Strategies range from the mild (above) to the manic (below)

From Popular Science via the Danger Room

The Obama administration’s decision to ‘reset’ relations with Russia continues to inspire controversy. Over the past few weeks, several conservative pundits have attacked this policy, arguing that the president’s desire to cozy up to the Kremlin has made him reluctant to question Moscow’s human rights record or defend its neighbors. Their main point is that an approach that puts “Russia first” has the tendency to become “Russia only.”    

On the one hand, there is some truth to this argument. During Dmitri Medvedev’s most recent trip to the US, President Obama did not even mention Russia’s sham trial of imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Nor did he apply any overt pressure in regard to the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russia occupied in August 2008. This omission suggests that the administration is willing to sacrifice some its principles in the pursuit of rapprochement.

Even so, the less in-your-face policy has attracted some supporters abroad. Among the most unlikely was Georgia’s president, Mikhail Saakashvili, who said that “if [the reset button] leads to a more modern, more open Russia, that’s only good for all of us around it.” Coming from such a vocal critic of the Kremlin, these comments should throw cold water on those who suggest that Mr. Obama has thrown America’s friends under a bus.

How then should the US proceed? First, it should continue promoting democracy and the rule of law behind closed doors. Second, it needs to reaffirm its support for allies in the region, as Secretary of State Clinton recently did in the Caucasus. Most importantly, the administration must use all of the goodwill and leverage it claims to have accrued to convince the Kremlin to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. Whether the administration likes it or not, the reset button’s success will ultimately be measured by its effect in Tehran and Tskhinvali, not nice words from Moscow.   

Since the round-up of a suspected Russian spy ring on Tuesday, discussion has centered on the scandal’s effect on US-Russia relations and the so-called ‘reset button.’ President Obama and his critics expressed concern that these arrests could derail the administration’s rapprochement with the Kremlin. For both sides, the episode seems to underscore the fact that Cold War legacies persist and ‘Russia is still Russia.’

This pessimistic reaction is understandable, but historically misguided. Even during the Cold War and its aftermath, the relationship survived Rudolf Abel, Gary Powers, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen. Neither Moscow nor Washington will let this comical affair undermine bilateral ties. Indeed, they have so far refused to engage in tit-for-tat expulsions or other diplomatic provocations.

The truly shocking thing about this incident is what it reveals about Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR. Despite the large number of ex-KGB officials in the Kremlin, Russia’s undercover operatives appear unprepared, sloppy, and amateurish. The most famous, the red-headed Anna Chapman, was hardly discrete and commonly made mistakes in written English. Cutbacks in funding and training have clearly taken a toll on this once fearsome institution.

Another interesting facet of this saga is its apparent futility. Unlike previous cases of espionage and defection, this program did not deliver any real classified information to Moscow. Kim Philby and the Cambridge Five gave Stalin revealing secrets about the US’s nuclear arsenal and its intention to create NATO. These eleven deep-cover agents provided nothing but gossip easily available on Google. If Russia is going to continue spying on the US, it should really try to get better value for its money.

In 2007, Moscow’s Sakharov Center put on a showcase of previously banned artwork called ‘Forbidden Art.' Its purpose was to highlight the detrimental effects of hard-line religious orthodoxy on Russia’s intellectual climate. Unfortunately, prosecutors have come to the defense of the Orthodox Church and its patrons in the Kremlin, charging the organizers of the exhibition, Yuri Samodurov and Andrei Yerofeev, with "debasing the religious beliefs of citizens and inciting religious hatred." If they are convicted, they will face a three-year prison term.

Such a draconian prospect has evoked outrage from many Russian intellectuals, including Andrei Zorin, a leading academic at Oxford University. A money quote from his open letter to polit.ru: “There can be no doubt that a guilty verdict will dramatically change the political climate in Russia and deal a powerful, if not a mortal, blow to the much-hyped modernization plans of President Dmitri Medvedev.”

Click here to read the entire letter.

The 2010 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey is out. The US remains popular in many parts of the world with the notable exception of the Middle East: 

“Ratings of America are overwhelmingly favorable in Western Europe. For example, 73% in France and 63% in Germany say they have a favorable view of the U.S. Moreover, ratings of America have improved sharply in Russia (57%), up 13 percentage points since 2009, in China (58%), up 11 points, and in Japan (66%), up 7 points. Opinions are also highly positive in other nations around the world including South Korea (79%), Poland (74%), and Brazil (62%). […]  Publics of other largely Muslim countries continue to hold overwhelmingly negative views of the U.S. In both Turkey and Pakistan – where ratings for the U.S. have been consistently low in recent years – only 17% hold a positive opinion. Indeed, the new poll finds opinion of the U.S. slipping in some Muslim countries where opinion had edged up in 2009. In Egypt, America’s favorability rating dropped from 27% to 17% – the lowest percentage observed in any of the Pew Global Attitudes surveys conducted in that country since 2006.”

