Bush era Policy Towards Russia: A Serious Question

[Raj Ahten]

During the Bush year, just what exactly was the "Neocons" (I use that term loosely here to define the Bush White Houses foreign policy staff) end goal with Russia? At every turn they seemed intent on pissing Russia off. The form the missile Defense plans took, the backing of Georgia's and the Ukraine's bid to join NATO etc. I seriously doubt that this has anything to do with protecting new democracies or anything like that, as the US has shown in the past that we are quite willing to deal with anyone if we get what we want regardless of how despicable their regimes might be. So why do many seem intent on thwarting Russia whenever possible?

[Duckie]

As far as I can tell, they haven't noticed (or refuse to notice) the Cold War is no longer happening, and so are pushing with all their might to fight Russian influence where it exists. Either that or it's some kind of "We won, therefore now all of your sphere belongs to our sphere" pissing match where they try to tell the Ukraine what to do instead of Russia doing that.

[Kane Starkiller]

What exactly was the difference between Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 administrations towards Russia? Reagan ramped up the Cold War which broke the Soviet economy, Bush1 oversaw the dismantling of Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union itself, Clinton oversaw the expansion of NATO to Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary as well as bombing of Russia's historic ally-Serbia and Bush2 continued the expansion eastwards.
The change was that, under Bush2, Russia pushed back more aggressively than under Clinton and now Obama is faced with trouble with Iran where Russia can cause major headache so he decided to back down.
This doesn't mean the long term policy of US towards Russia will change or that Obama will pursue a radically different policy than that of his predecessors.

The Cold War is "over" in the sense that Russia is in no position to challenge US globally like it could in the 70's for example not in the sense that both sides have seen the light and are now friends.

[Vympel]

Bush1 oversaw the dismantling of Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union itself

Bush-41 didn't really 'oversee' it, he was just there while it happened. The dismantling of the Warsaw Pact and - especially- then the Soviet Union was Gorbachev's doing, which Yeltsin willingly took to completion.

But yeah, it's true that since the end of the Cold War, US policy towards the Russia has been one of antagonism and humiliation, for no good reason that can be discerned. I'd like to think it all came to a head in the diplomatic fiasco for the US that was the August War, and maybe the paradigm has now changed, but who knows.

[Kane Starkiller]

I wouldn't say Gorbachev had much choice in dismantling Warsaw Pact. Soviet Union was bankrupt, keeping huge military forces in Eastern Europe wasn't really an option.

As for whether US post '91 policy towards Russia makes sense, it makes sense as much as it did during the Cold War. Russia, as a successor state to Soviet Union, although weakened with less than 50% of population and 75% of territory basically remained a continuation of the Soviet Union with same goals. It was not an adversary that was actually conquered and rebuilt, it has the same geopolitical goals as the Soviet Union did although now with a much more modest starting point.
US policy is designed to make sure Russia never gets into the position to revive it's more ambitious goals it had as Soviet Union.

[Thanas]

It was not an adversary that was actually conquered and rebuilt, it has the same geopolitical goals as the Soviet Union did although now with a much more modest starting point.

In your opinion, what were the geopolitical goals of the Soviet Union and what are the geopoliical goals of Russia?

Just checking to make sure you know something about the subject.

[Kane Starkiller]

Pushing westwards as much as possible to secure the North European Plain from which many of the historical attacks came from, maintaining control over Caucasus mountains as a natural southern boundary, reaching the deserts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as another natural boundary and ultimately searching for a warm water port.
Ultimately (at least from US point of view) dominate over Western Europe thus creating politicial-economic space large enough to overwhelm the US.

Edit: Russian goals, as I said, are the same but from a more modest starting point: first they need to get back Ukraine.

[Thanas]

Pushing westwards as much as possible to secure the North European Plain from which many of the historical attacks came from, maintaining control over Caucasus mountains as a natural southern boundary, reaching the deserts of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as another natural boundary and ultimately searching for a warm water port.
Ultimately (at least from US point of view) dominate over Western Europe thus creating politicial-economic space large enough to overwhelm the US.

You really think that Russia of the 1990s had those goals?

[Kane Starkiller]

You really think that Russia of the 1990s had those goals?

Yes. It just didn't have the ability. Russian Federation itself was under threat of being unraveled just like Soviet Union. They didn't have the luxury of combating Polish entry in the NATO for example.

[Thanas]

So in other words, the West had to do every thing possible to keep sure that Russia remained a broken state?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So in other words, the West had to do every thing possible to keep sure that Russia remained a broken state?

This is Kane Starkiller we are talking about.

And just wait for Axist Kast to turn up and then we have one hell of an interesting discussion.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit: I am very sorry about my poor English in that sentence. It should read as:

So in other words, the West had to do everything possible to make sure that Russia remained a broken state?

[Shroom Man 777]

It shows us what American Foreign Policy basically amounts to, and why a whole lot of non-Americans should really not give a fuck about American Foreign Policy and that fucking over American Foreign Policy is sometimes beneficial for a lot of people? And that the fucking over of American Foreign Policy basically doesn't really affect Americans negatively - unless being unable to fuck other foreign people over to needlessly profit already disgustingly wealthy and powerful Freedomerica fuckers is counted as a bad thing?

