donsutherland1

On August 31, 2008, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev set forth the principles behind Russia’s foreign policy in an interview aired on Channel One, Rossia, and NTV. President Medvedev declared:

I will make five principles the foundation for my work in carrying out Russia’s foreign policy.

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.

Second, the world should be multi-polar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.

Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.

Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.

Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.

These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy.

President Medvedev’s rejection of the Krauthammer “Unipolar World” thesis is consistent with former Russian President Putin’s repudiation of that model. On February 10, 2007, President Putin proclaimed at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s—and precisely in today’s—world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

What President Medvedev’s formulation does is that it asserts that:

• Russia recognizes the value international law can play in establishing agreed principles of conduct.

• Russia sees a multi-polar world. As a consequence, the balance of power remains highly relevant in its conception of 21st century foreign policy doctrine.

• Russia remains open to cooperation and partnership with the West. The extent of partnership and cooperation will be constrained by the national interests of the parties.

• Russia, like the rest of the world’s major powers, has interests that extend beyond its borders. Its critical overseas interests will need to be taken into consideration by the rest of the world. Russia is prepared to defend those critical interests.

In sum, Russia reaffirms the kind of world that is familiar to the pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy. In that world, the balance of power is seen as a necessary foundation for reducing the risk of major international conflict. Moral principles are helpful, but not a substitute for the balance of power. Collective security, by itself, is a flawed instrument for promoting international peace and stability, as nations’ interests are not universal and the world’s nations’ desire to run risks is not equal. Effective foreign policy is anchored in national interests. Such policy recognizes the differences in national interests that exist among nations and seeks a balancing of such interests so as to accommodate the needs (though not maximum demands) of the world’s nations. Such a policy recognizes that spheres of influence still matter and must be considered, as no single nation can outlaw that reality by itself.

In an insightful op-ed piece in The Times, former British Ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer articulates the need for a foreign policy approach based on pragmatic Realism. He writes:

It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is…

Most important of all, Russia and the West need to draw up rules of the road for the 21st century… Something similar [to the arrangement based on recognition of spheres of influence that followed the Congress of Vienna of 1815] is needed today, based again on spheres of influence. Nato must renounce the provocative folly of being open to Georgian or, worse, Ukrainian membership. This strikes at the heart of the Russian national interest and offers no enhanced security to either Tbilisi or Kiev. As for Russia, it must be made unambiguously clear where any revanchist lunge westwards would provoke a military response by Nato.

Ambassador Meyer notes that many today would find such an approach unpalatable. Yet, he explains, “there is no other way to remove the scope for miscalculation, the mother of far too many wars.”

How might that work with respect to Georgia and larger U.S./NATO-Russia relations?

Following the development and implementation of an agreed political process that resolves the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia’s borders could be guaranteed in what would amount to a tri-party security framework that would be accepted by Georgia, Russia, and the nations that comprise the NATO alliance. While Georgia would remain outside the NATO alliance, its boundaries would be assured by the relevant major powers, including NATO’s members.

That way, Russia’s needs would be respected and Georgia’s territorial integrity that would arise following the agreed political process to settle Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s status would also be safeguarded. Under such an arrangement, Georgia would remain free to pursue deeper political and economic relations with the West. At the same time, it would no longer be perceived along lines of Russia’s historic nightmare as an emerging component of a potentially hostile ring of nations that could collectively pose a threat of strangling Russia. That is Russia’s historic nightmare and that historic fear needs to be considered in diplomatic arrangements that aim to enhance the security and stability of the Caucasus region. Words alone toward the effect that NATO is not hostile to Russia’s interests will not suffice. There is too much historical baggage that needs to be addressed. Later, the tri-party arrangement between Russia, the NATO alliance, and Georgia could serve as a viable model for Ukraine, not to mention other former Soviet states who might desire it.

justone

What should I start from… You are worthy of a debate, thanks again for a good post… on other hand I do not want that anybody would take my objection as diminishing goodness of your post.



Why do you think that balance of power is only balance of military power, and why do you thinking that it disregards or does not take in account moral?

Unipolar power is impossible to maintain because of natural human longing for freedom, including freedom of thoughts.

As the US and the West has constructed the best principals of a government and social existence, some individuals see a reason of spreading such principals around the globe. They act as prophets of the bright future of humanity (invented by them in endless writings) and as crusaders (though as a rule they still prefer the warm and high offices and never forget to cash in a profit).

