A discussion on Mccain's Russia policy

Stemming from the RussiaToday headline "Kick Russia out of G8 says McCain," a rather interesting talk has developed amongst some friends and I. Figured I would throw it on here and see if we can get a bit more conversation flowing. Naturally, the conversation just simmered a bit and then I blew the discussion way out of proportion, but hopefully I was provocative enough to elicit some type of response....

The discussion began on facebook, in regards to the above article, as follows:

Chris Fulford: There are a lot of things I disagree on with McCain, but his distinctive stance on Russia just earned him bonus points in my book.

Ryan Whelan: Bonus points for a disagreement or for agreement?

Demic Tipitino: One, McCain does not have the power to do that. It is the Host nations responsibility. But I do think that by taking a more hard lined stance and putting pressure on Russia we might get a better response.

With respect to Obama. He is such a fan of diplomacy, and honestly I agree with him on this, but I would really appreciate it if he knew how to be a diplomat. Obviously Russia is not moving from the G8, but ya know I want my president not to lay down when Russia does the crap they have been doing.

Chris Fulford: Bonus points for agreeing with his opinion of Russia. Since 2001, Putin has taken advantage of Bush's "friendship," and the latter's acknowledgment of his friend's "good soul" is a load of crap to me. The US has needed to take a hard stance on Russia from the beginning. 

Oh, I agree with you, Demic, that the US has no leverage to get Russia out of the G8, but by singling Russia out, McCain is performing a first for US leaders, and I admire him for that.

Demic Tipitino: Ya that is honestly why I like him so much. It is not that he is always right, but that he is always him. You remember in 2000? in the South Carolina debate Putin had won already, and they asked Bush and McCain what they thought about him. Bush described his typical I looked into his eyes and he is a good honest man stuff.

McCain said "I look into his eyes and I see three things... K...G....B lol how right he was.

Ryan Whelan: I must say, that while I admire Mccain's impassioned stance and do not disagree with the spirit of the argument or the tough stance, I do think calling for Russia to be ousted from the G8 is the wrong way of going about achieving democratic progress within Russia. I agree with both of you that we do not have leverage to force the Russians our of the G8, but even if we did it would be a step that is completely counterproductive to our national interest. While Russia has introduced a few too many authoritarian measures and drastically re-centralized control, we cannot underestimate the propensity of the Russian mind to overreact. 

I do not know how much I would say that Putin has taken advantage of President Bush's "friendship," because I think most of what has been done would have happened anyway, because it needed to happen, at least from the Russian perspective it did. The reigning in of the oligarchs was a major accomplishment, and though the subsequent passage of a law making all regional heads subject to Kremlin appointment did squelch regional opposition at least in the short run, it also leaves the door open for democratic reforms that could foster democratic opposition in the future.

There is a new President in the hot seat, and while he probably does not have the complete mandate that Putin did (because he does still have to answer to the silverback), he does have the potential to have considerable influence on foreign policy. We all understand that the Russians feel as though the are being suffocated by Western influence.

Bases in Kyrgyzstan and only recently removed form Uzbekistan. Bases in Turkey, rapidly warming relations and the possibility of NATO for Georgia and Ukraine (Ukraine of course still housing a significant portion of Russia's Black Sea fleet and Georgia in the current row of Abkhazia), the loss of Kosovo and a pro EU government in Serbia, Missile defense systems being placed in Czech Republic and Poland. Indeed, simply geographically speaking it is certainly understandable that russia feels there is a noose slowly tightening around its neck. Furthermore, the renegotiation of energy contracts with western companies is not an anomaly, and has been the norm throughout Central Asia and other resource rich countries that did not have the capacity to research possible deposits on their own.

There is no doubt that the Russian way implements some more authoritarian principles than we would like. However, our immediate policy should be one of patience and gentle pressure. They are in the G8, we should push them from within the G8, and we have a little bit more of an advantage to pressure them to reform before entering into the WTO. But, we have yet to see the full extent of the action that President Medvedev will be able to take, and probably will not until after our own elections.

