Mark Adomanis does a fine job dismantling the the tired arguments in this Daniel Vajdic article. His conclusion is exactly right:

The Bush administration was second to none in its support for “burgeoning democratic movements” but Russia became increasingly authoritarian nonetheless. Washington can affect Russian internal politics only on the margins, and if it goes all in on aggressive anti-Russian policies (missile defense, regime change in Syria, war with Iran, “democracy promotion”) then the tentative political opening of the past several months will be weakened. The reset is not a magical success story, but it does explain the marginal improvements in Russian-American relations over the past two years. If the reset is replaced, as Vajdic suggests, by a more hectoring and confrontational policy, then relations will swiftly worsen [bold mine-DL]. This is really not particular complicated, but it should be repeated: if you want to have good relations with a country make an effort to have good relations with a country. Threats, attempted blackmail, and lectures about the inherent rightness of the American position are usually not received very well.

This sums things up very well. It’s been my contention for some time that the main objection that most “reset” critics have to the policy is not that it has failed, but rather that it has achieved many of the things it was supposed to achieve, and American Russophobes opposed some or all of these things. Critics of the “reset” are against the policy because they are against good relations with Russia under its current leadership, and they may be against good relations with Russia under any circumstances. It’s no secret that the alternative to the “reset” is a resumption of what Adomanis describes as “a hectoring and confrontational policy.” Mitt Romney has promised as much, and one of his new surrogates, John Bolton, was eager to affirm this in an op-ed this morning.