May 07, 2006A Sunday QueryA question to B.D. readers, re: Cheney's recent critical comments of Russia. Apart from the substance of his remarks, was having Cheney deliver them from Vilnius wise, or needlessly provocative? I lean towards the latter, but recognize that the comments carry more weight delivered from Moscow's doorstep as compared to, say, AEI or Geneva or some other removed venue. What do commenters think? And does this mean, perhaps, that we've given up on the Russians really playing a constructive role at the UNSC on the Iran front, re: possible going forward sanctions? Or are Pootie and Bush in cahoots that Cheney's remarks were mostly for public consumption, and that behind the scenes all is still vaguely spirit of Ljubljana-ish? P.S. This article seems to ascribe a good deal of the indigant Russian reaction to Cheney's venue selection. I'm just not sure what we've accomplished with these Cheney comments, save preserving fake Beltway bragging rights that no one could accuse this 'tough' team of having lost Russia. A debatable proposition, to say the least. MORE: From a Kelly O'Donnell interview of the Veep: Q How did you weigh the criticism of Russia as possibly alienating them at a time when the U.S. needs Russia in the Security Council to try to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? UPDATE: Russian Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko, to the FT: "The truth of the matter is that Russia has moved away from Soviet-era arrangements of subsidizing energy prices to our neighbors and turned to market-based pricing mechanisms...We are aware that impressions fade slowly, but it is time for the west to recognize and acknowledge the maturing role and state of progress that Russia has achieved." It will be interesting to see what direction the rhetoric next takes when Putin gives his state of the nation on Weds.... Posted by Gregory at May 7, 2006 04:46 PM | TrackBack (1)Comments
I don't think we ought to be looking for complicated explanations of things like this. Politicians doing badly, or afraid they might be doing badly someday, tell audiences what they want to hear. To anyone in a place like Vilnius, every one of Cheney's sentences would be a cheer line. The ideas he expressed had the added virtue of being mostly true. Having said that, I doubt whether Cheney's speech was coordinated with the rest of Bush's administration; in my world, "coordinated with the rest of the administration" means a Vice President says only what he has cleared with the Secretary of State (for content and tone) and the Security Adviser (for consistency with the President's past statements). We already know the Bush administration does not work that way. It is very likely that Russian government officials complaining privately to their American interlocutors about Cheney's remarks will get in response heavily qualified, partial disclaimers from people who mostly agree with what the Vice President said but are not sure they would have said it in the same way and who were as surprised when he did say it as the Russians were. Making the already confusing American system of government even more confusing for foreign governments is not a good thing. The question of coordination raises the further question of what consequences we should expect to flow from Cheney's speech. If I am right, this is a question that will be answered later, as Cheney (with the backing of the Pentagon and possibly other administration officials) try to promote ideas consistent with what he said in Vilnius, and Sec. Rice and other officials who have to deal with the Russians strive to avoid confrontation with them. This also is not a good thing, and is a very old story with this administration. The problem, as I have said here before, is that in this administration the President is extraordinarily weak. In past administrations, even those with Presidents thought to be struggling politically (Nixon), reluctant to choose between people advocating mutually inconsistent policies (Reagan) or personally indecisive (Clinton), binding the President's hands with statements before national or important foreign audiences was something subordinate officials attempted with caution, and not often successfully. It would have been unthinkable for a Vice President to try this. But the head of this administration is a man without many strong or detailed ideas of his own about foreign and national security policy; he does not respond to the appearance of disorder in his administration unless he is being criticized personally for it, and has demonstrated that he will let his Vice President in particular get away with just about anything. The details of policy will get sorted out later, after the usual intra-administration battle. The last thing I want to say about Cheney's speech concerns the way it was delivered. I don't in principle object to the venue or to the major points Cheney made. But the diversion of Russian domestic and foreign policies away from directions we think wise is not a momentary phenomenon; there is no reason to think that the Russian government is doing the things it is doing for trivial reasons or that it will undertake a fundamental reevaluation of its policies in response to a little American pressure. There are issues raised by Russian conduct with respect to Georgia and Ukraine that are of immediate, pressing concern to the United States -- those ought to be have addressed directly and specifically. Other issues of secondary importance to us, for example Russia's domestic policies, should be discussed indirectly and in their historical context, and by that I do not mean references to all the progress made when Boris Yeltsin was President. Yes, we would certainly like it if Russia became a genuine liberal democracy, respecting all its neighbors and generally not being a nuisance. But in the real world, a) this is not going to happen, b) in our dealings with Russia some issues are more important, or at least more urgent, than others and c) a competent foreign policy would leave the Russians in no doubt as to which issues those are. Posted by: Zathras at May 7, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink to this commentWhat is more striking than the substance of VP's speech (which is hard to argue with) or the venue (obviously designed to be provoke), is that the U.S. Administration and commentators, generally, are surprised that Russia is playing "blackmail" with its energy supplies. Is this not the real world? Does Russia not have, what is believes (rightly or wrongly) to be its national interests to protect? It is asserting these interests with a very useful tool. In the old days (Budapest 1956 or Prague 1968, for example) tanks were the preferred method for asserting its national interest, now at least there is far less loss of life and damage to the buildings. Until the U.S. and the EU start developing alternative sources of energy, is it not in the Russians' interest to exploit their position. Now maybe they will "overplay" their hand (I think this entirely possible(as the U.S. seems to have done in protecting its national interest in Iraq)), but it is hard to imagine why Russia should behave as if their oil and gas are common resources for the whole world. It sucks, but they have the stuff in spades and we don't. BTW, the U.S. will not permit certain "military sensitive" technology to be sold to Russia (correctly) and the EU would never admit Russia to its club (also correctly), but then we should not expect them to sell their "crown jewels" without first extracting a very high price. Posted by: nick at May 8, 2006 05:46 PM | Permalink to this commentHey, at least Cheney didn't deliver them in Russia itself! That would have been another "kitchen debate" moment! Shades of the Cold War in the Russians' response. They would not be so obnoxious if oil was still $20/bbl. Looks like we'll have to endure another thirty years until all the Soviet-era bureaucrats have died off before Russians have a real chance for more freedom, just as we had to wait for the entire Politburo of those who had committed crimes under Stalin to die off before Russians could have perestroika. Posted by: Solomon2 at May 9, 2006 02:58 AM | Permalink to this comment |
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006
|
|||