I do think Mccain's tough stance on Russia is a good one, especially for the election. However, I think he should propose reasonable means for pressuring them, or else he looks like he is either an idiot or a politician simply maneuvering for a vote. Furthermore he should demonstrate a bit more of an understanding of Russian history and a bit more sympathy for their situation when Putin came to power when implying his constructive supposed to take the lead in everything. We need to put a little bit of faith in our Russian brothers, while keeping up a steady, but not-to-harsh stream of advice, and give the Russians a chance to come around under their new president. If there has been no progress within a year to 18 months, then it will be time for more drastic action.

Please, get involved and share your thoughts...

Reflections on a Future Foreign Policy

On a crisp November day in 1989, one of the most poignant scenes of recent memory dominated news around the globe. The Berlin wall had fallen; East and West Berliners—in a symbolic demonstration of the greater action that was soon to come—scattered tears of joy over the bloodstained soil that had divided them for almost thirty years. The Cold War was over. Yet twenty years after the climactic conclusion to one of the tensest periods in global history, we remain woefully ignorant of the lessons that the Cold War era had to teach us.
For decades, the globe was defined by a titanic rivalry, propagated by fear and driven by misunderstanding. The Wall became a permanent symbol of the chasm that separated the world’s superpowers and, at times, a grotesque reminder of the consequences that this partition wrought. The Fall elicited a new hope, from all sides, that finally we were entering an era of understanding, an era of cooperation, and an era of peace. Democracy became the proven government of the world, and now all peoples could willfully submit to its rule without hesitation or fear that it would bring violent retribution from a gleaming sickle or a stained hammer. The new democracies of Eastern Europe and Central Asia were praised as the embodiment of this success, and beacons to the world of the benefits that free markets and free peoples can bring to all.
Few stopped to observe humanity in its true light. Few recognized that the bipolar world of the past had unwittingly provided a black and white backdrop, upon which the political drama could easily play out. With the fall of communism, the black yielded, leaving a blank canvas ready to be splattered with a kaleidoscope of global dilemmas that had previously been overshadowed by the caustic bickering of Cold War politics. In the words of former CIA director James Woolsey, “it’s as if we were fighting with dragon for some 45 years and slew the dragon and then found ourselves in a jungle full of a number of poisonous snakes.”
This is no reason to lose hope, however, as our experiences during the Cold War, indeed the very measures that sustained it, hold the key to solving the problems that we presently face. Today’s obstacles will never be overcome through unilateral dictation, and though at times a policy of tough love has its merits, leadership demands that we approach each situation with an attitude of cautious compassion and open ourselves to the liberating possibilities of global thought. In this era of globalization and multinational exchange, the singular vision of the Cold War will incapacitate this country in its efforts to foster democratic development, and instead align it with the very forms of tyranny that it seeks to defeat. Understanding this fact, however, is impossible as long as we anchor ourselves to the narrow belief that because of our success we know best. It takes courage, it takes risk, it will take suffering, but we must, we must no longer address situations from our own privileged perspective, but endeavor to understand the perspectives of those we seek to aid. In constructing a new National Security Strategy and organizing a new foreign policy, it is of vital urgency that this transformation be a primary task of the next President of the United States.
When, in the first great foreign policy act of this nation, the founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to declare our independence to the world it was a message of hope, of possibility, and of new beginning. We were at the forefront of global political development. We dared to be great; we took the dive and plunged into the depths of uncertainty, and we emerged as one of the greatest achievements in world history. We must find that path once more. What will be the next great step? Who will again thrust this nation to the margins of global development? The wall fell almost twenty years ago, it’s time we take down the walls that remain in our own minds. It’s time to dare greatness once again and take the next step towards a better world.

A new hope in Medvedev's Russia?

I wrote this article a little over a month ago for the Miami Student here at Miami University, but the principles remain true and hopefully will give some perspective on what we can hope for coming up following the turn over next week (May 7) in Moscow. Enjoy, and as usual I would appreciate any feedback.

