The other day Thomas P.M. Barnett asked whether or not Russia could eventually be a strategic partner for United States. He argued that Washington’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Georgia has been overly emotional:
Frankly, putting the political and strategic implications aside for a minute, Russia’s intervention in Georgia should strike us as more of a turn-on than turn-off. In the past, I’ve tended to write Russia off as a strategic partner not because the incentives weren’t there but because the military and governmental capabilities had seemingly atrophied to such a profound degree. Georgia can be seen as disproving that perception.
I mean, if you want strategic allies who can go places and do stuff in a long war against radical extremism, we should be more impressed than dismayed.
But, of course, that requires us to view the situation with less emotion and to think more long term.
Barnett raises an interesting point here. Georgia fought largely with U.S. weapons and many of its forces received military training from the United States (you can read about the Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) here). Arguably, Russia’s battlefield performance was impressive, though more analysis will be needed to understand better Moscow’s campaign. As China’s power continues to grow, the U.S. could use a partner to balance against China. Maybe the United States could use Russia to triangulate against China?
Someday, Russia should be the U.S. and NATOs strategic partner. China isn’t the enemy, unless they chose to be so. The Islamists are the enemy of Russia, the West and China -and India.
Like pirates at the turn of the 18th century, they need to be hunted down and eliminated from the earth.
Good to see Barnett clues others in to the big picture. Russia and the US currently are more aligned in interests than most think. If there is agreement that the major challenges to states in the 21st century will be systemic disruptions by non-state actors (AQ et al), then in fact Russia and China would make excellent _partners_ for the US. Russia and China can do the sort of dirty work in their back yards that the US cannot, and we get to keep our hands clean.
Furthermore, I can’t help but feel (and this is a reason I’m warm to Barnett as a strategic thinker) that the Realist “Great Game” mentality of international relations is outdated. “Balancing” and other assorted terms of the art imply that there are Russian or Chinese goals and objectives potentially harmful to US national security. What are these? Do Russia or China covet any US territory? Do they want to damage the US economy in any way, thus damaging their largest trading partner? What do people think is the endgame that requires a non-zero mindset?
Only if you see the goal of US foreign policy as ultra-status quo (i.e. other nationals cannot improve their economic or political well-being without it lessening the perceived US advantage) does this mindset make any sense. But then, that is simply obtaining and retaining “power” for power’s sake, and does not effect our life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.