{"id":255,"date":"2007-03-06T06:19:13","date_gmt":"2007-03-06T11:19:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=255"},"modified":"2007-03-06T18:38:10","modified_gmt":"2007-03-06T23:38:10","slug":"who-lost-germany","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/?p=255","title":{"rendered":"Who Lost Germany?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The New York Times<\/em> has published an article–“U.S. Moves to Soothe Growing Russian Resentment<\/a>“–that appears to signal a shift in the Bush administration’s hawkish approach toward Russia<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Not a chance.<\/p>\n

The report by Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper seems to suggest that after Putin’s speech in Munich<\/a>, the Bush administration has been “shocked, shocked,” to find Moscow upset with Washington and they are now contrite<\/em>. Indeed, Bush administration officials have launched a new “initiative” to calm bilateral tensions.<\/p>\n

In the wake of criticism from President Vladimir V. Putin and his inner \tcircle of political advisers and generals, there is a growing \tacknowledgment<\/strong> among officials in Washington that the United States has \tnot responded as rapidly or eloquently<\/strong> as it might have to a \twidespread sense of grievance in Russia…<\/p>\n

Senior administration officials said their initiative called for engaging \tRussian leaders in private discussions to illustrate that the United States \twas putting extra effort<\/strong> into nurturing the relationship and that Russia \tdeserved a more thorough dialogue on American foreign policy and national \tsecurity plans.<\/p>\n

A senior administration official involved in developing the strategy said \tthat under the program, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll have more consultation and we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll do it \tmore extensively and more intensively, so that there is a good understanding \tof each other\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s views<\/strong>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It strains credibility to suggest that anyone in Washington<\/em> thinks the problem here is miscommunication<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But the report goes on to suggest that the substance<\/em> of US policy toward Russia–all the well-communicated disagreements that constitute the crux of Russian animosity–will not change:<\/p>\n

Administration officials have said they will stand their ground in \tdefending the United States against the substance of the Russian critique<\/strong>. \tIn particular, the officials say, Russian threats will not halt Washington\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \tplans to place elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech \tRepublic, nor diminish Washington\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s support of NATO expansion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The notion that Putin’s objections can be met with responses that are simply more rapid<\/em> or eloquent<\/em> is implicitly insulting to the Kremlin. Can the Bush administration actually believe that this kind of talk–the new “strategy”–will actually appease Moscow?<\/p>\n

No.<\/p>\n

Rather, the real target of the “eloquence strategy” is Germany.<\/p>\n

The stunning directness of Moscow\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recent public complaints is viewed as \tundermining United States-Russia relations. Equally worrisome to the \tadministration<\/strong> is that the harsh tone of the Kremlin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s comments has \tgreatly troubled European allies<\/strong> caught in between, especially in former \tSoviet client states in Eastern Europe that later joined NATO.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is the real news story. The headline is that the Bush administration moves to soothe growing European anxiety.<\/p>\n

The charm offensive, insofar as one can see evidence of it, is directed toward Europe, specifically what Rumsfeld called the “old” Europe.<\/p>\n

The “problem” with the “old” Europe was supposed to have been solved<\/a> with the triumph of German Chancellor Angela Merkel over her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder. (I guess that was before the “back rub<\/a>.”)<\/p>\n

Merkel is “going wobbly” on Russia and it is to this development–not Putin’s anger–that has the Bush administration scrambling.<\/p>\n

The Financial Times<\/a><\/em> captures the political dynamic in its reporting:<\/p>\n

Angela Merkel, German chancellor, added her voice to the heated \tinternational debate over the missile defence system by calling for Nato to \tbe given responsibility for defusing concerns over the [US missile defence \tsystem planned for eastern Europe]…<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Nato is the best place for discussion of this issue,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d she told the \tFinancial Times in an interview, arguing that Washington should step up \tconsultation with its western allies and Russia.<\/p>\n

Her statement reflects concerns over increasing east-west tensions since \tVladimir Putin, Russian president, delivered a speech in Munich sharply \tcriticising US unilateralism, and the US formally asked Poland and the Czech \tRepublic to host parts of the anti-missile system…<\/p>\n

Mrs Merkel said that Nato should be the forum for greater consultation by \tWashington of both its western allies and Russia on the issue of missile \tdefence. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It is better to have more discussion on this issue rather than \tless,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d she said…<\/p>\n

German officials said Berlin was concerned that while the defence system was \tnot targeted at Russia, there was a danger its creation could mark a \tdeparture from the international trend since the early 1990s towards \tdisarmament.<\/p>\n

At an EU meeting yesterday, Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s foreign minister, \twas more outspoken, calling the US plans \u00e2\u20ac\u0153incomprehensible\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153We will have no stability in Europe if we push the Russians into a corner,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \the said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nevertheless, the US charm offensive toward Europe has ceded little or no ground on questions of substance.<\/p>\n

In recent remarks to the Atlantic Council<\/a>, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns–a Russia hawk and an architect of NATO expansion during the Clinton administration–was unrepentant. The speech is worth quoting at some length, for it gets to the heart of some<\/em> of the key tensions:<\/p>\n