A recent meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President-elect Dmitry Medvedev of Russia spawned little hope in the mind of the German leader. Following the meeting in Moscow, Merkel told reporters, "I think there will be continuity. I do not think that the controversies will just disappear." Indeed, vocal statements by both President Vladimir Putin and Medvedev that the former will remain a strong influence-at least for a time-in Russian policy makes it difficult to be hopeful for any drastic policy change. Still, given this monarchic transition, it is prudent to look at the signs for what may happen in the future.

There is no doubt that the infamous Putin will remain a driving force behind Kremlin policy, probably from the post of prime minister. However, there are some signs to indicate Medvedev may be less of a puppet than many expect. For example, Putin has hinted several times that he would maintain control of Russia's foreign policy and given his obvious skill in this area-coupled with Medvedev's strong economic background-such a construct is not an absurd idea. Yet, recently Medvedev stated that he would maintain control over Russian foreign policy, as has been the prerogative of the post of president since 1993. Whether the presidency retains this competency or whether its policy-making powers are transferred to the prime minister-ship, Putin will maintain a strong amount of influence over Russian strategy. If Medvedev retains these constitutional powers, then it will be a major statement by the new president that he does not expect Putin's influence to remain eternally involved.

Furthermore, Putin himself has actually left the door open for Medvedev to alter Kremlin policy once he is officially sworn in as president May 7. Interestingly, in the area of granting presidential pardons, Putin has stated that such acts will remain a competency of the head of state. This means that should he so choose, Medvedev could actually pardon oil magnate Mikhail Khodorkovsky-a Russian oligarch that has been imprisoned on tax fraud and evasion charges since 2003. Khodorkovsky was largely viewed as a last major threat to Kremlin primacy and his imprisonment ended the oligarch's ability to provide regional opposition to the Kremlin administration. If Medvedev were to pardon Khodorkovsky, it would signal an interesting departure from the paranoid, power-thirsty years of the Putin administration and would be a significant step in the right direction for Russian democratic development.

Finally, in picking Medvedev, Putin has brought to the fore a young man whose soft-spoken manner is a drastic shift from the tradition of KGB "manly-men" who have long been perceived as necessary to lead the great Russian nation. Medvedev was certainly a Kremlin compromise between the highly powerful siloviki (former KGB and military men) and the more liberal economic wing. If Medvedev is able to demonstrate to this cohort that an outsider can competently lead the nation without weakening its international standing, he would be in prime position to gently begin liberalizing the Russian government.

In the short run, any major change in the status quo is highly unlikely. The Kremlin's influential security and defense arm will be skeptical of Medvedev for a while. If the new president is able to maintain control of the competencies of the president and to successfully work with the former president to allay the fears of the siloviki, he will be in a strong position for liberal action (beginning in the economic sector). Medvedev's soft-spoken style may actually aid him in accomplishing these tasks. Just as Putin surged forward to consolidate power at a critical time, perhaps Medvedev will do the same for Russian democracy.

