Greg Scoblete doesn’t see how antagonizing Russia will serve U.S. interests:

It’s obvious the Romney campaign wants U.S. relations with Russia to get worse. What’s not clear – and where the campaign still needs to show its work – is how this deterioration is going to redound to America’s benefit.

Unfortunately, Romney’s hostility towards Russia doesn’t seem to be the result of careful consideration, so there isn’t any “work” to show. The thinking seems to have been something like this: 1) the “reset” is a signature Obama initiative; 2) Romney is therefore against the “reset” no matter what; 3) if that isn’t enough of a reason, Romney is against the “reset” because it represents appeasement and weakness; 4) Russia only respects strength and resolve, so Romney will undo the “reset” to show that America is “strong.” There is no evidence that Russia would respond well to being hectored over its domestic political and legal systems, and there is even less evidence that the Russian government and Putin in particular would respond well to direct confrontation of the sort Romney’s adviser Richard Williamson endorsed yesterday. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the opposing view that confronting Russia in this manner causes Moscow to dig in, harden its positions, and react angrily and defensively. There doesn’t seem to be any practical goal that rejecting the “reset” is supposed to help achieve. It does seem to be a case of embracing confrontation for its own sake.

We don’t have to go very far back in time to find examples of what happens when the U.S. takes needlessly provocative actions that Russia perceives as hostile. It was just a little over four years ago that we all saw how a Russia policy characterized by provocation and confrontation blew up in the face of Washington with the war in Georgia. It serves no country’s interests to ratchet up the tensions between the U.S. and Russia once again. The Romney campaign wants credit for being “tough” on Russia, but it doesn’t want the blame for the inevitable worsening of relations that this “toughness” will cause.