fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

U.S.-Russian Relations

As arguments for ratifying START go, Robert Kagan’s column this morning was a fairly strange one. It is an argument focused entirely on political positioning and blame-shifting. It doesn’t matter to Kagan that there is currently no mechanism for inspecting the Russian arsenal, which has an adverse effect on U.S. security, and it doesn’t bother […]

As arguments for ratifying START go, Robert Kagan’s column this morning was a fairly strange one. It is an argument focused entirely on political positioning and blame-shifting. It doesn’t matter to Kagan that there is currently no mechanism for inspecting the Russian arsenal, which has an adverse effect on U.S. security, and it doesn’t bother him that there won’t be one until the treaty is ratified by both sides. The pledge to reduce both arsenals is valuable, but verification is the more important element. Kagan’s main concerns about the failure to ratify the treaty don’t actually have anything to do with the relevant security issues involved:

But blocking the treaty will produce three unfortunate results: It will strengthen Vladimir Putin, let the Obama administration off the hook when Russia misbehaves and set up Republicans as the fall guy if and when U.S.-Russian relations go south.

The failure to ratify may or may not empower Putin, but even if it were true it would hardly be a reason to ratify a treaty. Imagine a Senate Republican explaining his yes vote in these terms. “The treaty was flawed, but I didn’t want Putin to get the upper hand against Medvedev.” This takes reflexive anti-Putin posturing to a new paranoid low. If Russia “misbehaves” (whatever that means to Kagan), it is hard to see how the Obama administration is “on the hook” for that. Obama doesn’t become responsible for Kremlin decisions simply because he opted for a less confrontational, more accommodating relationship with Moscow. Ratifying the treaty won’t put Obama “on the hook.” That won’t stop demagogues for blaming him for anything bad that happens inside Russia, but it won’t actually make him responsible.

The real issue for Kagan is the last point: avoiding blame for the GOP. Kagan takes it for granted that U.S.-Russian relations are going to deteriorate, and certainly if we followed his policy advice in most cases they would, so he wants to make sure that Obama takes the heat and GOP responsibility is minimized. Kagan has managed to take the idea of Republican support for START, which would be desirable, and made it seem like an even more opportunistic, shallow, mindless exercise in political maneuvering than Republican opposition has been.

If U.S.-Russian relations sour, it will be important to understand why it happened. If there is no treaty ratification, Medvedev will have exactly nothing to show for his engagement with Obama. No matter what happens in internal Russian politics, the idea of rapprochement with the U.S. will be discredited. Indeed, Russians can reasonably wonder what they have received as part of the “reset.” Missile defense has been relocated but remains an irritant, Patriot batteries are stationed opposite Kaliningrad, Russia has yielded on Iran sanctions and S-300 missiles and aided supplies for the war in Afghanistan in return for nothing, the Secretary of State routinely complains about the “occupation” of South Ossetia, and Washington has shown no interest in using its influence with Georgia to facilitate Russian entry into the WTO.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here