Better Relationship with Russia a New U.S. Policy

The policy recommendations of this paper can be broken down into 3 points:

1) Russia is helping Syria to turn back the advances made by ISIS in the Middle East. For years, the U.S. has sought regime change in Syria, as the PNAC papers show (Donnelly). However, this policy has resulted in numerous casualties and deaths in the Middle East, not to mention untold destruction (Davis). This policy is neither good for business nor good for the security of the nation. With Russia taking the lead in fighting ISIS, the U.S. has seen how effectively the fight against terrorism can be waged when rebel forces are not aided with arms and other material support. The key to battling terrorism in the Middle East is thus to withdraw support from rebel forces attempting to overthrow regimes (Etzioni). The first step in this policy, therefore, is to end all aid to rebel forces in Syria and allow the Russians to assist Syrian forces in the fight against ISIS without external influence from the U.S. This would be viewed as a significant act of encouragement in the eyes of Syria and Russia and would indicate that the U.S. is serious about countering terrorism to the degree that it will stop supporting rebel groups that may or may not later give assistance to ISIS (Barzegar).

2) The second recommendation is for U.S. to take an active approach to normalizing relations with Russia. The first recommendation can be seen as a passive approach -- the U.S. simply backs out of the Middle East in the sense that it stops aiding rebel forces. This recommendation is for an actual discourse to begin with Russia on matters of trade, sanctions, and security. These three issues are vital to a good relationship (Stone, Kuznick). Russia has been hammered by U.S. sanctions over the years mainly for its role in the Crimean affair. However, when one sees that this affair from Russia and Crimea's perspective (after all, Crimea voted to rejoin Russia) rather than from the pro-U.S., regime-changed Ukrainian leaders' perspective, it becomes clear that the sanctions are misguided. The U.S. should accept the results of democratic votes and not try to punish countries for outcomes it perceives to be antithetical to aims that are questionable in the first place. For instance, why has the U.S. taken such a hard line in the Ukraine? The issue is one that has many layers and variables relating to Putin's conflict with Boris Berezhovsky, who is responsible for the coup in Ukraine.

3) Finally, the two leaders of Russia and the U.S. should meet personally to discuss the next steps for the multi-polar world. Once resistance in the Middle East has been removed and the relationship has been normalized (i.e., an end to sanctions), the two powers may meet formally to discuss important matters of trade. The U.S. should play an active role in the multi-polar world, as Russia has asked it to do. Instead of fighting this request, the U.S. should accept it and take the lead in forging this new multi-polar world.

In order to fully understand the importance of having a working relationship with Russia in the 21st century, it is vital to comprehend the nature of the 21st century's globalized world (Scott). In the 20th century, the U.S. emerged as the dominant power in the world. However, as Russia and China grew and Russia became technologically advanced in terms of missile defense systems, the U.S. has found itself in a unique position. Moreover, Russia and China have declared that they will trade without using the U.S. dollar as a currency in the trade. This isolates the U.S. and weakens its dominant role in world trade. If the U.S. seeks to be not just a competitor but also a leader in the 21st century world, it must set aside differences it has with regimes and adopt a more tolerant position. The multi-polar world is a reality because both Russia and China have asserted themselves all around the world, making alliances in political and economic spheres with countries that are looking to benefit from a relationship with world leaders that is positive for all sides. The zero sum game of hegemony is no longer viable in the 21st century -- the other players in the world are too powerful for any one player to be viewed as unstoppable. Thus, it is in the best interest of the U.S. to accept this reality and adapt accordingly rather than seeking to delay it or alter its course. Inevitably, the union between Russia and China will bear fruit for the two nations -- and already the union between Russia and Syria is indicating that a strong Russia will play a dominant role in the Middle East because it takes fighting ISIS directly as a serious task.

While think tank papers like Rebuilding America's Defenses and the PNAC policies that drove interventions in the Middle East under the Bush and Obama administrations achieved a portion of the purpose they set out to achieve, the longer the wars go on the more unstable the world becomes. Terrorist acts have occurred in the U.S. that make the populace feel unsafe and the populace has elected an anti-establishment outsider to the White House in what must be viewed as a sign that the population is tired of interventions such as these. It wants to have a working relationship with foreign powers instead of more threats of wars and sanctions (this is clear because it is what the winning candidate has said he would do). Thus, to follow the wishes of the populace would not be a bad move at this stage in the geopolitical development of the 21st century. The think tanks have had their chance to reshape the course of events and so far all that has resulted is more instability and destruction. It is time to change course.

Counter arguments include the opinion that Russia cannot be trusted, that Putin is a dictator, and that he and Assad murder their own civilians in egregious acts that violate human rights. To work with such leaders is to violate the integrity of the U.S. To respond to this argument it is necessary to assert that there has been no proof of these allegations against either Putin or Assad and that they stem from the proponents of the PNAC policies rather than objective, third party observers. Thus, it is not necessary to accept at face value the validity of these accusations as they have not been substantiated.

Another argument is that sanctions are necessary to keep Russia in line with U.S. policy. To remove them would be foolish and allow Russia to dictate policy. To respond to this argument it is necessary to point out that the sanctions have not really hurt Russia in the long run. Its stock market has risen over the past year; its renown around the world has increased as it has taken a leading role in fighting ISIS, which is a known plague around the world. Russia has also shown that it does not want to dictate policy to anyone but that it wants to work with world leaders to find mutually-beneficial solutions to problems that they all face. In other words, Russia has shown a spirit of cooperation and it is the U.S. that has shown a spirit of antagonism. To continue this spirit of antagonism would be to invite further hostility in the U.S. The U.S. voter is tired of hostile foreign policy and wants what the winning candidate has promised -- a foreign policy in which the U.S. gets along with other world leaders.