Monday, April 06, 2009
My Pessimistic Take on the Reset Question
I cited Fedor Lukyanov's recent op-ed in Gazeta in the NA piece, but elsewhere he also had a good point--which is that right now we have a zero-sum set-up in the Eurasian space.
Any compromise on the former Soviet space is virtually out of the question. Washington will never recognize Moscow's right to a sphere of influence, since this goes against the spirit of American politics. The Kremlin, for its part, will never give up on its claims.So unless one side or the other compromises, there isn't going to be room for common ground--and in turn, that prejudices other initiatives that have been proposed.
From Russia's perspective, if it doesn't possess a special status on the territory of the former Soviet Union, it will be unable to protect its vital interests in the spheres of security and economy.
We wanted B-2s more.
Now, Russia does not have a government that preemptively concedes on issues of US-Russian relations, and no longer thinks that "Okay Boris, here's what you've got to do next. here's some more sh*t for your face." is an adequate basis for US-Russian relations, even though the US government do.
So, no. The long-term effect of the reset will be trivial.
This is the root of problem.
I don't want to sound like I am personally atacking him but one should take into account that such people exist. It's funny to see that sometimes Americans take them fully seriously, forgetting that these guys are actually American-made fakes.
Unfortunately, quite a number of people in the US consider this strategically undesirable. Plus, Russia as an adversary keeps them in business...
Regarding one of them, the review of foreign policy commentary appears to be limited, in terms of what gets propped, over other material - the latter which at times offers some salient analysis.
In this sense, I find this blog interesting and to a certain degree limited, vis-a-vis which sources get propped.