Reflections on NATO expansion

As the only super power remaining after the Cold War the United States took upon itself the mission of fostering democratic development and market liberalization across the globe. It seemed the collapse of the Berlin Wall signified a carte blanche to this nation that democracy was surely the way of the future. However, our democratic overtures in the post-soviet world have been met largely with skepticism and occasionally violence. Though our international neighbors are not adverse to the ideals of democratic governance, they are stringently opposed to what they perceive to be the imposition of the American way of life on their traditional value structure. It is within this context that the current debates over NATO expansion and missile defense are evolving.
In 1999 and 2004 NATO embarked upon its greatest enlargements since the inception of the organization in 1949 with complete disregard for the objections of several international actors, including Russia. Only twelve years after the official collapse of the Soviet Union, the Atlantic alliance, the embodiment of Western ideals that the Russians had grown so distrustful of, now included a large chunk of that country’s former territory. The expansion of NATO was coupled with a massive enlargement of the European Union and “pro-Western” revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Indeed, from the Russian perspective it seemed they were being systematically isolated from the world they had been striving to be a part of for the last decade.
This past year has seen zero effort on the part of the Western alliance to alleviate these well-founded fears. In 2007 the United States reached an agreement with Poland and Czech Republic to place missiles in Russia’s back yard without so much as a phone call to Moscow. The US did not react to favorably when the Soviet Union proposed to place missiles in Cuba during that infamous showdown in 1962, now it seemed the tables were being turned. As the debate over missile defense heated up the rhetoric on both sides grew increasingly provocative and Russia saw their suggestion of an alternative sight rejected outright—yet another signal to the Kremlin that the West had no interest in cooperation. The next blow came on February 18, 2008 when Kosovo declared itself independent from Serbia. Serbia, a long time ally of Russia, had its traditional homeland torn from its grasp. While this outcome was largely predictable the means by which it took place, without the consent of the Serbian government and over the objections of many members of the international community (including Ukraine and Georgia), infuriated the Kremlin and served as further affirmation that the West has no interest in a mutually beneficial relationship.
Now the United States proposes to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance that Russia sees as a major threat to its internal sovereignty and to regional stability. In light of the information discussed above it should be easily understandable why Russia so ardently opposes both missile defense and NATO expansion. While both events are likely to occur in the future, it is time we take a step back and evaluate the means by which we are pursuing these objectives. There is absolutely no need for the climate to be as cold as it has been over the passed year and it should be the United States that takes the lead in promoting a cooperative and trustworthy dialogue. Russia feels that it has been backed into a corner; when you back a bear into a corner there remain only two possible outcomes: either you can give it a little bit more room to operate or you can expect it to violently lash out with a powerful paw.
With this in mind it is commendable that the Bush administration backed down from their vocal support of Ukrainian and Georgian membership at last week’s summit. If the administration remains more hands-off, it might see some very favorable scenarios begin to develop following the accession of Dimitry Medvedev to the Presidency of Russia on May 7. By pushing too vigorously for Ukrainian and Georgian membership the administration will force Medvedev to kowtow to the wishes of the Siloviki, but if they back off he may just be able to work his way out of the powerful Siloviki grasp, only time will tell.
This is not a statement of support for Russia; indeed their reactionary responses—such as the renewal of strategic bomber over-flights and their withdrawal from the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty—to this western encroachment have not been very productive in encouraging a symbiotic relationship. However, as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world we should be at the forefront of encouraging restraint and rationality in the pursuit of gradual progress rather than persistently indulging in rash action, as has been the case so many times of late. In giving up his fight to initiate the process of Ukrainian and Georgian accession to NATO, President Bush could be sacrificing part of his legacy, but as George Washington demonstrated sometimes when you relinquish the sword you create your greatest legacy of all. Furthermore in waiting to pursue these important objectives the President would be sending a vital message to his successor that while taking into account the strategic interests of the United States it is no longer enough just to be a global actor, we must also be a global thinker.

Goodbye Glasnost

An article recently ran in my school newspaper, The Miami Student. It discussed the success of last weekends elections in Russia and Venezuela, calling both the first steps in the right direction. While I did not disagree with the analysis of the situation to our south, the rhetoric towards Russia was dangerously acquiescent and the analysis--in my opinion--wrong. Therefore I typed up a response, that hopefully will be run on monday, delineating my views. I am going to post both below, and hopefully it will foment some discussion.

Recent elections leave more to be hoped for, desired
By: Jonathan Gair
Miami Student Op-ed Column 12/7/07
http://media.www.miamistudent.net/media/storage/paper776/news/2007/12/07/OpedPage/Recent.Elections.Leave.More.To.Be.Hoped.For.Desired-3138341.shtml

