Retrograde Russia

It's clear now, Russia can't be talked into pluralism under Putin. Where does that leave the West?

from the June 6, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

So how should the West react to this retrograde Russia?

Last week, David Kramer, deputy assistant secretary of State, summed up US-Russia policy as "cooperate wherever we can; push back wherever we have to." That is not essentially different from the past – and can't be.

Russia is just too important – as an energy supplier, a pressure partner against a nuclear Iran, and an ally in the war on terrorism – for the West to be in only push-back mode. That helps explain President Bush's unusual invitation to Putin to visit the Bush Maine compound in July.

But when the West does push back, its protests and actions should relate to specific wrongs, such as the murder of a prominent Russian journalist or the bizarre killing of a former KGB spy in Britain.

The West should also understand that what's going on in Russia is not merely a reaction against the chaos of the Yeltsin years, or against NATO's eastward expansion. It's also driven by Russian politics – upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections, in which the strategy is to demonize internal and external enemies to legitimize the leadership (just as in Soviet days).

Realizing that much of the caustic rhetoric is for internal theater should allow the West to be temperate in response, and it has been. Why add more drama to a scene that would only prolong this act?

1 | Page 2