Around Russia

"Realists" against "idealists",
or what do we need from America

April 4, 2013 Daily Journal

It should be recognized that in the assessment of the Russian democratic opposition, the Policy, which the United States pursues in relation to our country, is an obvious contradiction. On the one hand, Russian liberals consider, and, we note, quite fairly, the countries of the West, primarily the United States, their natural allies in the struggle for the struggle for the provisions of the rule of law, principles of freedom, democracy in our country. That is why they speak at international conferences, turn to members of parliaments and representatives of the executive branch of different countries (including American congressmen and senators), trying to convey their point of view to events in Russia. On the other hand, there is irritation from the fact that in the United States they politely listen to the performances of Russian opposition, they nod sympathetically, but are in no hurry to rebuild their policy in order to put pressure on the Kremlin in accordance with the high principles of supporting political rights and freedoms.

This contradiction also felt the expert community. And so David Kremer, President of Freedom House, and political scientist Lilia Shevtsova published in the journal The American Interest the article “And here again: Russian trap”. In it, the authors describe the “Russian trap”, into which, in their opinion, the American administrations constantly fell over the past twenty years. It consists in the fact that, despite the desire of all American presidents to look for tactical compromises with the Kremlin, to refrain from moralizing or reducing them to empty rhetoric (to calm their own public opinion), America’s relationship with Russia ended with a crisis each time. Moreover, Washington’s refusal of support to democratic values ​​and principles in relations with Russia is emphasized by the authors, created favorable international conditions for the survival of Kremlin authoritarianism, but did not prevent the deterioration of relations between the United States and Russia. The authors criticize the new attempt by American supporters of this system of views to begin “strategic dialogue” with the Kremlin based on the rejection of the value approach. They argue that such an approach will not only be the next legitimation of the increasing repressiveness of the Russian authorities, will facilitate the creation of an external basis for its reproduction, but will also question the ability of America (and the West as a whole) to follow its principles. The article was the beginning of an acute controversy about the attitude of the West to Russia and the Russian government.

Soon was an article by Thomas Graham, one of the most famous specialists in Russia, who held the position of special assistant to the president in Russia in the Bushevsky administration. He correctly, but extremely harshly defends the opposite point of view. According to this prominent representative of the RealPolitik school, the United States will achieve more from cooperation with Russia if their national interests put their heads. Lilia Shevtsova wrote a response to this publication. Another prominent analyst made the article, former British ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood.

This discussion, despite the abundance of politicalological terms, is by no means an academic, but quite applied character. Against the background of the growing repressiveness of the Putin regime, the West is vital to find the right tone in relations with Moscow. It seemed to us very important to offer this discussion to the attention of the Russian audience. In the end, we are talking about politics in relation to our country.

Today we publish an article by Thomas Graham . In the coming days, we plan to publish the answer of Lilia Shevtsova.

We express gratitude to The American Interest, which allowed the use of the materials of his site.

Collage hedgehog