving them. This comprehensive understanding should be prevalent throughout the highest levels of western governments. By reading between the lines, much of the Western leadership will begin to realize that Russia is in fact a reasonable and predictable actor and understand that there were motives and reasons behind the recent violence in Georgia—it wasn’t simply blind imperialist tendencies worthy of VP Dick Cheney’s blatant condemnation as “illegitimate and unilateral”. In fact, concepts such as the protection of Russians abroad (in this case South Ossetia and Abkhazia) has been a central theme of Russian foreign policy for years and it should not have come as such a surprise to the West (or to Georgia) that Russia would react accordingly in the event of an attack on those
citizens.
Proposals such as missile defense in Eastern Europe or seemingly perpetual NATO expansion to Russia’s borders, and double standards in the application of the international principle of sovereignty may not seem threatening when applied individually, but simultaneously they lead to legitimate Russian concerns of encirclement and distrust. The distrust was advanced in the case of missile defense when the United States rejected Putin’s surprise offer of a Russian-leased radar site at Qabala, Azerbaijan to assist in the U.S. plan. Furthermore, talks of expelling or suspending Russia from the G-8 would give those concerns of encirclement a tangible dimension.
Various Russian authority figures have labeled missile defense, recognition of Kosovo, and NATO expansion as serious, or “red line” issues. Since the relentless western pursuit of these issues would realistically yield relatively little practical importance to the West, it is worth looking into the idea of making some concessions in exchange for cooperation on larger issues, where possible. Hardliners, however, should not confuse concessions with appeasement or backing down, as western relations with Russia are not a zero-sum game.
In understanding Russian concerns of encirclement, the West needs to reevaluate and reconsider the importance of Georgian ascension into the NATO alliance. Instead of backing ‘gung-ho’ expansion to include Georgia, a country in which there is one ruling party and a non-existent free press, the NATO allies need to consider the security guarantees provided by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: “an attack on one is an attack on all”. In other words, an attack on Georgia, or even another retaliation from a preemptive Georgian attack could potentially drag the entire NATO alliance into conflict and bring both regional and widespread destabilization. The alliance needs to assess whether or not pushing for expansion in the near future would yield positive results for regional stability in the near term.
Good things can and will come from genuinely friendly relations with Russia.. The world witnessed the success of the Six Party Talks in persuading North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. These multilateral, diplomatic efforts can be successfully applied to other states whose leaders seem to have a one-track mind. They show the positive outcomes of situations when Russia is incorporated into the negotiation process. Many politicians in the West, especially in the United States in the election year, talk of energy independence from Russia. Alternative sources include the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) or Nabucco (proposed) pipelines and by investing in alternative fuels, but the fact remains: Russian oil and gas are still king and will remain the among most important energy sources for years to come.
This is evidenced by two facts. First, Russia supplied 50 of the EU’s gas and 25% of its oil as of 2006. Second, Russia has passed Saudi Arabia as the number one producer of crude oil, producing about 9.5 million barrels a day. Therefore, Russia’s vast resources will continue to be a powerful influence over many western economies, especially European economies, for the foreseeable future.
Looking at various problems through Russian eyes and understanding motivations of Russia’s foreign policy are absolutely paramount to achieving lasting cooperation. The next step is realizing that some current western policies are indeed pushing Russia’s wrong buttons—and pushing them all at the same time. If we truly aim to solve the current multitude of pressing international issues, governments around the world need to get over the Cold War mindset and seek to develop comprehensive and honest West-Russian cooperation.
Category: Articles
