Russia and the West

I feel as if the current administration is missing opportunities to foster better relations with Russia. Russia, of course, is aggressive and ambitious in its nationalistic goals. Within its historical context, Russia is trying to obtain esteem and international clout, something that was lost during the 1990's. The US diplomatic corps, led by Russian expert Secretary Rice, has been disappointing in regards to reaching out to their rival. Especially within the current Russian-Georgian war, historical context is essential. (For a detailed description of the recent conflict, see this LA Times article)

One of the great obstacles between the US and Russia is the proposed missile shield. The creation of the missile shield can be explored between the US and the Eastern European nations. However, that exploration is viewed by Russia as expansionistic and encroaching on the Russian sphere of influence. Historically, Russia sought to have a buffer between itself and its Western neighbors. Since the Russians view the missile bases (within close distance to its borders) as a threat and the US views the shield as a necessity, why not counteract that with signs of inclusion? Why not incorporate some of the territory of Russia's close neighbors into the system, even if it is more of a symbolic gesture?

Old rivalries and emotions are stirred up when new events occur. Conflict and passions flare up occasionally and the flames can begin to grow. As Gwynne Dyer (a London-based journalist) said in a recent column:

In those Eastern European countries that were so recently ruled from Moscow, the presence of Russian troops in Georgia has reawakened all the old fears. Poland hastily agreed last week to let the United States place anti-ballistic missile sites on its soil, on condition that there must also be a full-fledged U.S. military base in the country. Why? Because then, if Russia attacked Poland, the United States would automatically become involved.

Is NATO ready for a sustained conflict (hot or cold) with the resurgent Russian Bear? Hardly. Western Europe is uneasily content in the status quo while the Eastern European nations urge more confrontational approaches toward Russia. What can bridge the gap between the two opinions in Europe? Like most things, somewhere in between lies the solution. For this situation, historical context must be analyzed. The US is willing to confront the Russians in rhetoric but does not have the strategic "hard power" of military deterrents (thanks to two conflicts in Asia). President Reagan at least could talk firmly while carrying a large stick. President Bush, on the other hand, can only talk firmly since the military is stretched thin. With NATO split in terms of priorities and principles, the West can hardly act with a hammer. We ought to speak softly but firmly. Offer a compromise about the missile shield for Russia's promise to leave Georgia and to cool the rhetoric. It would call either expose their ambitions of resurgence or bring them into amiable ties with the West. It is certainly worth attempting.

All the sides within the European power structure have a story and arrive at the situation with tremendous amounts of baggage. We must view conflicts from another point of view and grasp motives. Without being relativistic, our reactions must be rooted in the truth that there are always points of views- good international relations depends upon that reality. It is time for diplomacy to take the upperhand. The US could be able to exit the standoff with some grace.