5/6/2023 0 Comments Outset in a sentence![]() This consensus has proven remarkably resilient, surviving postrevolutionary turbulence and the change of political regimes from Boris Yeltsin to Vladimir Putin. Emerging from the rubble of the Soviet collapse and ranging across virtually the entire political spectrum-from pro-Western liberals to leftists and nationalists-this national accord on the key objectives of Russian foreign policy was a kind of line in the sand beyond which Russia could not retreat without losing its sense of self-worth, national pride, or even national identity. Much in the conduct and aims of Russian foreign policy stems from a consensus that crystallized in the early 1990s. This Outlook will offer analysis of the dynamic interaction between the structure and the context of relations between Washington and Moscow to help identify some of its key drivers and sketch out its likely directions. Among the key contextual factors, for example, are the “Putin Doctrine” and President Obama’s commitment to deep cuts in the US nuclear arsenal. These variables shape the more immediate context of US-Russian relations and account for policies that emphasize some elements within the structural framework and diminish the importance of others. Of course, the current occupants of the White House and the Kremlin, their ideologies, and the policy priorities that these ideologies prompt matter a great deal as well. Instead of going down the long list of issues in US-Russian relations, it might be more useful to select a few more-or-less permanent (or, at least, recurring) geostrategic objectives and moral imperatives that at once compel and constrain policymakers on both sides-the structural framework within which the US-Russian relations unfold. ![]() Instead of attempting a second reset, likely to fail under current conditions, the US might consider a strategic pause to rethink its relations with Moscow while continuing to assist in any way possible the emergence of a free, prosperous, and stable Russia.Īs the Obama administration sits down to chart its second-term policy toward Russia, now is a good time take stock of where we are, why we are here, and where we are likely headed.The Kremlin’s growing authoritarianism, quest for regional dominance, and anti-American propaganda to bolster the legitimacy of the regime have shrunk the common ground between the two nations that formed the basis for Obama’s first-term reset policy.Several significant geostrategic and moral considerations shape US-Russian relations, including Russia’s unofficial “Putin Doctrine,” which asserts the recovery of political, economic, and geostrategic assets lost in the breakup of the Soviet Union. ![]() ![]() ![]() Regardless of the specific course, however, the overarching metagoal ought to be helping Russia progress toward genuine democracy. Although the Putin Doctrine has proven compatible with some of the key priorities of Obama’s first-term foreign policy, the common ground has shrunk, leaving the United States to choose between revisiting the reset policy or taking a strategic pause to rethink the direction of its Russia policy while continuing frank dialogue with the Kremlin and cooperating where possible. Accordingly, Moscow sought to assert Russian dominance in the post-Soviet space gain control over the country’s politics, economy, courts, and key media and boost the regime’s legitimacy through a “besieged fortress” propaganda campaign with increasingly anti-American overtones. Since coming to power in 2000, Putin’s foreign policy has increasingly been guided by what might be called the “Putin Doctrine”: prioritizing the recovery for the Russian state of the political, economic, and geostrategic assets lost in the Soviet collapse. As US President Barack Obama begins a second term, it is worth asking what Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy goals are and what US priorities toward Russia should be. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |