Russia: Friend of the West

James G

Gone Fishin'
I was watching 'Deep Impact' the other night. Not the best of films. Regardless, it was a 1990's film where there was cooperation between Russia and the West. Recalling other films and books from that decade, post the Soviet Union's downfall, it was all the rage to have Russia as a friend of the West. Putin came along and that changed.
Without Putin, post 2000, post 9/11 too, could Russia have become a friend, an ally? How could this have been done? Or, following the behaviour of oligarchs, which I see as being destructive to any reform in Russia, would have another Putin like figure come along and the hopes of the 90's disappear like they have done? I am not talking about the West having Russia over a barrel but there was a time when the hope was there for friendship, not just in fiction I think.
Ideas?
 
Not really. We don't have a Putin problem in the West, we have a Russia problem. Yeltsin, who was supposedly the guy who liked America, came close to nuking us, stared us down in the Balkans, committed what could very possibly be called a genocide in Chechnya, and meddled in most of his neighbors and tried to reverse their democratic gains.

The only thing that really changed in Russia was that 1990s Russia didn't have the economic or military strength to seriously challenge anybody whereas modern Russia does.

They just weren't interested in being friendly with the West.
 
IMO, post-war Russia and the United States have too many interests and cultural differences that collide with each other for there to be an "alliance". Sure, the United States and Russia cooperate on things, as we have since the 1990s whether it be on removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine and Belarus, but cooperation is not the same thing as a "friendship" in the same manner as the United States and Britain, Japan, or Israel.

Even when Nixon went to China and begun massive rapprochement with them, they cooperated and engaged in opening financial ties but still had glaring differences that prevent true "friendship", such as Taiwan or the ideology of Maoism. Of course, it is said that Nixon essentially "threatened" to become "friends" with China to scare Russia and have them capitulate on Vietnam, since China and the USSR were on the brink of war at the time over Zhenbao Island.
 
IMO, post-war Russia and the United States have too many interests and cultural differences that collide with each other for there to be an "alliance". Sure, the United States and Russia cooperate on things, as we have since the 1990s whether it be on removing nuclear weapons from Ukraine and Belarus, but cooperation is not the same thing as a "friendship" in the same manner as the United States and Britain, Japan, or Israel.

Even when Nixon went to China and begun massive rapprochement with them, they cooperated and engaged in opening financial ties but still had glaring differences that prevent true "friendship", such as Taiwan or the ideology of Maoism. Of course, it is said that Nixon essentially "threatened" to become "friends" with China to scare Russia and have them capitulate on Vietnam, since China and the USSR were on the brink of war at the time over Zhenbao Island.

I do think that there has to be some recognition that, just as in the United States, a large part of the foreign policy elite in Russia is still in a "Cold War mentality". They see the USA as the primary threat, just like the Americans have generally been Russia as the biggest threat, despite China being more powerful than Russia.
 
I do think that there has to be some recognition that, just as in the United States, a large part of the foreign policy elite in Russia is still in a "Cold War mentality". They see the USA as the primary threat, just like the Americans have generally been Russia as the biggest threat, despite China being more powerful than Russia.

Maybe in a hundred years, we can try to end the Cold War.
 
I do think that there has to be some recognition that, just as in the United States, a large part of the foreign policy elite in Russia is still in a "Cold War mentality". They see the USA as the primary threat, just like the Americans have generally been Russia as the biggest threat, despite China being more powerful than Russia.

Pretty much, It will take several decades for the wounds to heal from the Cold War. Even then, you see new qualms such as Syria or Ukraine arise, so that makes rebuilding relations even more complicated while people are already trying to hush away the legacy of the Cold War.

It is simply quite difficult for me to envision a US-China or US-Russia friendship, simply because there are too many fires in the kitchen to quickly put out. We have seen and will continue to see the cooperation and easing of relations between the United States and it's competitors, but a friendship is highly unlikely IMO.
 
Well, the question is what differentiates Russia from France, such that when the latter shamelessly and sleazily pursues its interests in other countries, we look the other way, but Russia doing similar is still treated like an existential threat.
 
Well, the question is what differentiates Russia from France, such that when the latter shamelessly and sleazily pursues its interests in other countries, we look the other way, but Russia doing similar is still treated like an existential threat.
To be fair, it's because if France got even a little out of hand, America could end it bad, while Russia has enough nukes and power to actually at least encourage instability.
 
