#6005
#7
From: "Lois DuPey" <ldupey@hotmail.com>
Subject: re 5609-Kramer/Russian Realignment
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002
I would like to request the opportunity to respond to the article by Franklin D. Kramer, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in your December 20, 2001 circular (originally published in the Washington Times.)
Mr. Kramer states that "Russia could become fully aligned with the West" and refers to the "current grand Russian realignment". It would be appropriate to enlighten such analysis with a more balanced perspective. It is dangerous to engage in the practice of what is known in the field of Psychology as projectionism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Putin's long term strategy and intentions as a Eurasian power were clearly elaborated in his speeches in the summer of 2000 at the Baikal Economic Forum. These strategic objectives have not changed and should not be expected to change. They are merely being fulfilled at the present time.
Russia's intention to engage the West is no less important that its intention and responsibility as a Eurasian power to engage the East. It is not at all likely that Mr. Putin will turn his back on the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement reached in June of last year. That he seeks to move Russia closer to the West is indicative of his implementation of a previously defined strategy. Simultaneously, he is also fulfilling his goals with respect to the East. He is simply realizing the larger vision of Russia as a bridge between East and West in a predictable way. This does not at all pose a threat to the West.
If we misrepresent to ourselves the goals of Russia's engagement with the West as some kind of realignment at the expense of her engagement with the East, we are setting ourselves up for a misunderstanding. It will be clear in the coming months that Russia is also acting strongly to fulfill its obligation as a stabilizing power in the East pursuant to the conventions that it has agreed to be bound by. Soon this aspect of Russian policy will also become paramount, as would be expected.
Engagement by Russia of the East should not be misunderstood anymore than engagement of the West. Again, the policy was clearly enunciated from the start both to Mr. Putin's domestic constituency and to world leaders who's analytical communities were listening.
The correct understanding, and the one that will benefit U.S.-Russia relations the most is acceptance of the fact that Russia intends to realize its capacity to become a stabilizing force in the East - West equation. Nothing else will better serve its geopolitical and geoeconomic goals.
For the U.S. this is a powerful opportunity that should not be missed. Assuming that Mr. Putin maintains his control on power in Russia, such a bridge as Russia can offer would be a vehicle for more effective negotiations with state players in the East. To miss this historic opportunity in partnership with Russia would be a terrible mistake for U.S. policy.
Consolidating this window of opportunity would best be served by assisting Russia to become an economically functional Eastern power. The risk of destabilization of the current Russian regime due to the malfunctioning economy is at a historical high point. It is critical that Russia weather this period. Perceived threats of NATO expansion or other perceived threats could serve to empower the destabilizing forces hard at work in Russian society today that threaten the current regime. Those are the forces that truly represent a threat to U.S. security. Thus, our most critical short term objective lies in empowering Mr. Putin's policy of peace and rapprochment with both the West and the East, through a stabilizing process of economic development.
Lois DuPey is a private analyst based in Seattle. She specializes in Russian business development. She may be contacted at ldupey@oz.net.
Back to the Top Next Article
- Back to the Top -