It’s particularly interesting to contrast changes in Russian and Egyptian views. In March 2009, Obama clumsily set out to “reset” relations with Russia but has since made significant progress working with Moscow. Obama’s flawless Cairo speech, on the other hand, was followed by a year of consternation. The lesson for the current administration seems clear:  exceeding low expectations is much better than failing to reach high ones.

"The Russians hate (missile defense). They've hated it since the late 1960s. They will always hate it, mostly because we'll build it and they won't."

-Defense Secretary Robert Gate talking tough during Congressional testimony on the New START Agreement.

Hat tip to GSN.

During his tenure in office, Vladimir Putin has tranquilized polar bears in the Arctic, preformed on stage at a rap concert, and appeared in nearly every part of Russia’s vast wilderness without a shirt. Most Western observers find such antics either puzzling or mildly amusing. Yet adopting these various guises does serve an important purpose.

As Ben Judah points out in his article for The Prospect, the Putin regime relies on a relentless brand of ‘tele-populism’ to bridge the historic divisions in Russia’s fractured society. Unemployed workers in the provinces, for example, see Putin as the defender of the downtrodden, flying in to insist that the oligarch owner re-open the factory and give them back their jobs. Meanwhile, people in the military connect to the image of a dynamic leader sitting in the cockpit of a fighter plane or throwing his opponents to the ground in a judo competition.

President Medvedev, by contrast, appeals to the middle class with his elegant suits and refined manners. They see him as an embodiment of Russia’s European aspirations and historic culture.  For those who travel abroad or own a business, his soft-spoken diplomacy and pedantic lectures on corruption offer an antidote to Putin’s brash and often crude style. Medvedev, in other words, plays the ‘Westernizer’ while Putin represents the historic ‘Slavophile.’

This attempt to unite disparate elements and constituencies has been a hallmark of Putin’s reign. In terms of history, the regime has rehabilitated the image of both Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev and the Russian Orthodox Church. Symbolically, on the other hand, it melded the Soviet national anthem and red star with the Tsarist eagle and tricolor. Even the country’s new holidays balance this divide by including an event celebrating the Soviet Union’s downfall (Independence Day) and its greatest triumph (Victory Day).

Nevertheless, the reliance on image-building papers over serious problems. According to a poll by the Levada Center, only 17% of people who support Putin said that they considered his policies to be ‘successful.’ The financial downturn, in particular, has caused many Russians to question the administration’s competence. If the economy continues to stagnate or violence resurfaces in the Caucuses, the Kremlin’s image of pride, vigor, and omnipresence could crumble along with its popularity. No amount of bare-chested posturing or spin will be able to fix that.

-Joe

Stratfor often provides insightful commentary. That’s why I read their free reports. But they also have a whacky side, and like to make ludicrous, unfounded assertions (see here for more). Their piece on Kyrgyzstan falls into the latter category. They combine false assertions with loony theories, throw in some Russian revanchism and Uzbek irredentism, and voila! We have on our hands a potential Russo-Uzbek war.

Stratfor’s Peter Zeihan begins with a bunch of 19th century nonsense about Russia needing geographical barriers to protect against invasion. That makes seizing control of the Carpathian Mountains (!!!) central to Russian security.

In case you haven’t crawled out of your WWII bunker yet, it’s 2010. Nobody on the European continent aside from Russia (and America if you count bases in Germany) even has a military worth writing about. The mountains that Russia actually pays attention to are known as the Caucasus Mountains. Far from being a help against external invaders (Oh no! The Georgians are coming!), they serve as a refuge for Chechen terrorists. Yet all this jibber jabber about mountains makes Kyrgyzstan sound worthwhile to fight for (Kyrgyzstan is one of the most mountainous countries in the world), so Zeihan includes it.

Next comes the straw man.

Russia has reasserted itself as a dominant power in Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine.

Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, I get it. In Azerbaijan, Russia is not really dominant, but at least it is a place where countries compete for influence. But Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan? Who had pushed the Kremlin out as the dominant power in these countries, before the Russian bear roared back? Nobody. But all of this talk sets the stage nicely for some Russian aggression.

Click "Read More" to Continue--------->