Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

August 3, 2010 |  8 comments |  Print  Your Opinion  

Stephen Szabo

US Can't Look to NATO or the EU to Support its Russia Strategy

Stephen Szabo: Europe is proving a foreign policy disappointment to the Obama Administration as it struggles to propound a clearer strategy toward Russia. Washington now recognises that only Berlin has the key to a new relationship with Moscow.

 

America’s foreign policy leaders, both within the U.S. government and elsewhere, are losing patience with Europe. President Barack Obama, who by all accounts is proving a business like and unsentimental occupant of the Oval Office, is having to contend with a serious economic recession and now feels he has repeatedly turned to Europe yet has received little in the way of a concrete policy response. The White House believes his time was wasted at the last U.S.-EU summit in Prague, and so cancelled the next summit scheduled for Madrid.

The decision to do so was a clear signal that the U.S. was not going to waste any more time with eurocrats and a leaderless Europe. Washington’s interpretation of the EU’s Lisbon treaty appointments has been that the major EU powers want to deal with foreign policy themselves, and do not want to see Brussels take on a significant role. There may be a single phone number in Brussels, but it is answered by a receptionist. Add to this the victory of David Cameron in the UK, the unpredictability of France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy and the lack of foreign policy leadership or vision in Berlin, and the conclusion in Washington is that it has no reliable partner on the European continent.

Not that things are that much better in the United States. President Obama is increasingly pre-occupied by domestic problems and priorities and also lacks the resources to support America’s over-extended global role, let alone take on new commitments. The United States is being forced to down-size and out-source its foreign policy, and to make tough choices on where its key priorities in the world lie.

In many ways, though, America needs a strong European partner more than ever, and one area where this partner is badly needed is in Russia policy. The U.S. relationship with Russia remains important to Obama’s agenda, not so much in a bi-lateral sense but in what it can do to assist the U.S. in dealing with key global issues. Obama would like to de-escalate tensions with Moscow so as to reduce the over-extension of America’s commitments. Being a realist, the President understands that America’s margin for error is thinner than it was during its era of dominance and that big powers matter more than small ones. Russia is important to dealing with many of the key challenges facing his Administration, including the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, combatting terrorism and shaping a more stable international order. Russia is also important in dealing with Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. Moscow and Washington both have important stakes in the control and reduction of nuclear arsenals, while at the same time the U.S. does not accept Russian claims on Ukraine and Georgia or its attempts to use its energy resources to dominate east and central Europe.

 

Continue reading the full article at Europe's World, atlantic-community.org's new partner.

Professor Stephen Szabo is Director of Research at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies and professor of European Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University.

Related Material from the Atlantic Community:

  • 10
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
Tags: | Lisbon Treaty | EU | Germany | NATO | Russia | US |
 
Comments
Paul-Robert  Lookman

August 3, 2010

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Professor Szabo seems to be arguing for a return to the past, when Washington’s European allies “assisted” in furthering its global interests, coerced into compliance, or at best massaged with half or forged information. I feel those days are (nearly) gone. Europe, old or new, will not assist in keeping Russia under control so the U.S. can concentrate on its only real adversary: China. There is no down-sizing of U.S. “defense” spending, amounting to no less than $1.2 trillion, 8% of GNP, of which 60% entered in the budget (officially “only” $685 billion, 4,6% of GNP). This makes military spending of the USA larger than that of the rest of the world together. And secretary Gates has announced that this budget will increase even further: + 3% annually in real terms in the foreseeable future, primarily focused on the area where Washington's “key priorities in the world lie”: China.

It is true that Russia is important for the US in dealing with Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea, but only to push these countries into acceptance of a U.S. blueprint. While I do not support any country to dominate others, I feel it is hypocritical for the U.S. to criticize “Russian claims on Ukraine and Georgia or its attempts to use its energy resources to dominate East and Central Europe”, while at the same time rolling out its tremendous military might in the Middle East and South Asia to do just that.

Even if “singled-out”, Germany surely will not act against its mercantile interests in Russia to further Washington’s global geopolitical interests. The U.S. will have to accept that things are moving towards a multipolar world in which it is an important, albeit not the only superpower that can dictate its will. Nations will no longer accept to be coerced by a “tougher” American policy, or “disengagement or benign neglect”. German (and European) public opinion on the new American president is changing. People start to see that this is not the president of a major power which plays the role of “El mediador deshonesto”, as Argentinian author Naseer Aruri put it so eloquently in his book with the same title (http://www.serviciosesenciales.com.ar/libro.php?id=14).
 
Olaf  Theiler

August 3, 2010

  • 7
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Dear Prof. Szabo,
congratulations to a really good analysis. Nevertheless, I would like to make two short comments:

1. You are absolutely right that neither EU or NATO will be able to be “principal arenas” for the U.S. – Russia relations. But first, this is not only caused by political divides in both institutions, but also by a strong preference for the bilateral approach by the Russian government. For Russia, there is much more prestige and influence to gain through bilateral relations to the only remaining world power than through any kind of multilateral structure (UN, OSCE, EU or NATO, only possible exemption might be the G8). This might have much more weight in the Russian hesitance to cooperate with NATO than the usual references to the still existing hostilities with the Alliance – arguments that are primarily used by Moscow to gain easy wins in public opinion.
Second, despite its limitations NATO can and is providing useful contributions to the dominant bilateral approach. On the one hand, NATO is helping to form a kind of minimum consensus on how to deal with Russia by offering the U.S. and other Nations like Germany and France to discuss informal as well as formal issues related to Russia. Using NATO as a platform to engage and inform partners helps Washington to gain additional political support for its initiatives in the best case, or in the worst case to constrain potential overreactions from its European Partners. On the other hand, it is worth to note that Secretary General Rasmussen achieved some success in revitalizing the NATO-Russia Council. One of the subsequent achievements are the establishment of new subcommittees to the NRC dealing with more concrete areas of cooperation like Piracy and Afghanistan. They will still have to prove their added value, but at least they provide Nations with additional channels of dialogue with Russia and its military representatives in Brussels.

