|
Regardless of which administration is in the White
House, U.S.-Russia relations will remain fundamentally conflictive.
Instead of assuming that current disputes are the result of specific
policy decisions that can be rectified, U.S. officials need to
dissect the root causes of the persistent divergence between the two
states.
America and Russia are not part of one
“civilization” with common cultural values and congruent national
interests. They are incompatible global powers whose relations will
remain adversarial as long as Russia remains an autocratic
neo-imperial power seeking to dominate its neighbors and undermine
America’s alliances. Three core principles lie at the root of the
U.S.-Russia rivalry: contrasting identities, incompatible systems,
and antithetical interests.
American identity is based on inclusive non-ethnic
citizenship, in which civic status transcends all others, whether
ethnic, national, regional, religious, linguistic, or class. It is
successful in integrating all nationalities because it is not
constructed around a single dominant ethnic category.
In marked contrast, Russia’s identity is grounded
in the predominance of the Russian ethnos, founded upon Tsarist and
Soviet imperial conquests and maintained through colonization,
russification, and the subjugation of neighbors. This process breeds
resentment among diverse ethnicities, particularly during times of
economic distress and political repression. The revival of distinct
non-Russian identities ultimately undermines the stability of the
neo-imperial state.
While the Communists failed to create a durable
non-ethnic Soviet identity, Putin’s regime is unable to establish a
civic identity because this is widely viewed as camouflage for
assimilation into the dominant Russian ethnos. The lesson for
Washington is that a state that coercively constructs an
ethno-national identity is not only autocratic but also inherently
unstable and a danger to its neighbors, including U.S. allies and
partners.
In the political domain, American and Russian
systems and the ideologies and policies that sustain them are
incompatible. The United States is a genuine federation with
significant autonomy and self-determination among all fifty states.
In addition, central government power is separated between
executive, legislative, and judicial branches, in which each state
and its electorate have a voice.
Russia is federal in name only. In practice, it is
a centralized state in which local governors of the 85 federal units
are appointed and supervised by the Kremlin, including the two
occupied Ukrainian territories of Crimea and Sevastopol. In this
increasingly obsolete empire dozens of nationalities and regions
resent being tethered to Moscow and their proportion of the
population is growing. Given America’s support for the independence
of all states that emerged from the Soviet Union, escalating
regional turmoil inside Russia and the potential fracture of the
state will present serious new challenges for Washington.
The key reason that Russia remains an adversary
for the United States is its antithetical interests on global and
regional levels. While both states have their “spheres of influence”
the distinctions between them are stark. American administrations
respect the right of each country to choose its alliances, while
Kremlin officials seek to impose security arrangements on their
neighbors. Countries enter NATO voluntarily because membership
reinforces their national security. States are induced into the
Russian orbit as a result of Moscow’s threats, pressures, and
corruption.
While the United States promotes cordial relations
between its own allies and Russia, Moscow foments division and
conflict. Washington supports bilateral ties between the Central
European countries and Russia because this can generate regional
stability and lessen the need for delivering U.S. security
guarantees. The Kremlin does not support closer relations between
Ukraine or other post-Soviet republics and the United States, NATO,
or the EU calculating that this deprives Moscow of its political
leverage and could be the harbinger of economic and security
alliances with the West.
Russia promotes regional conflicts for the United
States or seeks to capitalize on disputes between Washington and
third parties because this can weaken American influence in various
contested regions. For instance, the Kremlin works against
U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, as this would marginalize Russia’s
position in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. It does not seek a
permanent resolution of the North Korean dispute, as this would
further sideline Russia’s role. It prefers to see the United States
bogged down indefinitely in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
elsewhere, as this serves to distract Washington’s attention from
Russia’s aggressive moves along its borders.
U.S. policy should not be based on a form of
“realism” that resembles superpower neutrality, in which American
and allied security is sacrificed to appease Moscow in the forlorn
hope that Russia can become a genuine partner. It needs to be firmly
rooted in reality, in which Russia’s actions that impact negatively
on America’s foreign and domestic interests are neutralized. If a
U.S. ally is threatened, subverted, or attacked by Moscow, then it
benefits the United States to strengthen its defense commitments and
bolster transatlantic security. And if America’s democracy is
violated by Moscow, then it is the obligation of the United States
administration to implement policies that would preclude any future
offensives.
|