Last weekend taught us something very important about the presence and execution of democracy in developing authoritarian states, and that's the importance that the leaders of these various states place on establishing a mandate of control from their population. Regardless of how you feel about the progress of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan, democracy here in the United States, or even wide spread electoral abuses in developing states, the fact is that those voters in Russia and Venezuela this past weekend were able to voice their opinions, for better or for worse.While these elections leave much, much, much more to be desired, they can at least be seen as a step in the right direction of empowering various populations and making their voices and opinions matter. Despite the authoritarian rule in these two countries, the lack of electoral supervision by international agencies, the manipulation of media and the domination of politics by the current parties in power, in Russia concern over how many voters would actually turn out spurred intsense action by the Kremlin. Except for a few months in the middle of 1917, for the decades leading up to the very last years of the Soviet Union, the Russian people had not even known the power of their electoral ability. Even with the overwhelming victory of the President Vladimir Putin-backed United Russia Party, and the lockout of more liberal parties from parliamentary seats, all hope should not be lost. These are the first steps in a system of more voter power-a process that will take generations upon generations to mold. Putin, who used the election as a mandate of support, realized the importance of his citizens and spent the last weeks urging Russians to go to the polls. Yes, a large voter turn out and victory for United Russia (both numbers were more than 60 percent) will be used by Putin to support his claim that his leadership is popularly accepted, but the fact that he had to spend so much time and focus engaging his population shows recognition of their importance.While we can breathe a small, quick sigh of relief that Putin did not try anything this week that threatened the delicate Constitutional legitimacy in Russia, a much more encouraging weekend result came from our south.

RESPONSE:

Goodbye Glasnost
By: Ryan Whelan

Mr. Gair, though you expressed your views on Russia with eloquent justification and your analysis of the Venezuelan situation was spot on, the assertion that Sunday’s election in Russia taught us “the importance [of the fact] that the leaders of these states place on establishing a mandate of control from their population,” is simply wrong. The reality of the situation is that Russia has seen five Duma elections and four Presidential elections since the Soviet Union’s implosion in 1991. All of those elections, even the dubious 1995/96-election season, were freer than the elections held in Russia last Sunday.

You are correct that it would be a significant step for the people of Russia to be provided some means of having their voices heard. However, when students are told by their teachers to vote for United Russia or else face failure in or expulsion from school, the argument that their true opinions are being voiced sounds humorous. This was the case on December second. Factory workers were told to take pictures of their ballots to prove to their foremen that they had voted for the party in power. Teachers were told to check number ten or find a new job. People who did not vote and responded truthfully to security officers, when asked, were escorted to the voting booths and told who to vote for. The extent to which former intelligence officers and current intelligence agencies run the country is unparalleled in any modern democratic society, affording possible retribution to anyone who voted “incorrectly”.

I agree with you, however, that these elections did teach us—or at least remind us—of one very important lesson. It is the same lesson we first became aware of following the October 1917 revolution; the same lesson that Hitler so brilliantly utilized in attaining power. The lesson December second taught us, and that we must strive to remain aware of, was not that government emphasis on public opinion is good. Instead, what we should learn from this year’s election is that when co-opted by an able, intelligent, and charismatic leader, democratic processes provide a justifiable means of subverting democracy itself by opening the gate for a legitimate transition back to authoritarianism. What we should learn is that when manipulated correctly, a democratic government transitions from a free and open society to the most oppressive and destructive one, because it does so with a mandate from its people. Both the Bolsheviks and Nazis rose to power via this avenue, what makes today even more terrifying is that Mr. Putin has learned from his predecessors and become one of the most skilled political tacticians of our time.

Furthermore, the emphasis President Putin and United Russia are placing on public opinion is far from a contemporary realization. The Russians have long understood the power of the masses, and never better than today, having experienced three major revolutions in the past century. Additionally, both the Bolshevik and Nazi Parties invested stifling sums of money into absurdly thorough propaganda machines designed to rally the support of the populace. The recent campaign simply demonstrates Mr. Putin’s deep understanding of the function the masses play in his plan to retain power.

There still remains hope for Russia, but that hope is fading fast. You are correct that a truly democratic transition will take generations to build in a state with such an extensive totalitarian history. However, this election does not represent the first steps of an infant democracy, but the rejuvenation of a latent authoritarianism. To allow such processes to proceed unchallenged is a betrayal of the democratic ideals we claim to represent.

