Blogs and Stories
Russia's Ticking Time Bomb
)
Nicola Cohen
President Obama’s trip may have looked like a success, but Russia expert Stephen Cohen, author of Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, tells The Daily Beast that in order to avert disaster, the president must reverse the disastrous path pursued by Clinton and Bush.
Plus: Stephen Walt on How Obama’s Style Trumps Substance in Moscow
How did Obama’s trip to Moscow go?
Well, you would make a judgment based on the success—based on what you thought the situation was before Obama arrived in Moscow. If you take the view that I take in my new book, that we are essentially in the state of a new Cold War, then I would say that the success in Moscow was extremely modest.
Click Image Below to View Our Gallery
No harm was done. Obama got a certain success in that the Russians agreed to do the things that he wanted: namely, a new nuclear-arms inspection and reduction treaty. It was not a great success because we had had those treaties for 40 years until President George W. Bush decided he didn’t want them anymore. Still, it’s a confidence-building measure. It reduces suspicion. The Russians wanted that every bit as much as we wanted it.
The only other piece of big news—and this can be regarded as a success for Obama, but with conditions—is the Russians agreed to allow the United States to fly military cargo planes over Russia to Afghanistan. The problem has been that the supply routes to Afghanistan have chiefly been through Pakistan, and that’s become untenable. There’s too much fighting there; the passages are being closed. The Americans needed another way to supply the troops in Afghanistan, and Russia gave it to them. That’s the good news.
What’s the bad news?
I think that embedded in these agreements are three ticking time bombs that could blow them to smithereens.
The first is that what has really caused this new Cold War has been the expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders, beginning with the Clinton administration and continuing through the Bush administration.
The second ticking time bomb is missile defense. Now Obama gave the Russians a small concession here. If you look at what Obama said, he said something like the following: “We understand that the reduction of offensive weapons must be discussed in connection with defensive weapons.” Translated: We understand we’re not going to get a good arms-control-reduction agreement if we can’t come to an agreement about missile defense. The Russians wanted that linkage. They got it verbally, but not in substance.
The third ticking time bomb goes back to this concession the Russians made regarding flights over Russia to Afghanistan. Here you have to understand the attitudes that prevail in the Russian political class. The view of the Russian political class is that, for the last 15 to 20 years, Moscow has made all the concessions to Washington and Washington has never made a single concession to Moscow, repeatedly breaking its promises beginning with the promise it would not expand NATO.
What did Putin and Medvedev get in return for the concession permitting us to fly over Russia to Afghanistan? If they didn’t get something in return, then I would say that the concession is not stable because there will be enormous opposition to it in Moscow. If they got something in return, we haven’t been told what it is yet.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
This Week's Hot Reads
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The World's 12 Most Fashionable Hotels
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Best (And Worst) Cities to Find Love
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
rahrah
Clinton walked all over Russia, Bush saw Putin's soul but ignored it for folly in Iraq. Obama has enough to handle without Russia, but we must be careful not ignore them.
Martyz42
THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED BETWEEN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION & TODAY'S RUSSIA IS THE SIZE OF THE NATIONS BORDERS..
.
THEY WERE A DICTATORSHIP, WE STILL HAVE A DICTATORSHIP RUN BY THE TWO LITTLE GUYS WITH THE NAPOLEONIC COMPLEX'S. THEY STILL HAVE A TON OF NUCLEAR WAR HEADS & THEY ARE STILL A BACKWARD NATION THAT WOULD BE A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE WAR HEADS.
THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO TELL/REMIND CHINA THAT THEIR REAL THREAT IS NOT THE U.S. BUT RUSSIA WHO SITS ON THEIR BORDER. CHINA & THE U.S. TOGETHER NEED TO DECIDE ON HOW THEY WILL "BOTH" APPROACH RUSSIA & DISARM THEM IN A WAY THAT IS NOT THREATENING BUT IN A WAY THAT WILL BE LASTING & SECURE.
WITH RUSSIA'S POPULATION DROPPING BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS EVERY YEAR IT WILL SOON BE AN ARMED NATION WITH NOTHING MORE THAN IT'S DICTATORSHIP & MAFIA LEFT IN CHARGE WITH NOTHING TO FEAR OTHER THEN SELF DESTRUCTION.
