May 6, 2009 |  4 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Limited Strategic Partnership with Russia is Possible

Jeffrey Mankoff: The success of attempts to build a strategic partnership will laregly rest with Russia. Not doing so should not be considered a failure as the positions of both sides would become clearer. Russia has the most to lose from not building a relationship, the West can bide its time.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US and Europe have repeatedly described their relationship with Russia as a "strategic partnership." Despite a series of ringing declarations, it was never clear what that term actually meant. Western schemes for partnering with Russia repeatedly failed because they were based on a flawed premise, namely that Russia was in the process of becoming a "Western" nation committed to the principles of liberalism and democracy.

Recent events, above all last summer's war in Georgia, demonstrated the shortcomings of this approach. Russian leaders continue to see their country as a traditional power whose foreign policy is determined by narrow calculations of national interest rather than a commitment to shared values. Nonetheless, the growing estrangement between Moscow and the West is damaging to both, and the need for a genuine partnership is stronger than ever. To succeed, though, a partnership with Moscow must recognize the limits of Western power to remake Russia, and to engage Moscow on the basis of shared interests rather than shared values.

Previous attempts at building a strategic partnership failed because Western leaders assumed Russia would eventually come to see itself as part of the West. Thus Western leaders argued that NATO expansion was in Russia's interest, since Russia was presumed to value NATO's commitment to democracy and collective security too.

Russia's elite never accepted this view. Instead, they believed NATO expansion took advantage of Russian weakness to ring the country with hostile military forces. Democracy promotion in the former USSR, culminating in Ukraine and Georgia's so-called "colored revolutions," was likewise seen as a scheme to install anti-Russian governments around Russia's borders - particularly when Georgia and Ukraine were promised they too would join NATO.

Nonetheless, Western leaders kept promoting the idea of a strategic partnership with Russia, and remained puzzled by Russia's truculence. Forums linking Russia and NATO (including the Permanent Joint Council and the NATO-Russia Council) failed to give Moscow a real opportunity to shape NATO decision making. Agreements giving Russia equal standing with the West fell into abeyance: the US scrapped the ABM Treaty in 2002 and the West never ratified the adapted Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.

The war in Georgia was a reminder of how dangerous the estrangement between Russia and the West had gotten. On arms control, energy, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, and a range of other issues, the West and Russia need each other.

If assimilating Russia into the West is not possible, the US and Europe need to fall back on some version of a strategic partnership, but one that is much more limited in its ambitions. Russian President Medvedev's suggestion for a "Helsinki Plus" treaty is one option, but the US and its allies should not be shy about offering alternatives. Medvedev's proposal contains some of the major principles a strategic partnership with Russia will have to enshrine, including the indivisibility of security and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs.

A genuine partnership will have to accept that Russia remains apart from the West, but nonetheless shares a range of common interests. At the most basic level, Western governments will have to accept that their leverage over Russian internal politics is limited, and that Russian influence cannot (and should not) be excluded from the former Soviet space.

Whether any attempt to build a real strategic partnership succeeds will depend greatly on Moscow as well, but even if they fail, negotiations will do much to clarify the motivations and assumptions of all sides. Russia, increasingly isolated by its bluster and saber-rattling, has the most to lose anyway. The West can afford to be patient.

Today the US and Europe have an opportunity - maybe their last opportunity - to rectify Russia's post-Cold War omission from a Euro-Atlantic community both unwilling to accept a flawed Russia and unable to erase those flaws. To do so, they will have to take a leap of faith into believing that, despite the disappointments of recent years, a real, if limited, strategic partnership between Russia and the West remains attainable.

Jeffrey Mankoff is associate director of International Security Studies at Yale University and adjunct fellow for Russian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Related materials from the Atlantic Commuinity:

  • 9
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | US - Russian Relations | EU | NATO |
 
Comments
Unregistered User

May 10, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Pragmatic and realistic approach for developing international relations that are in progress, probably won't sit well with conservatives.

http://amerirussia.wordpress.com

http://americhina.wordpress.com

 
Rob  Steer

May 11, 2009

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It was interesting to see how once the G20 had packed up and the TV cameras had moved elsewhere how normal service in US/Europe - Russia relations resumed. The closure of the US base in Kyrgyzstan, continuing dispute on the future of nuclear weapons and tensions with NATO will not go away.

It seems to me that Russia has the trump cards still to play which will determine the future of any strategic relationship. Or are they just bluffing?! Whilst I agree with Jeff that the West can afford to be patient, Russia has demonstrated by their own actions that they are in no rush to run into President Obama's open arms.

Either way, in my overly optimistic and idealist view, the US, Europe and NATO have to keep plugging away and find some common ground with Russia. To not do so would be reckless and the longer we go on without having Russia as a strategic partner, the more difficult it will be for them to become one
 
Donald  Stadler

May 11, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In reference to the opposition of US conservatives, one might begin by naming it something else. "Helsinki Plus" remoinds people of the original "Helsinki Accords" of 1975, which were not at the time held to be a success.

The Eastern Bloc got what it wished (post-WWII borders guaranteed) without actually doing much, if anything to implement what it promised (expanded rights of their people). They broke that promise.

I've heard it argued that the Helsinki Accords were a first step in the disillusionment of people in Russia and Eastern Europe with communism, the USSR, and the Eastern Bloc - there may be substance to that argument.

Of course the USSR both did and did not get the result it negociated for. The West did not actively act to bring down the USSR and the Bloc - the rot was from within. But the fact is that today's Russia does not have the same borders as ot did when the accords were signed, having lost the Baltics, Ukrain, Georgia, and much else. But the West diod not violate the treaty - they promised to respect the borders and did so, until it was clear that the people were taking matters into their own hands.....

But from the POV of both Russians and disillusioned liberals in the West it may be unwise to name it "Helsinki" anything, with all due respect to that fine city.

Apart from that (as a conservative) I think we ought to cautiously explore the opening which President Medvedev may be opening. But it should be a negociation (implying advantages for all parties) rather than simply taking what is offered (likely to be one-sided).
 
Member deleted

May 12, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Well, Helsinki Plus sounds just fine for a number of reasons :

(1) Finland has been, and still is one of the least corrupted countries in the world. The name "Finland" speaks for itself.

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=1216

(2) "Communism" bankrupted in the late 80's and early 90's, "Helsinki" serves as a reminder of that, and it's not to be forgotten.

(3) American style "Capitalism" came very close to bankruptcy just recently, reforming now. Part of the reasons for that is corruption. "Helsinki, Finland" should ring a bell to the new US
administration which the world has very high hopes for, and is progressing well thus far.
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?