Kosovo: A Russian Perspective

As the December 10th deadline bears down on the Troika (US, EU, and Russia) tasked with deciding the fate of Kosovo, I find myself searching for clarity on the issue. The desire for independence is certainly not a new sentiment on the international scene. From the Caucuses to California, there are hundreds of independence movements worldwide. Indeed I would not be here writing today if it were not for our own such movement. The Kosovars present an undeniably strong case for independence—especially following the atrocities of the 1990’s. Travesties such as the killing of almost 2000 civilians at Gornje Obrinje would drive any of us to seek an autonomous path for survival. However, as the midnight hour approaches, it is a reasonable idea to take a step back and survey the situation from all angles.

The dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia is notoriously bereft of any meaningful discussion of an organized transition. Indeed the chief negotiators in the movement are American, European, and Russian. In a flashback to the mid 20th Century we seem to have forgotten the Kosovars and Serbs are even involved. This is not entirely the faults of the key parties, however, as the nations supposed to be taking the lead seem more interested in trading nationalistic punches than negotiating a formula for independence.

Therefore, let’s take a look at the Russian perspective. The regional administration has proven little more than inept at governing, and displays an interest in independence that seems to be more concerned with the “star-power” such movements can produce than with any uniform national ideal. In fact, recently there have been reports of bands of armed men in black hoods patrolling the Kosovo-Serbian border, proclaiming their duty to defend Kosovo against the Serbian imperialism that the government cannot. If this is any indication of the situation on the ground and the dialogue between both parties is to remain so confrontational, then any nation-building campaign that grants Kosovo immediate independence stands only to destabilize the region more.

Furthermore, the concern over the setting of a dangerous precedent is real and hazardous. Naturally, Russia is worried about the separatist movements in Chechnya and Abkhazia gaining legitimacy, but they are not the only ones with cause for fear. South Ossetia is becoming an increasingly poignant threat to the democratic transition in Georgia, and Transdniester is an ever-present thorn in the sides of both Ukraine and Moldova. How would the US and Europe feel if Russia and China suddenly began vigorously supporting the separatist movements in those regions? Support for an independent Kosovo would very likely elicit such a response, in order to counter the decisions of the West. NATO expansion, the Orange and Rose Revolutions, as well as the advent of an enormously important and unnerving election to determine Russia’s future have set the paranoid minds of the former intelligence officers running that country on a reactionary course. Groaning under increased pressure from easterly expansion, Russian policy-makers see the Kosovo and missile defense issues as “must wins” for a Russian foreign policy bent on stemming the tide of Western expansion.

Despite how we feel about their current slide from democracy, both the US and EU need Russian support on several issues—namely for dealing with Iran and in counterterrorism efforts. Russians will view any decisions contrary to their interests as yet another encroachment by western powers out to get them. Additionally, the situation in Kosovo is not exactly ideal for independence. Currently it bears more resemblance to two Cold War nemeses grappling over a contemporary battleground than leaders uniting to found a modern state. In light of these facts, the Russian course may hold some merit.
Whatever the decision, the goal here is to realize the advantage in pausing a moment to assess our situation. Neither relations with Russia, nor the US position on the world stage are becoming more manageable. However, if we begin to review tough decisions through broader contexts and opposing viewpoints, rather than sticking to the newly developed, singularly exclusive, American foreign policy of late then we give ourselves a much better opportunity to improve our international standing and to avoid making poor decisions in the future.

Feeding the Bear

Relations with Russia seem to be at an all time low. Not since the collapse of the Soviet Union have our interactions with the Russians been so wrought with mistrust and not since the Cold war has the dialogue been so overtly vile. The situation deteriorated further on Wednesday, when the Russian State Duma—or lower house—voted to suspend Russian membership to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE).

This does not really come as a surprise, seeing as President Putin announced in June the likelihood of this occurrence. Why, then are Western strategists so concerned? Simply put, we have no idea what is happening in Russia. There is only one person in the entire world, that has any concept of where the mother bear is headed, and that is President Vladimir Putin. Everyone else is just a spectator, which naturally instills fear into those strategists.