2. Your idea of a “contact group” or a “Visegrad-plus” group of nations to deal with Russia is very interesting, although it sounds very much like a “coalition of the willing” and risks to make all “unwilling” states even more skeptical or even suspicious. Here also NATO offers some advantage by keeping skeptics as much informed as like-minded states. The Georgian crisis made it very clear that especially the skeptics need reassurance in order to avoid any damage to the transatlantic partnership. Transparency provided by institutional frameworks like NATO and EU are important instruments to balance the U.S. – Russia bilateral agenda with other similar or even more important U.S. foreign policy agenda’s related to NATO and its European partners.

Therefore, in my personal opinion, NATO (and EU) will and should play important roles next to the more prominent bi- or multilateral paths to pursue an U.S. policy towards Russia.
 
Mike  McCormack

August 4, 2010

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Russia's relations with the US and Europe only move as fast as Russia is willing to move them. Sure, Russia throws a few carrots every now and then to make the West think it's finally ready to step up to the plate, but in the grand scheme of things it continues to move along its own course. Of course, its tendency to maintain a certain level of autocracy over its domestic affairs largely drives an unwillingness to "let everyone else in."
 
Paul-Robert  Lookman

August 4, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
CORRECTION.
Last line in my comment of yesterday’s date should read:

People start to see that Obama has become the president of a major power which actually plays the role of “El mediador deshonesto”, as Argentinian author Naseer Aruri put it so eloquently in his book with the same title (http://www.serviciosesenciales.com.ar/libro.php?id=14).
 
Unregistered User

August 4, 2010

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As a start, really, what is our strategy towards Russia and why do we need NATO and the EU
to succeed in our strategy. Half of Europe speaks Russian or has a cyrillic foundation.
In addition NATO still remains a " floating phenomena " within a grouping of sovereign nations.

The new American President doesn't have a clue about Europe and its real history.
He certainly is intelligent and very TV positive, in addition to his business-like, unsentimental acumen.
The President's forte is, besides the orient, his understanding of America's domestic problems
and its danger of imploding as a multiracial and multinational society.

The acclamation of the nation's downsizing ( military ) is as controversial as eliminating the reality
of the countries slave trade from the history books.

So, the President's out-sourcing of his foreign policy responsibility ( according to the author) doesn't
come as a surprise. A skilled operator will always fall back to respect and accept the recommendations of advisers or in political terms his inner circle, especially in terms of Europe..
The makes of the presidential inner circle is wellknown and makes the continuous pounding on Europe
quite understandable, as well as its exclamation of dissatisfaction over its disobedience.
But what about our Russian strategy and its labelling as the " Bogeyman Extraordinaire".
Simply, Europe's history did not commence in 1948. It rather stopped and reflected and surprisingly rediscovered over time the meaning of real value and sustainable growth..
Yet, it all started from the Land of the Czars and is still remembered in the autonomous Jewish regions of Russia's Far East......... this is not an excuse for Germany's Holocaust, because there is none...
So, what is really our startegy towards Russia, while America's foreign policy is out-sourced.

We just can't help it, can we?

Good-Bye.

HRF
Tags: | russia/athens |
 
Darrell Calvin Brown

August 5, 2010

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Everyone is always talking of the EU but neglects to focus upon the power behind the power;namely the EC. It is the EC which has the greater responsibility of governing and guiding the affairs of the EU. Also we all must be very careful of accusations or assumptions in times like these when so many people of both common and noble birth are under a little more stress than normal. We must all remember that the feet we step upon today are connected to the ass we may have to kiss tomorrow. All are of importance and should be treated as such. The attitude of cooperation rather than competition is crucial to both National as well as International interests. These shifts of powers are not going to go well without an attitude of mutual respect . We all may want to take a look at the Book Of Proverbs as we hone our skills of Diplomacy.
 
Unregistered User

August 7, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
@ Mike wrote: "Russia's relations with the US and Europe only move as fast as Russia is willing to move them."
***
Linguistic correction: Russia is a part of Europe. More, if EU acted in interests of its member states, Russia would likely be a member of EU or, at least, in advanced negotiations for the membership.
Tags: | Russia | EU |
 
Grant  Fox

August 9, 2010

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
There is much to gain with a stronger relationship with Russia. Long-lead, the rise of China can be a possible threat to--at minimum--American global economic prowess; to temper that rise, Russia is critical. The foreseeable result if US/Russia relations aren't actively cultivated is that Russia aligns more with China, which tilts balance of power from West to East. I find it hard to believe that if that were to happen that the global economic 'rulebook' won't be re-written to favor that change. There is no problem with a good Russia/China relationship, but, from a US perspective, if that relationship favors going counter to American policy then the situation poses a concern to the US.
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website