THE U.S. & CHINA NEED TO TALK, BRIBE, CONVINCE, FORCE DO WHATEVER IT CAN IN ORDER TO BRING RUSSIA OUT OF IT'S PRESENT COURSE & BACK INTO A PLACE WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE A THREAT TO THE WORLD.
Boyaca
What century are you living in? Russia has moved forward and the USA has moved backward. How many countries has the US invaded since WW2 and how many countries has Russia invaded since WW2? You need to get a grip. China has been invaded by the US and never by Russia. they know where the real danger lies and it is in the Pentagon, not the Kremlin The Pentagon is where the real crazies of the world reside. They are the lunatics who think they can win a nuclear war. The major problem for the US government is how to get the military monkey of it's back. how to stuff the military geniuses that got them into Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan back into the bottle before they blow up the world.
During the cuban missile crises these nutbars wanted to invade Cuba. As usual they did not think of one thing and that was that the Soviet Union had nuclear armed submarines all along the eastern seaboard of the US. The US would have been obliterated if it had not been for the Kennedys. They had to keep the stupid generals in the Pentagon from starting world war three.
sophia5
@Boyaca
" China has been invaded by the US and never by Russia. "
Gee Boyaca, and you probably believe the Soviets were
the first to land on the moon. ( L.O.L )
Did you work for Pravda ?
You're sounding very pro Soviet. No ?
Did you attend one of those
Soviet " RE - EDUCATION " . . . " Camps ? "
Earth to Boyaca,
Communism is dead. The Soviet Union is dead.
Get over it Comrade.
rapierwits
I totally agree about the pernicious and pervasive influence of the IMC on American politics & policy.
Also, I'm sure you didn't mean to pronounce the Russians lily white. I mean Chechnya and Georgia for two decent examples of recent brutality.
xlntcat
I agree with much of what you said but it was McNamara not the Kennedys who prevented a nuclear war with Russia and he had to fight Bobby Kennedy all the way to do so. When other countries don't trust us including North Korea it is for cause. We have not been the good guys in white hats in our dealings with other nations. Since we haven't won a major conflict since WWII, maybe we should be taking care of business at home instead policing the world and Imperial dominance.
tomfarr
China's real threat is from Russia? China, hungry for raw materials, with 1.3 billion people, borders lightly populated, mineral-rich Siberia. You can be sure
that Putin/Medviediev worry plenty about China.
rapierwits
true that! They'll be real lucky to keep them out of the Far East by mid-century!
xlntcat
China could very well become our big threat since they own us and don't like us very much. Does anyone realize that the Russian people have a different world view and that their image of the U S is as skewed by their government as our is by our own. Ninety percent of what is tooted as news in the U S is just propoganda. The media is more hype than substance
galeso
You read too many Tom Clancy books.
Carole65
Martyz42 is living in this century. Russia moved forward, but took steps backward when Putin was installed. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, which helped contribute to their demise as a communist country.
xlntcat
You are right, Afghanistan sank Russia and Great Britain also. What makes us think we are going to fare any better other than delusional arrogance.
johnjohnson68510
This is a great article. Thanks for printing it, Beastly editors.
tomfarr
The Russians oppose the missile defense system in Poland because they still consider Poland as rightly part of their Empire.
They know that the proposed missile defense system would be useless as a defense against Russian missiles. Their real objection is that they want Poland under Russian control.
Russia will eventually reincorporate Ukraine, either openly or by installing a puppet regime there. Ukraine was historically the seat of Russian civilization, and to them it is what the Thirteen Colonies are to the US.
Putin and his men are vicious thugs, who have their opponents assassinated, but it is not wise to provoke them by talking of
having Ukraine join NATO.
rapierwits
Spot on.
