Roots of Russia, U.S. distrust 7

U.S., RUSSIA RELATIONS POST WW2 PART 7

COLD WAR INTENSIFIES

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, U.S. and the Russian Federation had nearly 20 years of relatively good relations. There were many agreements on nuclear arms reduction, missile defense systems, joint space venture etc. These relations were conducted between George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush 2 and Barack Obama. Their Russian counterparts were Michael Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.

They cooperated on international terrorism and criminal activity, AIDS, and humanitarian issues. Russia was concerned about U.S. involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Russia supported the first gulf war but opposed the invasion of Iraq, but abstained from voting against the U.S. in the U.N.. Russia complained, without taking any action, about the expansion of NATO. The U.S. complained about Russia's action in Chechnya and Georgia, which has a lot to do with Islamic terrorism on their southern border.

One of the Russian Federation's primary goals after the dissolution of the Soviet Union was to be admitted into International organizations on trade, economics etc. They were a permanent member of the U.N. since its founding, but there seemed to be a reluctance by the U.S. to accept them as an influential member of the world community.

While the U.S. has over 200 years of managing a democratic Republic, the Russians have 25 years of transitioning to self government. There were, and still are, many in the state department who would rather keep Russia isolated and contained. This was the objective in the expansion of NATO. It may be that Vladimir Putin began to see that the policy of the west may be to never accept Russia on equal terms, unless they completely submit to the west. This would be in all things, culturally, as well as economically, and a much diminished military capacity.  It is understandable that there is a fear of a strong economically prospering Russia, but in the long run can containment result in a positive outcome. Constructive engagement was a term that could possibly yield a positive result.

The Ukraine and the European community had been negotiating cooperation and possible membership since the mid 1990's. There were a lot of hurdles to accomplish this. The EU wanted more human rights, and a stronger legal system among other things. The Ukraine's exports to Russia were over 50% of their economy, much of this generated from the ethnic Russian eastern part of the country. They have many co-operative defense manufacturing agreements, all this was complicated by the EU insistence that if they entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine, the Ukraine could not be in a free trade agreement with Russia. 

The Ukraine was almost entirely dependent on Russia for its energy, mostly natural gas. There was perception that the EU and the U.S. wanted to peel the Ukraine away from the Russian Federation. In 2014 there was a revolution in the Ukraine, President Victor Yanukovych and the parliament were dissolved. This was supported by billions of dollars from Washington to foster democracy in the Ukraine. 

The western part of Ukraine was determined to join the EU and was also inclined to join NATO. Eastern Ukraine is mostly a Russian population. Russia did not object to the joining of the EU, but was vehemently against the expansion of NATO right on their border. There was even talk of  replacing the Russian Fleets Naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea with a NATO Naval base. This is not likely to ever happen peaceably.  This led to the Russian occupation of the Crimea. There was a referendum held in the Crimea and they voted 97% to become incorporated into the Russian Federation. The Ukraine was outraged, the West declared the vote illegal and sanctions were leveled by the West on Russia. The Eastern Ukraine erupted in fighting with 2 areas claiming independence. A pew poll taken shortly after the referendum in Crimea found that 91% believe the referendum was free and fair. Also 88% believed Ukraine should recognize the results.

The Ukrainian, Crimean, Russian conflict is a complicated situation. It seems the West is determined to push Russia farther away from the community of nations. The fact that the U.S. and the West has intervened to control the events in Ukraine's politics and pushed to allow Ukraine into NATO are issues that will not be resolved easily. Russia has now upped the anti by supporting opposition groups in the EU and attempted to disrupt the U.S. election. If Russia would attempt to have bases in Mexico or Canada or Cuba it would be a international crisis. The attempt to encircle and move NATO membership closer and closer to the borders of  Russia have most likely come to their limit, unless the West is ready to go to war. It seems the goal may be to encourage regime change in Russia. This is not likely to happen as Putin has a high approval rating in his country and the Russian people understand the situation.

Both Russia and the Ukraine have much to lose in this crisis. There is much interdependence and history between the two countries. It is possible with a new look and a willingness of all parties to co-operate to come to a satisfactory agreement. It is possible that the anti will now be raised much higher, to get the attention of the West and the Ukraine to be more willing for a re-evaluation of their  policy of Russian containment. The West, rather than attempting to punish Putin and Russia, should assist in negotiating a reasonable solution.

While, of course this is a brief summary of the history of U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. There is much I could not cover in this brief summary. There are more details found in Wikipedia, U.S. state department. and many article by the Kissinger group and others. While some may disagree as to who is at fault for this situation, it cannot be denied that there is a serious crisis at hand. This summary may be useful in understanding this relationship as it will most likely be in the news in the coming months.

originally published 2/8/17 part 7 of 7

2/14/2021

The U.S. state department is insisting that an invasion by Russia is imminent, that may be true, It has been made clear in the last few weeks that Russia has sent written proposals to the west to address their concerns and complaints, that did not start in the last few weeks, but is rooted in the U.S. policy of containment, coupled with a U.S. policy of regime change anywhere it should choose. 

A compromise and suitable agreement is possible, that would insure the independence and security of Ukraine and Russia. It is likely that Germany, France and Ukraine would be seriously interested in such an agreement. It seems the U.S. is unwilling to listen or acknowledge any concerns of Russia. It seems they are determined to continue on the same path of the past, a foreign policy that has destroyed the middle east, destabilized the politics and culture of Europe, and now may very well usher in a new era of instability and chaos in Europe. 

This foreign policy has weakened the U.S. both economically and militarily and has damaged the respect formally enjoyed by the United States.

If any agreement is reached it will be from the negotiations of the countries who have the most to lose by a continued confrontation with Russia, such a compromise will be a devastating blow to the ability of the U.S. to control the direction of world events.