Russians, so you would know are sick and tired of ideas of the bright future.

They have been feeling that they a kind of polygon for testing, laboratory mice.

They suffered from the bright future of Communism.
They suffered from the bright future of socialism.
They suffered from the bright future of capitalism.
They suffered the bright future of democracy.

Each construction of the Western intellectuals has brought disaster and destruction to Russians.

I see the Realistic model as not only possible, but moral, as anything that is realistic and does not make things worse is moral. On the opposite I consider idealistic ideas that have proven to make things worse as immoral.

Hitler once asked Ghoebbels – ‘How can we counter America in propaganda? What isin short the idology Americans have. Goebbels answered – “”My furher, Americans have no ideology”’

Russians at this moment a leaning to have no ideology, no democracy, no capitalism, no communism, no totalitarism, no anarchism, they sincere want you to take all these pages of ideas, wipe you butt and chew on them. You have to be realistic and make things better, - now, today. Don’t cry, don’t blame, don’t promise, don’t project.

Right now the US, to my great sorrow, is acting to spread a certain ideology, a very good and the only possible ideology as we think. Russians know – it cannot work, it did not work, it will not work. That was what Marxists did, this was what Nazi’s, did that was what Islamists did and do.

“The United States of America will continue to support Georgia’s democracy,” - Bush

Condoleezza Rice is in Tbilisi. She's conferring with President Saakashvili and expressing America's wholehearted support for Georgia's democracy. --- Bush

He [ McCain] provided a primer for why Americans should care about the "tiny little democracy"

I like this : Obama- ‘ ’No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and has now violated the space of another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.’’’’’ Obama at his best – no matter what are justifications, there is no possible justification. What a scam – from only the moral point of view - no matter what is the truth, - and how openly and clear y he expresses the state of his mind, the liberal idea.

Speaking about morality, - you can conduct an experiment yourself, anywhere in the US including DP. If you ask anybody, - where you would prefer to live yourself, if it was your only choice - in the democratic Georgia or in Russia under regime of Putin.

You will see that nobody, not even a single person will give you a relevant answer.
http://www.freedomhouse.hu/images/fd...rgia-final.pdf

http://www.freedomhouse.hu/images/fd...sia-final1.pdf

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would be able to see not only the statistic, but also dynamic in the facts accepted even by most crazy liberal institutions. As well you would understand how much easier it is to make democracy, not love in a tiny uniform place, rather than in vast uneven territories. As a thinking man you will take another factors correcting the numbers.

But even according these numbers you can see the result of the experiment. You have not found a single person who does not have a belief that Georgia is a democracy opposite to Russia.

This is the first very obvious result of spreading democracy. In order to continue the spreaders firstly have to establish a totalitarian regime in the US. Undeniably you can see the total lie has been spread first. I don’t know if you accept lie as immoral, but if you take such an assumption, you will see what doctrine is moral, - Russian Realistic, or American Monopolar.

Thus, if you make such an assumption you will see that Medvedev’s 5 principals first of all are moral, and then are beneficial for any free man, whether in the US or in Russia.

`` Live Not By Lies.''
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
``Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
``Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.''
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Can the US declare any moral principals countering Russia, except for spreading a uniform ideology and making the globe to submit to it by means of military power? Can we at least declare that we have something in difference from Communists?

Once upon a time Americans did not have any ideology, they were free and appreciated freedom. Can we roll back?

donsutherland1

Justone,

People can feel free to debate or disagree with my thoughts. Even in cases where the same facts are available, reasonable people can, and often do, arrive at different opinions.

Given many people's differing views concerning legitimacy of policies e.g., the huge debate concerning the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq is a case in point, I prefer to focus more on the conventional definition of power. I do note that moral principles can augment that power.

I would agree. The American Founding Fathers were particularly concerned about the human tendency to concentrate power in a small number of hands. The same concept can apply in the larger geopolitical framework where one state gains dominance. Then such great power can offer a state temptations that might not otherwise be pursued were power more widely dispersed.