But are you saying the US should concede Russia a sphere of influence that includes Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, et al.?
xlntcat
Poland was more trouble than it was worth when they had them. They might want to go back and review their own history. Russia was running on surpluses due to $140 a barrel oil when they invaded Georgia. Right now their devasted economy compels restraint in pursuing reincorporation of their neighbors. Putin and his men may be vicious thugs but what would you call Cheney and Rumsfeld.
merankin
two points to make,the first being supplies to our troops in afg. second will russia help the community with iran and it nuclear program (energy or otherewise)
rwoavon
Finally!!! A serious article about a serious and dangerous topic. After a week of the media providing "opium to the masses" through the blanket Michael Jackson coverage, perhaps we can now create some attention to the issues that really plague our country and culture (i.e., the economy, health care, Islamic fundamentalism, Iran, two wars, and our crumbling infrastructure).
AlwaysOptimistic
Agreed! Even if I don't agree with whole assessment, I am so happy to get some "real" discussion on this site, I am almost giddy!
hardrain
I think Russia is debating whether to go East or West. The West (Us) has broken some pretty big promises to Russia and so there is a trust issue. The East (China) has a lot of natural resources (including a very thirsty market for energy); BUT the
tomfarr
No, China does NOT have a lot of natural resources, but Russia does, and that's why in the long run China may be a threat to Russia.
oliverckerr
The article is excellent! So is Boyaca's comment above.
We have a military aristocracy in this country that also has a domestic (counter) intelligence operation that rivals J. Edgarina's "Cointelpro," a program supposedly taken down that has never stopped in its operation.
Visit www.cointelpro.org (and prepare to throw up when you read the Church Committee Books that are available there).
There are more than 70 thousand people in this country getting a stipend and writing "profiles," and bearing 'false witness" about people they "work with" in the marketplace. Every university department has a station officer, reporting on the students and their fellow teachers, grad students, etc.
Every government agency bureau has a station officer.
Nearly every suburban high school has one of the teachers who is "connected" and profiles students who "question authority" and think out side the box.
Whoever controls the media wins the war. Our media is populated with domestic counter intelligence people. Hoover wanted to run a counter intelligence operation similar to the east German Stazi.
The pervert of dirt died in the early 70's but the henchmen he promoted were in his image, and the people they promoted continue Edgarina's fascist policies. J. Edgar Hoover was a stone fascist! He also placed some key bureaucrats in the FCC!
We have hundreds of television stations but only the most expensive networks where a candidate is guaranteed the right to purchase time on behalf of his or her candidacy. Political speech in USA is bottlenecked and controlled. None of this is an accident of bureaucracy.
All of these issues are interrelated. Every so many years we get into another war, one after the other. Us, not the Rooskies.
michaelslevinson.com
democracyforall
Appreciate this article. A lot of military posturing has rattled Russia's ego. I hope the Clintonites can let go of the past. It would be helpful to have more positive communication with Russia, possibly eliminate their anti-American media. Putin likes to flex his muscles and Russia wants to appear strong. We'll have to work around that.
tomfarr
"...eliminate their anti-American media." ??? A rather ambitious idea. How in the world do you do that?
democracyforall
communication
rapierwits
At least work around it, yeah. I mean, a lot of TV & radio networks didn't translate Obama's speech to the NES into Russian.
Tought to do when the State DIRECTLY controls the media and has various methods for dealing with dissent among members of the media
xlntcat
The internet seems to have played a role in skirting the government filter in Iran, but many of the Russian people have been as indoctrinated to propoganda as we have.
tomfarr
We have communicated our interests quite well. Problem is the Russians don't like them.
xlntcat
They may not like some of them but basically they do not trust us. Trust has to be earned over time.
rapierwits
I find it strains the credibility of the article when one looks into the author as a member of the Brookings institution whose only direct experience in government was three years in Reagan's State dept. (85-87).
This helps explain why Bush 41 & 43 get off scot-free from blame, which is shifted entirely onto Clinton and Obama's performance in overwhelmingly panned.
I think he's got some good points about the peril of the situation and we have a lot of work to do. He makes an excellent point about the instability of the current concessions. I would be shocked if our President did not make non-public concessions.
I sure as hell think he's gonna do better than the last guy!
tomfarr
The Brookings Institution is basically a liberal Democratic institution.
They have no bias in favor of Reagan or Bush.
rapierwits
Generally speaking, yes, but not when it comes to foreign policy.
I stand by my assertion that he let off 43 way too lightly.
rapierwits
further, this author has a CLEAR bias in favor of Reagan.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.