U.S and Russia: Restoring Relations

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and the Cold War terminated, many people believed in a new start for U.S.-Russian relations. Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton cooperated in removing nuclear arsenals from former Soviet territories and creating laws governing nuclear proliferation. Both countries also agreed on the importance of countering terrorism and occasionally made efforts to assist each other in those operations. Nonetheless, time has shown us that we cannot maintain or solidify a mutually respectful relationship. Perhaps it is because the U.S. and Russia have different definitions of democracy, or perhaps it is because we are naturally competitive with one another. I would like to believe that some day we can mold a stronger connection, but for the time being I would like to suggest that we try to collaborate on mutually important issues.

The greatest divide in our relation roots from our ideologically divergent understandings of democracy. Russia’s democracy rests on the idea of centralized authority or—as Vladimir Surkov, Putin’s deputy chief of staff, put it—“sovereign democracy.” In reality, Russia’s approach to foreign policy and domestic issues relies on the aggressive form of “sovereignty.” On New Year’s morning in 2006, Gazprom, a major oil company in Russia largely owned by the government, cut off its gas supplies to Ukraine as an act of protest against the recent election of an anti-Russian president, Victor Yushchenko. This assertive, dramatic move caught Ukraine and many other European countries by surprise and showed Russia’s eagerness to proclaim dominance and disregard the interests of others. In many cases, Russia assumes sovereignty for the regions and industries of other countries. For example, Russia protested the creation of an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea, through Azerbaijan and Georgia, and finally to the Mediterranean, believing that it should remain the sole supplier of oil to Western Europe. Putin has created an implicit pact with his country: Russian citizens sacrifice some of their personal freedoms for a more prosperous national image.

But this doesn’t mean that the United States hasn’t caused any of its own tension with Russia. During the era of rapid privatization and economic shock following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States should have invested more resources in creating a sustainable Russian economy. Furthermore, the U.S.-Russian relationship during the last decade of the twentieth century was largely based on Bill Clinton’s personal ties with Boris Yeltsin and therefore failed to be productive. In the aftermath of 9/11, Putin volunteered to assist Bush in Afghanistan; though he embraced Russia’s resources in the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, he ignored Russia’s hopes for collaboration afterwards, thus creating tension between the two leaders. Time and time again, Russia has tried to legitimize its presence on the global stage and its presumed status as a “Western” nation. Though Russia has become a member of Group of Eight and a voting constituent in the UN Security Council over the past decades, the United States frequently excludes it from important affairs.

I encourage Russia and the United States to find a balance between their conflicting approaches to one another. Whereas Russia craves aggressive confrontation with the U.S., the United States prefers isolation from Russia’s troubles. Both countries believe that politically-fueled conversation will result in unrest and further the mutual animosity. And that is the problem: If we refuse to engage in dialogue, we will never acknowledge our similarities or break through the barrier that exists between us.