Obama’s Trip To Russia: Success, Failure Or In Between?
Was President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Russia a success, failure or in between? Did he waste a perfect opportunity to stand up in front of the microphones and cameras and declare U.S. victory in the cold war — or would that have been an unwise and/or inaccurate move?
Cathy Young, a contributing editor at Reason, a weekly columnist at RealClearPolitics, and the author of Growing Up in Moscow: Memories of a Soviet Girlhood (1989), has two must read pieces that look at this issue.
First, on The New Republic’s The Plank, she looks at the question “Did Obama Concede Too Much To Russia?” Here’s a small portion of what she says:
Barack Obama’s fairly unremarkable trip to Moscow has already sparked a small outburst of conservative outrage over arms-control concessions that supposedly undercut American security. Yesterday Liz Cheney, the vice president’s daughter and former deputy assistant secretary of state (and possible congressional candidate), joined the chorus with a Wall Street Journal op-ed accusing Obama of “rewriting Cold War history” to America’s detriment in his Moscow speech.
She explores the realities in detail and at the end writes:
Yes, Obama probably should have added that in the Cold War standoff, America was the Soviet Union’s adversary but a friend to freedom in Soviet-bloc countries. And Cheney makes a good point about his failure to acknowledge that Soviet communism was a brutal tyranny, not just the West’s rival in science, sports, and weapons. Overall, however, Obama’s Moscow speech hit most of the right notes. It included a scathing critique of Putinite ideological obsessions–from “spheres of influence” to the notion that it’s in America’s interest to keep Russia weak–and an unapologetic defense of the U.S. commitment to freedom and democratic government everywhere. The idea that it would have been better for the American president to stand before a Russian audience and claim the end of the Cold War as a single-handed victory of “us” over “them” would have been not only politically myopic but, as it happens, also historically inaccurate.
Now read it in its entirety…
Next, read her piece on RealClearPolitics titled “Obama’s Trip to Russia a Mixed Bag.” It begins:
While the mainstream media have hailed the advances in U.S.-Russian relations supposedly achieved on Barack Obama’s trip to Moscow, some conservative commentary has depicted Obama as a pushover if not a dupe for the Kremlin. The cheerleading and the alarmism are both unwarranted. The visit was no great success, but Obama probably did as well as any president could have – and some aspects of his Russia strategy can only be judged by their long-term results.
Were there significant steps forward in Moscow last week? Doubtful.
She then gives a detailed analysis. Her conclusion:
The signal to Russia seems to be that if Medvedev asserts himself and chooses reform, he will have American support. Given the murkiness of Kremlin politics, this tactic has its risks: the U.S. could be investing political capital in someone who could be either a puppet or – even as his own man – another dubious ally. Still, as long as Obama’s team proceeds with caution, it is a genuine if small chance to encourage change.The administration’s Russia policy deserves careful but fair scrutiny. Uncritical praise for symbolic “advances” is not helpful. Neither is criticism based on stereotypes of Obama as a foreign policy weakling.
Now read it all from beginning to end.
4 Responses to “Obama’s Trip To Russia: Success, Failure Or In Between?”
I think that “victory” and “failure” are too narrow a yardstick for diplomatic overtures of this sort. I would add “useful” or “not useful” to the mix.
To the specific complaint (nuclear arms reduction) in general I support nuclear arms reduction. In the specific I don't honestly know whether the deal announced was prudent or not. However, ratifying a treaty requires the concurrence of 2/3's of the Senate. Achieving that would take 100% of the Senate Democrats + 7 Republicans. I strongly suspect that means the matter will be decided on merits rather than on the basis of partisan politics.
If it's a good deal, it will be passed. If not, it will be yet another case of an American president getting ahead of himself.
I think the visit was useful. Russia has had a consistent foreign policy over the last 200 years and if President Obama has an open mind he's gotten a taste of what he has in store in dealing with Russia. Useful.
Trips of any US diplomat to Russia are almost always inconsequential. Russia has her own agenda and never falters in her step in this regard. The used-car-salesmen smiles, back-pats and handshakes are about all there is to their intention to compromise any Russian momentum.
Buyer beware. And yet there's something I really like about Russia. Go figure? You can't really blame them for not trusting us given the GOPs slimey track record. Paranoia aside on both ends I think the US and USSR would be a formidable team economically and otherwise; especially scientific advancements. IMHO.
1.I noted on one or two earlier threads some time ago (when the trip was actually made; why are the bloggers so tardy?) that while the nuclear arms reduction stuff may appeal to a few hopeless idealists and anti-nuclear neurotics (or just those in the West and notably in the USA who want any excuse for the West and especially the USA to be weakened in any way, as was the case in the Cold War and is the case in the Middle East with Israel still) that concerning _real_ issues, this trip was a bust. Russia is continuing to aggress against its neighbors as well as continuing to arm Iran and support its (“peaceful civilian”) nuclear (weapons) program.
Note that after Obama left (something that _should_ be an on-line topic now, rather than the tardy, even questionably tardy, choice of the bloggers who trail the rest of us), one thing Russia immediately did was to send Medvedev (who still is run by Putin, obviously) to the “breakaway” parts of Russia' neighbors to cheer them on and assure them of continued Russian support. Even if Obama isn't being challenged by this, which certainly appears obvious to some of us, it's obviously more contination of problematic Russian behavior, the opposite of what Obama was seeking.
2. However, it is not Obama's fault, because Putin (who runs Russia) is the one who decides what Russia will do; we don't have that much influence (if we're strong, Russia reflexively opposes us; if we're weak, Russia opportunitistically or even reflexively, too, exploits this), and in the end solving Russian problems or correcting Russian misconduct is Russia's responsibility and its task.
“Russia has had a consistent foreign policy over the last 200 years and if President Obama has an open mind he's gotten a taste of what he has in store in dealing with Russia.”
There seemed to be no reasoning or logic behind the visit (as with the overall trip, a hodgepodge and apparently impulsive undertaking, as with Democratic domestic policy since the election except where there may be disturbing motives and deliberation instead), but at least Obama faced Russia. There was no concession made on the real problems today (aggression against its neighbors; continued arming of Iran and giving it nuclear assistance; opposition to former East Bloc nations joining NATO) and in fact after Obama left, Russia made it a point to visit its neighbors and give separatists encouragement and support (a probable deliberate challenge to Obama — he is being Tested — at least a known continuation).
Russian policy — ahem — “defensive [rationalized] annexation [or at least aggression and proxy control if not maintaining an empire as during the Cold War]“