There is a fairly sizable body of literature that highlights the benefits of democracy. However, what is often lost in the contemporary discourse, is the reality that democracy is not merely defined by a nation's holding elections. Democracy depends on political, economic, legal institutions, laws, and separation of power. A nation's traditions and historic experience can be important in helping build that framework. In the absence of such a framework, governance can become dysfunctional, corrupt, and/or unstable. Over time, one can witness coup d'etats, a slide to authoritarianism, etc.

In my view, it is no accident that Pakistan has suffered through episodes of popular and military rule. It is no coincidence that Iraq has had such difficulty in creating a functional post-Hussein government.

There is little doubt that Russians have suffered through some harsh times under the Tsars, communism, and then in the economic/political disintegration that followed the end of the Cold War. The fundamental error some Western academics and policymakers made was to assume that Russia could almost instantaneously transform itself into a liberal Western democracy. As noted above concerning the framework for democracy, the task involved was far more complex and difficult. That Westerners expected the unrealistic has created dissatisfaction among the Westerners who are disappointed Russia did not become a liberal Western democracy and Russians who felt the West provided too little assistance, a "one-way" partnership, and held them to unrealistic expectations.

That Russia is now evolving toward elected governments that possess strong central power is consistent with its historic experience and traditions. Such an outcome need not be destabilizing geopolitically.

I subscribe to a pragmatic Realist foreign policy perspective precisely because I believe excessive idealism can only be counterproductive when it comes to foreign policy. A "one-size-fits-all" approach has never been realized. Given the diverse experiences and conditions affecting the world's many countries, such an approach is not feasible. Hence, I do not embrace either liberal internationalism or neoconservatism. Both are too heavy on idealism even as liberal internationalism seeks to accomplish its ends through international institutions while neoconservatism seeks to use power to achieve its idealistic ends.

As with most things, measures published by Freedom House and the Heritage Foundation (Index for Economic Freedom) offer some insight into a country's situation. However, it is overly simplistic to assume that these measures provide a complete picture. They offer some information and a starting point. It is also hazardous for one to use such data to adopt one-dimensional/black-white characterizations of countries. The reality is usually more complex.

I have no issues with President Medvedev's principles. They are reasonably consistent with the way I see the world through a pragmatic Realist perspective. They clarify things and offer a perspective that makes West-Russia cooperation feasible with respect to common interests/opportunities/challenges while providing a degree of certainty necessary to reduce risks of confrontation.

metreon

Just one note, the "balance of power" in practical terms is usually played out as a "competition for power". My observation has been when balance of power is sought, the result is increased competition for it, and therefore greater potential conflict. However "conflict" in my sense could simply mean greater diplomatic struggles rather than military ones, but would not intrinsically exclude the latter.

What was it that Clausewitz said? "War is a continuation of politics by other means..."

justone

donsutherland1, you have
1. thoughts.
2. facts
3. reasons
4. opinions based on the above.
It is such a rare find not only on DP, that I feel like… I don’t know… spoiling a picture?
Iraq may be a very different topic:
If Russia openly supported terrorism, if Russia announced Georgia to be its territory and rolled tanks to annex it with no sign of Georgian hostilities towards Russia (Saddam, Kuwait), if Russia used WMD against a rebelled or breakaway region which did not conduct persistent terrorist actions (Kurds),if Russia announced the US as an enemy incompatible with Russian goals, - then Russia would not be Russia, but Iraq.
Then I would appeal to Russian morality and common sense and support against Saddam.
The principle #1 is the law. I am afraid you do not understand that Medvedev’s idea is not about Russia as polar opposite to the US. It is about taking in consideration Russian interests no less than American interests; and it does not forbid from partnership in actions against nations breaking laws. Russia could be a partner (it does mean that it could be agreeable with stupidity), and she made such an offer or hints of it, - unfortunately the US dismissed it with an attitude, - ‘you, Russia are just bending over with a fear that you may be the next, - don’t worry your turn will come.’ We have major political appointees and decision makers reaching their positions on the waves of the affirmative action and musts of the liberal ideology.

I see all signs that if the US was treating Russia in accordance with the 5 principals, Putin could turn very supportive and may be even helpful in the Iraq problem.
I would like you also comment on other augments of power, such as power of ideas and thoughts and power of actions not related to use of force.