I do think that there has to be some recognition that, just as in the United States, a large part of the foreign policy elite in Russia is still in a "Cold War mentality". They see the USA as the primary threat, just like the Americans have generally been Russia as the biggest threat, despite China being more powerful than Russia.

Maybe in a hundred years, we can try to end the Cold War.

Pretty much, It will take several decades for the wounds to heal from the Cold War. Even then, you see new qualms such as Syria or Ukraine arise, so that makes rebuilding relations even more complicated while people are already trying to hush away the legacy of the Cold War.

It is simply quite difficult for me to envision a US-China or US-Russia friendship, simply because there are too many fires in the kitchen to quickly put out. We have seen and will continue to see the cooperation and easing of relations between the United States and it's competitors, but a friendship is highly unlikely IMO.

Yes, but there are actual reasons why the West is hostile to Russia. It's a right-wing nationalist dictatorship and kleptocracy sponsoring insurgencies and hostile pet dictators throughout its periphery, it backs up objectively terrible, anti-western causes (Milosevic in Serbia, etc.), etc.

Among the countries that border Russia, there are five kinds of nations. The first is a state that is too powerful for Russia to mess with it (China). The second is an odd sui generis geopolitical exception (Mongolia). The third is pet dictatorships: Ukraine pre-Euromaidan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, the countries that end with -stan, and North Korea to a degree. The fourth is states that opted not to join NATO and that tried to walk a path of neutrality. Every single one has without exception been reduced to a mutilated rump state by Russian invasions. This would be Georgia, Moldavia, and post-Euromaidan Ukraine. The fifth is NATO nations.

Every non-NATO country on Russia's borders except two, one that is strong enough to buck them (China) and one that is geopolitically unique (Mongolia) is under Russia's thumb. That really tells you all you need to know.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but there are actual reasons why the West is hostile to Russia. It's a right-wing nationalist dictatorship and kleptocracy sponsoring insurgencies and hostile pet dictators throughout its periphery, it backs up objectively terrible, anti-western causes (Milosevic in Serbia, etc.), etc.

Among the countries that border Russia, there are five kinds of nations. The first is a state that is too powerful for Russia to mess with it (China). The second is an odd sui generis geopolitical exception (Mongolia). The third is pet dictatorships: Ukraine pre-Euromaidan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, the countries that end with -stan, and North Korea to a degree. The fourth is states that opted not to join NATO and that tried to walk a path of neutrality. Every single one has without exception been reduced to a mutilated rump state by Russian invasions. This would be Georgia and post-Euromaidan Ukraine. The fifth is NATO nations.

Every non-NATO country on Russia's borders except two, one that is strong enough to buck them (China) and one that is geopolitically unique (Mongolia) is under Russia's thumb. That really tells you all you need to know.

That's what I meant by "fires in the kitchen". The geopolitical interests of Russia clash too much with the interests of the United States, making an official friendship impossible even in the most peachy of post-Cold War what-ifs.
 
To be fair, it's because if France got even a little out of hand, America could end it bad, while Russia has enough nukes and power to actually at least encourage instability.

That still implies that the very idea of conceding something to a country that's not our lapdog is anathema to us. If so, we're talking less about friendship, as Deblano puts it and more of a polite servitude.
 
That still implies that the very idea of conceding something to a country that's not our lapdog is anathema to us. If so, we're talking less about friendship, as Deblano puts it and more of a polite servitude.

To be fair the US more or less just kind of stays out of Asian affairs anyway outside of Taiwan and Korea.
 
Putin did what he had to do to preserve the Russian state and prevent a continental-scale Yugoslavia situation that might have led to millions of deaths. The poor relations the Western European nations have with Russia is entirely their own choice, because the "right-wing nationalist dictatorship and kleptocracy sponsoring insurgencies and hostile pet dictators throughout its periphery" is necessary for the survival of Russia itself. Russia will not change because, if it does, there will be no Russia left.
 

GarethC

Donor
Tricky.