[Kane Starkiller]

This is Kane Starkiller we are talking about.

Was it something I said?
Seriously I don't make US policy I just tried to answer the OP and explain what I think, and have read, US policy towards Russia is and why it is that way. If you don't like it talk to the White House not me.

So in other words, the West had to do everything possible to make sure that Russia remained a broken state?

I wouldn't conflate US and "West". During the Cold War when Soviet Union was threatening to dominate Western Europe it's interests and those of the US were pretty much aligned however these are all sovereign states and their interests will not always align especially now that Western Europe is no longer under immediate Russian threat. Russia today, with it's $2 trillion economy, is really a Great Power more similar to France and Germany than to US. The combined GDP of France, Germany and Russia (Great Powers of European continent) is roughly half of US GDP. Therefore following the Cold War France and Germany started to look at US, and it's global domination, as the primary threat not the greatly weakened Russia. This is why France and Germany recently sided with Russia on several issues over the US. This is not to say France and Germany want old Russian power back, far from it, but they are not as eager to further help the US expand it's influence at the expense of Russia.
US, on the other hand, is very interested in eliminating any possibility of Russia returning as a challenger. I certainly wouldn't say it "had to do" but it wanted to do it.
Also I wouldn't call Russia without it's sphere of influence a "broken state". South Korea doesn't have a sphere of influence and they are doing just fine.
As for whether US would like to see Russia broken down into several smaller states, of course. This is why China is likely supporting Maoists in India, why India is harboring Dalai Lama, why France and UK fought against reunification of Germany. Countries like to see their rivals broken down in smaller pieces. Divide et Impera.

[Thanas]

Ah, so we enter the realm of paranoia where the mere possibility of a nation regaining power is enough to allow it to slide into a third-world country and treat it like dirt. Nevermind that when that power will regain its influence, it will be very angry with those which treated it like dirt. The mere, completely implausible possibility of Russia gaining dominance over Europe (through what, pray tell?) is enough to mess it up, no matter how much suffering it causes.

I am glad we cleared that up.

[Serafina]

Russia today, with it's $2 trillion economy, is really a Great Power more similar to France and Germany than to US. The combined GDP of France, Germany and Russia (Great Powers of European continent) is roughly half of US GDP. Therefore following the Cold War France and Germany started to look at US, and it's global domination, as the primary threat not the greatly weakened Russia. This is why France and Germany recently sided with Russia on several issues over the US. This is not to say France and Germany want old Russian power back, far from it, but they are not as eager to further help the US expand it's influence at the expense of Russia.

So, we (Germany, France and the rest of the EU) are not willing to help the US to smack down Russia for no reason because
- we are conspiring against the US because we see it as a threat??

Oh, and the GDP of the EU is actually higher (~15 trillion $) than that of the USA (~14 trillion $).

[Kane Starkiller]

Well it all depends on how realistic the return to power is. If Russia and China began a policy of containment towards Mongolia in fears that the 2 million nation will try and restore it's empire then I would certainly call that paranoid.
Russia is already trying to restore it's influence over Ukraine and Central Asian countries. Obviously this is a long way from actually threatening to dominate the Western Europe and, seeing as how Russian population is expected to drop from 142 million to 110 million by 2050, perhaps an impossible goal however US decided to try and nip this in the bud anyway.

So, we (Germany, France and the rest of the EU) are not willing to help the US to smack down Russia for no reason because
- we are conspiring against the US because we see it as a threat??

See this is the point: smacking down Russia has no reason from your perspective. Beating back Russia eastwards just to replace it with even more US influence certainly seems senseless to Germans and French. From US perspective it makes perfect sense. I certainly don't think that Germany and France have an obligation to help the US. They have their own interests and should follow them.

Oh, and the GDP of the EU is actually higher (~15 trillion $) than that of the USA (~14 trillion $).

Yes but EU is not a united country. For example you can expect that UK will side with US whenever there is a serious disagreement. UK, as a power surrounded by sea, has identical goals towards European mainland as US: prevent emergence of a hegemon. This is a major reason why UK and US get along so well.

[Serafina]

I call bullshit.

See this is the point: smacking down Russia has no reason from your perspective. Beating back Russia eastwards just to replace it with even more US influence certainly seems senseless to Germans and French. From US perspective it makes perfect sense. I certainly don't think that Germany and France have an obligation to help the US. They have their own interests and should follow them.

You could argue that it would, IF there was any reasonable danger that Russia excerts that kind of influence.

There isn't.

The only reasonable pressure Russia can excert is economically. Specifically: Oil

Yes but EU is not a united country. For example you can expect that UK will side with US whenever there is a serious disagreement. UK, as a power surrounded by sea, has identical goals towards European mainland as US: prevent emergence of a hegemon. This is a major reason why UK and US get along so well.

While the economic pressure gives Russia certain political influence, there is no way that they can install a friggin Hegemony.

Do you seriously think that Russia has such overwhelming economical influence that it can install superiority over the EU (which has a higher GDP than the US, and eight times that of Russia).

