The Russian Security Council has recently released a new paper outlining its strategy out to 2020. Their website is here but only in Russian. So far, I’ve been unable to find an English version of it (Russian version here I think) and would really appreciate if any readers know of how to find one, or speak enough Russian to add to this conversation. Compiled from a wide variety of news reports found through Google, the new strategy notes the following:
– The US will remain Russia’s primary strategy rival through 2020– Russia wants to be seen as an equal to the US and NATO (pass me that crack pipe)
– Russia has overcome the “consequences of the systemic political and socioeconomic crisis of the late 20th century”
– America’s increase in its nuclear arsenal (what???) and ballistic missile defense programs are dangerous and may start an arms race.
– Russia will not engage in such an arms race
– Russia expects energy competition to increase and specifically Middle East, Barents Sea, the Arctic Region, Caspian Sea and Central Asia
– Russia will seek a multipolar world.
– To this end, it will increase its G8 participation and improve ties with Brazil, India, China and the CIS.
– Russia will seek a “highly professional community of Russian secret services”
Based on that, it would seem Russia sees the following as major threats:
– US missile defense– NATO expansion and any kind of global role for NATO
– Moves to diversify energy resources by the US and EU
– US global hegemony
The great challenge here is developing a new relationship with Russia and not resorting to our comfortable Cold War ways. This in no way suggests Russia will become a friend as that is unlikely. However, it is both wrong and dangerous to assume that our interests will always clash. Recent examples of ad hoc cooperation like the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism provide proof cooperation is possible, but may in fact be most successful on such a basis. Given that all four items listed as major threats to Russia are important US policy goals, it indeed seems difficult to imagine large scale cooperation. Lastly, given the poor state of Russia and its lack of attractive power, what means are a Moscow’s disposal to achieve its goals and defend against its threats? Energy blackmail? Nuclear forces? A new series of ‘client states’ (Abkhazia, S. Ossetia, Transdniester etc.)?
So where does this leave the US-Russia relationship?
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
ElamBend
May 26, 2009
12:38 am
As for US engagement with Russia, there should be engagement without promises. Hollow provocations (such as Peter of the Great's trip to Venezuela) should be brushed out, but without condescension. The energy supply to the European heartland should be preserved while alternatives are furiously sought out.
Finally, the US must engage with those other powers, particularly Brazil, India and China that would show the US to be the more reliable (and profitable) rival, while being careful not to seem to sweat when they make nice with Russia.
mihnea
May 26, 2009
5:48 am
Bob Harrison
May 26, 2009
9:08 pm
Its worth noting that George Friedman of Stratfor thinks that "the new cold war" will have come and gone by 2020 with Russia crumbling apart and leaving an even greater power vacuum than in 1991 with Turkey and Poland emerging as the new hegemons.
Kirk Sowell
May 26, 2009
11:00 pm
IJ
May 28, 2009
5:35 pm
NATO’s developing relationship with Russia is the final major issue that must be addressed in a new Strategic Concept. Clearly, effective cooperation between NATO and Russia is essential for addressing many of the common challenges we face. . . We should consider the security implications of energy interdependence . . the Strategic Concept must provide a new understanding of what we mean by collective defence. Today, a energy cut-off can paralyse a country – without a single shot being fired.