Russia was a friend in the early 90s because it was an economic basket case wracked by corruption incapable of meaningful opposition to NATO. Its troops were unpaid and its nukes unmaintained

The desire of the EU to extend its economic ties to the "Near Abroad" - the Baltics, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine - is contrary to three centuries of Russian strategic thinking. Extendng NATO membership to the Baltics and Poland is a specifically anti-Russian security move. US security ties with Uzbekistan to support operation in Afghanistan are a similar threat. Regardless of whether those policies stem from European desire for trade or American desire for vengeance on Al-Qaeda, they are also part of a de facto strategy of encirclement of the country with the second largest nuclear arsenal, to strip it of allies and client-states to leave it vulnerable to pressure from Washington and London/Paris/Berlin.

If you want Russia to be a friend, have a secret protocol agreed with Yeltsin to allow a Russian invasion of the Soviet satellites once their gas sales allow them to get their economy going again and their military reorganised, so that whoever is the kleptocrat in charge can loot the Near Abroad and skim the profits of the EU's economic engagement with those countries, as OTL Georgia and Ukraine.

It will suck rather badly for the Poles and Baltics though. And probably end the career of the politicians who agree it if it becomes public.
 
Among the countries that border Russia, there are five kinds of nations. The first is a state that is too powerful for Russia to mess with it (China). The second is an odd sui generis geopolitical exception (Mongolia). The third is pet dictatorships: Ukraine pre-Euromaidan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, the countries that end with -stan, and North Korea to a degree. The fourth is states that opted not to join NATO and that tried to walk a path of neutrality. Every single one has without exception been reduced to a mutilated rump state by Russian invasions. This would be Georgia, Moldavia, and post-Euromaidan Ukraine. The fifth is NATO nations.

Every non-NATO country on Russia's borders except two, one that is strong enough to buck them (China) and one that is geopolitically unique (Mongolia) is under Russia's thumb. That really tells you all you need to know.

Yes, yes, 'Russia only has vassals or enemies'. Calling Azerbaijan a Russian ally is only true insofar as they are not eagerly attempting to be part of the western alliances. A choice that has more to do with Aliyev's love of power than toeing the Russian line. Neither Uzbekistan nor Turkmenistan have much to do with Russia and shockingly Russia doesn't care. As for Ukraine and Georgia, they certainly did not try to walk the path of neutrality as you claim (until Yanukovych made a big show of doing so, and was almost immediately placed in an either or situation for it), they were simply too slow to get their houses in order to join NATO/the EU before Russia got strong enough to stop them. They had every intention of joining the western alliance, there is a reason Georgia and Ukraine (alongside most of eastern Europe) sent troops to Iraq, and it wasn't concerns about WMDs.
 
Putin was actually lauded as a good friend of the United States after the September 11 attacks because of his cooperation on providing logistical bases for US forces in Afghanistan.

Putin did not become more and more anti-Western until the colored revolutions of 2004. He saw them as interference with Russia's role in its Near Abroad, and felt that Russia should naturally have a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union states and that any pro-democratic moves in Ukraine and Georgia meant Western interference.

To improve relations, you either need the West to abandon any support of pro-democracy movements in the FSU, or have a Russian leadership which does not view anti-corruption and democratic movements in the FSU as inherently anti-Russian.

Perhaps if Yeltsin appointed Boris Nemtsov as the new President instead of Putin, or if the 1998 financial crisis did not hit until after Nemtsov became President in 2000?
 
Yeltsin, who was supposedly the guy who liked America, came close to nuking us, stared us down in the Balkans, committed what could very possibly be called a genocide in Chechnya

Yeltsin swallowed Chechnya's independence and stood by while it ethnically cleansed its Russian population. It took a literal Chechen invasion of Russia to slap him awake, and by that time Yeltsin himself was already halfway out and Putin halfway in.

Putin did not become more and more anti-Western until the colored revolutions of 2004. He saw them as interference with Russia's role in its Near Abroad, and felt that Russia should naturally have a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union states and that any pro-democratic moves in Ukraine and Georgia meant Western interference.

To improve relations, you either need the West to abandon any support of pro-democracy movements in the FSU, or have a Russian leadership which does not view anti-corruption and democratic movements in the FSU as inherently anti-Russian.

Not all the "colored revolutions" were exactly pro-democracy or even anti-corruption. The so-called "Rose Revolution" in Georgia, for example, gave power to an ultranationalist pseudo-dictator with more than a few similarities to Putin himself.
 
I think one sure fire way to ensure that Russia would become a friend of the West more concretely is to have the USSR go up in flames, either through war or a civil war, and have the West back a democratic (or at least pro-Western) Russian government in the process just as the USSR collapses.
 
Top