Of course, you can maintain your cold war thinking and scream "Russia will invade Europe", despite the fact that this would be totally suicidial politically, economically and military.

But unless you can conjure some evidence or argument for that your "argument" is just plain stupid.

[Kane Starkiller]

You could argue that it would, IF there was any reasonable danger that Russia excerts that kind of influence.

There isn't.

The only reasonable pressure Russia can excert is economically. Specifically: Oil

Or militarily. Specifically Iskander missiles as a recent example.
However as I already said, US is not willing to wait for Russia to be able to exert more influence. It decided to stop Russia at step one.

While the economic pressure gives Russia certain political influence, there is no way that they can install a friggin Hegemony.

Do you seriously think that Russia has such overwhelming economical influence that it can install superiority over the EU (which has a higher GDP than the US, and eight times that of Russia).

Of course, you can maintain your cold war thinking and scream "Russia will invade Europe", despite the fact that this would be totally suicidial politically, economically and military.

But unless you can conjure some evidence or argument for that your "argument" is just plain stupid.

I am not a member of US administration nor am I making it's policy. I merely tried to answer why US does what it does. If anyone has a better explanation that isn't "lol Bush is an idiot" I'd be glad to hear it.
Again I repeat: obviously Russia today is in no position to overwhelm Europe and US wants to keep it that way.

[Duckie]

Again you repeat "Without being kept that way, Russia will overwhelm Europe", which is why everyone is calling you an idiot.

[Kane Starkiller]

Again you repeat "Without being kept that way, Russia will overwhelm Europe", which is why everyone is calling you an idiot.

No I didn't. In fact had you bothered to read my previous posts you would notice I already stated that "Obviously this is a long way from actually threatening to dominate the Western Europe and, seeing as how Russian population is expected to drop from 142 million to 110 million by 2050, perhaps an impossible goal however US decided to try and nip this in the bud anyway".

Never have I claimed that Russia will inevitably overwhelm Europe nor was I defending US policy. I was saying that US actions are best explained by their desire to make sure it won't happen. It doesn't mean that either me or US believe that Russia will inevitably overwhelm Europe. They want to make sure.

[Serafina]

Or militarily. Specifically Iskander missiles as a recent example.
However as I already said, US is not willing to wait for Russia to be able to exert more influence. It decided to stop Russia at step one.

Yeah, right..."oh noes, they have nuks..".
Because risking WW3 for....well, what?

Sure, they have nukes. But Russia is not some "rogue state" i an "axis of evil" that could risk nuclear retaliation because it believes skydaddy will protect them.
Unless you can show some actual political reasons why or how Russia could use its military to threaten europe, you are just an idiot.

I am not a member of US administration nor am I making it's policy. I merely tried to answer why US does what it does. If anyone has a better explanation that isn't "lol Bush is an idiot" I'd be glad to hear it.
Again I repeat: obviously Russia today is in no position to overwhelm Europe and US wants to keep it that way.

So you conceed that Russia is no threat?

But you argue that it could become a threat (without providing a mechanism)?
By your logic, the USA should supress germany - we were a threat once, too, and we could "rise again"....

This is reinforced by

No I didn't. In fact had you bothered to read my previous posts you would notice I already stated that "Obviously this is a long way from actually threatening to dominate the Western Europe and, seeing as how Russian population is expected to drop from 142 million to 110 million by 2050, perhaps an impossible goal however US decided to try and nip this in the bud anyway".

Never have I claimed that Russia will inevitably overwhelm Europe nor was I defending US policy. I was saying that US actions are best explained by their desire to make sure it won't happen. It doesn't mean that either me or US believe that Russia will inevitably overwhelm Europe. They want to make sure.

"Hey, lets kick them, even if they are no threat at all. They were our enemies, sure a bit of punishing will keep them from being a threat."

You know who did that? France (and the rest of the western allies) after WW1...worked out quite well.

[Vympel]

What was that Machiavelli quote?

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."

Needless to say, the 'injuries' done to Russia by the US from 1991 to 2008 were never severe - they were simply humiliations that reached their zenith in 1999. And when the chance for vengeance did come - NATO made to look foolish by having the emptiness of its promises of membership for Georgia laid bare in a short conflict, and the US having its particularly 'trusted ally' in the Caucasus get walloped with no consequence - there was no mistaking the reason for it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Was it something I said?
Seriously I don't make US policy I just tried to answer the OP and explain what I think, and have read, US policy towards Russia is and why it is that way. If you don't like it talk to the White House not me.

Pfft. But it is well known that you are a supporter of that said policy. It has been consistent for many threads when this topic is raised.

[MKSheppard]

During the Bush year, just what exactly was the "Neocons" (I use that term loosely here to define the Bush White Houses foreign policy staff) end goal with Russia? At every turn they seemed intent on pissing Russia off. The form the missile Defense plans took

And placing a NATO Corps in Poland would have been any better? NATO did promise the poles a Corps of troops for defense. That never came to fruition; the GBI site for defense of Eastern US + Europe was basically a consolation prize to show that US+NATO+Polish security are indivisible.