[One] intra-European issue that is so much a part of our current agenda \tis what to do about Russia, how to relate to modern Russia, how to be a \tpartner with Russia, but also how to protect NATO and the European Union and \tthe states of Central Europe from whatever dangers may lurk in the future.<\/p>\n

You’ve all seen the extraordinary — you’ve heard about or saw the \textraordinary speech that President Putin gave at the Wehrkunde Conference \tin Munich two weeks ago. You’ve seen this unusually unwise and irresponsible \tstatement by the Russian General Staff about targeting the Czech Republic \tand Poland because they have the temerity to negotiate with the United \tStates a missile defense agreement.<\/p>\n

Our response to that has been that we need to seek a balanced relationship \twith Russia. We need to take account of what is working in our relationship \twith Russia but also to be very clear about where we disagree with the \tRussian leadership — whether it’s on the lack of democracy inside Russia \titself, the declining fortunes of the democrats in the Russian political \tspectrum; whether it’s on Russia’s attempts to, we think, be overbearing at \ttimes in their relations with their neighbors; or whether it’s the recent \tRussian reaction to our attempt to establish a modern missile defense system \tin Europe, not aimed at the Russians themselves, of course, but aimed at the \tthreats that emanate from Iran and other countries to the south of Russia…<\/p>\n

[T]he Russians and our government — perhaps other governments in Western \tEurope — are operating at cross-purposes.<\/p>\n

We believe that Georgia should have a right to define its own future. We \tbelieve that Georgia should have the right to seek membership or association \twith international organizations like NATO in the future if that is what \tGeorgia elects to do, and if Georgia, of course, at some point in its future \thistory meets the requirements of NATO membership.<\/p>\n

We believe that Moldova should be allowed to overcome the internal divisions \tthat have held that nation back since the breakup of the Soviet Union in \tDecember 1991.<\/p>\n

And we certainly believe that the three Baltic countries — Estonia and \tLatvia and Lithuania, now members of both the European Union but especially \tof NATO — have a right to live in peace and free of the harassment that is \tsometimes afflicted upon them by the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n

We’re concerned about the lack of democracy inside Russia itself, the \tdeclining fortunes of those who stand up for democracy in Russia.<\/p>\n

So I know that President Putin put a number of criticisms before the world \taudience about United States foreign policy. We have been equally clear<\/strong> \tabout where we disagree with the Russian Federation, and that’s our \tresponsibility to do that — to define a modern relationship in those terms, \tto be frank about what’s working and to thank the Russian Federation when we \tare able to achieve things together whether it’s on counter-terrorism or \tcounter-proliferation, but to be equally frank that when there are \tchallenges in the relationship we face those challenges, and we disagree \twith the Russians publicly when they do things that are profoundly not in \tour<\/p>\n

Russia is going to have to understand that NATO will continue to exist. NATO \twill continue to grow. We will continue to add members to the NATO Alliance. \tAnd the strength of NATO will be based on our common will and our ability to \tproject NATO as a force for peace and for stability as it certainly is in \tits Afghan mission. And Russia has to understand that NATO is not and has \tnot been, for the history, for the many years since 1989, ’90 and ’91, \tdirected at all against Russia, but is the one uniquely unifying force for \tpeace and stability in Europe itself.<\/p>\n

NATO enlargement… has brought so many positive benefits to the Europeans, \tas well as to the North Americans over the last 15 years that we think \tNATO’s vocation has to be strong in the future.<\/p>\n

We have invited Russia into a NATO-Russia partnership five years ago in \tItaly. It has worked well at points, but it’s been sometime disappointing in \ta lack of a strategic engagement. That was apparent in the Russian reaction \tto our plan to establish a very small number of interceptors in Poland and \tat radar sites in the Czech Republic, to have some capacity to deter the \tlooming missile threat from Iran and other states in the Middle East that \tall the European countries and the United States face.<\/p>\n

To think that in this day and age a member of the Russian General Staff \twould threaten two NATO countries because they have the temerity to consider \tnegotiating this agreement with us is really quite astounding. Secretary \tRice said today when she was asked about this in Berlin, “It was profoundly \tunwise for that statement to be made, and we hope that the Russians will \tthink twice about such statements in the future.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Burns has offered up a relatively frank version of US policy toward Russia.<\/p>\n

The “strategy” toward Germany, on the other hand, is to try to offer some political cover for a Chancellor who will find it increasingly difficult to defend US policy in the face of Russian pressure.<\/p>\n

The question is no longer “who lost Russia?” That was settled long ago. The spark behind the New York Times<\/em> article about a Bush administration “initiative” toward Russia is an attempt to forestall a more contemporary question: “Who lost Germany?”<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New York Times has published an article–“U.S. Moves to Soothe Growing Russian Resentment“–that appears to signal a shift in the Bush administration’s hawkish approach toward Russia. Not a chance. The report by Thom Shanker and Helene Cooper seems to suggest that after Putin’s speech in Munich, the Bush administration has been “shocked, shocked,” to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[25,23],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/profcutler.com\/wordpress_blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}