With Duma elections approaching on December 2, and the deadline for Kosovo the week after that, recent events should be of little surprise. Another week after the Kosovo decision, and the Security Council Permanent Five plus Germany are due to meet to discuss sanctions on Iran. Russia’s withdrawal from the CFE is simply another step in a long train of nationalistic actions designed to reign in support for the United Russia party and the Putin administration. Indeed, now that Putin has agreed to head the party list in December, their fates have become intertwined.

The Duma voted 418-0 to leave the CFE because anyone that did not stand with the motherland would have swiftly been voted out of office. For the current band of misfits and hooligans that comprise Russian parliament the forfeiture of immunity that such action would entail is unacceptable. It is sad to see a country we had so much hope for fifteen years ago reduced to an authoritarian breeding ground, but there is still a way out. Ironically, that is to allow Putin to run his course.
Despite the totalitarian hand that President Putin’s tenure has been marred by, he was still the right man at the right time. He has taken what was a sinking ship and restored it to operational status. Sadly, there is still unrest and a whisper of mutiny in several of the ships cabins, which has caused her skipper to roll out the long range guns and drum up a battle cry in order to divert public attention away from the internal struggles of his supposedly stout vessel.

Putin may not be the number one Western choice, and his policies certainly do not always represent “Western” democratic values, but he is currently the best person we have to work with if we hope to institute democratic change. He knows this, now we must as well. If President Putin sincerely wanted to undermine the Russian democratic system, he could just stay in office, what difference would it make? Instead he wishes it to remain legitimate, so he will step down. A move to the Prime Minister position would still allow him to make positive changes and allow for some predictability—on the part of the west—as to where the country is going. Western strategists should look upon this with favor, and watch how the rest plays out.

Russian withdrawal from a treaty viewed by many in Europe as the cornerstone of European security is unnerving. More worrisome is that it comes at the tail end of six solid months of Russian saber rattling and a month before the critical vote on Kosovo’s future. Russia has remained adamant that it will not support or allow any decision contrary Belgrade’s wishes. Furthermore, the Russians have demanded the US suspend its agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic regarding missile defense in favor of a joint program with the Russians in Azerbaijan. It is time to utilize these extremely important issues as a median to secure stronger relations with Russia.

The real issue for the US is Kosovo and the support of a democratic state there. The real interest for Russia—even though some may argue there are important parallels between Kosovo and Chechnya—is to ensure the US does not encroach too far into its back yard with missile defense. Therefore, it is time to make a stand of our own. When the time comes, probably just after the December 2 Duma elections, the US should announce its support for Kosovar independence. Russia must realize they do not always get what they want, this is a real world, and we all lose sometimes. Of course the process is complicated, as the US would need the support of the major powers in Europe, and surely Russia would be expected to voice opposition, but they would have swallow the deal. In return, the US should agree to the establishment of a joint missile defense venture in Azerbaijan, and to announce the indefinite suspension of its agreements in Poland and the Czech Republic. The final straw would be that we allow the Russians to announce this message prior to the December 2 elections.

The reality of the situation is that such actions would in no way weaken our position in Central Europe, in fact it may strengthen it. Public opinion in both Poland and the Czech Republic is strongly against the construction of a missile defense system in their countries. This decision could serve to mend rifts in NATO and the EU. Certainly smaller divides would arise regarding the Kosovo decision, but they would be short lived. Additionally, independence for Kosovo can be taken as a fundamentally different case than Chechnya, and with such extensive state control over media outlets the Russian government should have no problem spinning the story whichever way they want. In the end, the agreement would probably be harder for the Russians to swallow than for us, but if we additionally agree to tone down the dialogue regarding democratic practices in Russia, it could be a success.

No one knows precisely where Russia is headed, but one thing is certain: it is far better to have the bear on your side, than to know you will eventually have to fight him. The former could bring peace, the latter is what led to the Cold War.