You have correctly understood my referral to the principals this country was founded on, - even when I have made no mentioning. If you read DP you would see total misinterpretation of such statements of mine by almost everyone. You are a rare find. You are all correct, this is exactly my particular concern, - the same as of The American Founding Fathers.
Let me try to convey my point again:
There is a fairly sizable body of literature that highlights the benefits of democracy. I DO NOT READ SUCH LITERATURE, NOR DEMOS DOES. NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US, NOR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE EVER MENTION DEMOCRACY; AND I LIKE THAT. LITERATURE COMES MOSTLY POST FACTUM, AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A MANUAL FOR ACTIONS. However, what is often lost in the contemporary discourse, is the reality that democracy is not merely defined by a nation's holding elections, NOT AT ALL. Democracy depends on political, economic, legal institutions, laws, and separation of power. A nation's traditions and historic experience AND THE PRESENT STATE OF ECONOMY, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIFE can be EXTREMELY important in helping build that framework. In the absence of such a framework, HISTORICALLY TEMPORARILY AND IMPATIENT IDEAS OF SOME INDIVIDUALS ABOUT governance OF DEMACRACY WITHOUT ANY BENEFITS FOR DEMOS can become dysfunctional, corrupt, and/or unstable, AND EVEN DESTRUCTIVE . Over time, one can witness coup d'etats, a slide to authoritarianism, etc., INCLUDING DESTRUCTION AND SUFFERING OF THE BOTH ENTITIES, - THE NATION SPREADING DEMOCRACY AND THE NATION THAT IS CHOSEN TO SERVE AS A SUBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT.


I am not sure what relation Pakistan can have to Russia. I am not sure what suffering you are talking about. Actually I am clueless. Let’s stay on topic.


I disagree, - we are the ones who have such difficulty. We could create a functional post-Hussein government in a moment, but instead we tried to create a democracy. It is not like we cannot do, the problem is that we have already tilted the geopolitical balance for worse rather than for better, and in the confrontation with Russia we keep on going in the same direction for worse. Why we did not outsource creating a functional post-Hussein government to Putin? He has been able to create a functional g-nt in totally dysfunctional Russia.

to be continued

justone

continued

Russian were not disappointed that “”it did not work”’, they were disappointed in continuous support of destruction of Russia, in continuous support of looting of Russia. They have historical disgust of implementing ideas of the bright future at the cost of the grim present.
Then the economic/political disintegration that followed the end of the Cold War was one of the things many thinking Russians called for, as they did not see a need to keep on carrying certain economic/political burdens, Generally the idea was – you want to earn your living by yourself, by hard work, - go. And so many went to learn living by selling themselves to the West, by mere prostitution…

Also there is a little doubt that Russians have suffered through some harsh times under the Tsars. We all had Tsars and Kings, etc.


One of the things is that Russia does not evolve towards anything – it just it just tries to make things better, but not worse. If there is any idea, that is more like in the US in the beginning in the meaning of spirit, but not in the meaning of the essnce. Historical experience is very important, Russia has a huge territory with historical tradition of each region pulling to all different sides. On other hand Moscow used to ignore difference in regions and to rob them. ‘’Strong central power’’ is not a goal or outcome. Everyone sees Putin as an authoritarian person making steps towards totalirism; when the facts tell that such a unanimous view is another example of the totalitarian regime of lies in the US. I am firstly concerned about the totalitarian regime in the US rather than in Russia.

The facts are that Putin did not have to step down from Presidency. He did. Why? He could change the law slightly, - he did not. Why? Why would he change the law now as the Prime minister when he has less opportunities/strings/power to make such changes? It is pretty much clear that he pushed hard for Medvedev. Why would he be disappointed in his choice? Why would he need a puppet but not an excellent friend, somebody who is equally devoted to good for Russia more than to personal good? Why it cannot be a tandem? There is a Russian proverb, one head is good, two heads are better. And as you have said election does not always lead to a good government.
Why do you think Medvedev- Putin would argue? What is their gain in destabilization?

I am not too good in sorting the partisan labels, but even in your description liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are both sick with the same decease. Some call Bush neoconservative, for me he has been exhibiting more and more liberalism, and now he looks to me like a liberal to the bone. If Obama is represented as an opposite to Bush, I cannot understand such a representation. Obama is nobody, thus he cannot be an opposite of anything.
I am not too good in sorting the partisan labels, - Medvedev in the principals seeks to accomplish his ends through international institutions AND as well he seeks to use power to achieve his ends, - thus – in your definition – is he a liberal and neoconservative at the same time?
Labels aside, you are my man. That’s why I had said I wanted to see you running for POTUS. Then, you would have no support, only one justone. I sense that the demos doesn’t even understand your speech.
It is all correct, except for one thing, - you are avoiding giving a clear answer. The Qs are, - would you think there is any reasonable base for the imposed idea that Georgia is democracy vs. Russia which is not a democracy. Where would you like to live as an apologist of democracy, if the only choice was between the 2? Where would you like to live as an apologist of global stability, if the only choice was between the 2?


I guess sometimes you position is very unclear and may be misinterpreted in different ways. I am sorry I have made you to expose yourself as a target for liberal internationalists and neoconservatives, which generally means for everyone.

Do you have issues with McCain’s geopolitical principles? I do.


Do you have issues with Obama’s absence of any principles? For me it is even scarier than Mccain’s present principals. I just imagine Obama taking a sit at a table across Medvedev.

justone

When I a neocon have a gun and you a neolib have a gun and we both are reasonable people respecting the law, what is a potential for a conflict?

donsutherland1

Without doubt, the circumstances were entirely different. My only point was that Americans found the decision to go to war in Iraq controversial. There was no clearly-held moral case. Given the reality that people may view things in differing moral terms, I choose to focus more on the conventional definition of power.

We agree on this point. Russia's government seeks to safeguard and advance Russia's interests. That's entirely reasonable. That's the way nations behave. I also agree that there is sufficient common ground to make a constructive U.S.-Russia partnership possible. I hope that the next U.S. President will make improvement of the bilateral U.S.-Russia relationship a priority.

As U.S. and Russian interests coincide for improved stability in the Middle East and Russia has articulated that it has no intention of altering the strategic balance in the Middle East, I agree that there are grounds for improved cooperation in the region.

They matter greatly. Ideas have influence. Influence has geopolitical significance.

Actions establish precedents and demonstrate whether or not a state can be or is a reliable partner. To establish or sustain a reputation for reliability, actions need to be consistent with the principles countries set forth.

I try to understand the views people express. If I misunderstand, one can and should feel free to correct me.

I believe a combination of factors led to the decision. In large part, the U.S. had concern that Iraq had reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction program. The fateful October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that with a high degree of confidence that:

• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.

In part, the decision might well have been a product of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy that was based on assumptions of a unipolar world and permanent triumph of democracy. Indeed, if one goes back to a 2000 report ("Rebuilding America's Defenses") published by the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, one finds a statement that a "main military mission..." is to "secure and expand zones of democratic peace..." At a minimum, such thinking probably helped the Bush Administration to conclude that the absence of a fresh Security Council resolution authorizing military operations was unnecessary and, more worrisome, that once the war was over Iraq could quickly be transformed into a functioning democracy.

donsutherland1

Several quick things:
1. I agree that Russia's policies are aimed at improving conditions in Russia
2. Evolution toward a more centralized state is not synonymous with totalitarianism. Certainly, I had no intention of making such a characterization.
3. Prime Minister Putin has a role in which his executive power is quite strong. Again, I never intended to describe him as totalitarian.

From what I have read and observed, it seems that both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have a good relationship. Also, I don't agree with caricatures that portray the Russian President as Prime Minister Putin's "puppet." That the more experienced Prime Minister has a degree of influence by virtue of his experience is a different matter.

Liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are foreign policy schools. Clearly, as you note, President Bush has not demonstrated fiscal conservatism e.g., he proposed and, following Congressional approaval, enacted a dramatic expansion in Medicare. That expanded coverage was not tied to any reforms that meaningfully reduced Medicare's long-term fiscal imbalance. Instead, the new program significantly exacerbated those challenges. That's just one example. Overall, under President Bush, the role of the federal government and size of the federal budget have been expanded and the White House played an active role in bringing about that outcome.

The notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is overly simplistic. Both countries have democratic features. Both have other attributes, as well.

I have some concerns and more questions about the foreign policy positions of both candidates. In my view, Senator Obama should avoid any Summitry in a first term should he be elected. He should avoid the temptation to get involved in day-to-day negotiations e.g., in a bid to break the Middle East peace logjam. Shrewd interlocutors e.g., President Ahmadinejad, might well try to exploit Senator Obama's lack of foreign policy experience if given the opportunity.