​Why we need a deal with Russia

This past month, tensions between the West and Russia have once again reemerged, with the integration of Montenegro into NATO, NATO military exercises in Georgia as well as NATO’s military buildup in Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries; these moves have been sharply criticized by Russia.

However, I believe that the U.S. is heading on the wrong path in its relations with Russia. In fact, contrary to the dominant view in U.S. media outlets, I believe that it is in the United States’ best interest to lift sanctions on Russia and find a diplomatic solution with Russia that would recognize its preeminent role on the territories that constituted the Soviet Union. I make the case for a such a “deal” with Russia for two main reasons: to ensure stability in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, and to gain Russia as an ally in the Cold War that is taking shape between the U.S. and the (truly) rising great-power: China.

One might argue against such concessions to Russia by saying that NATO’s foreign policy primarily aims at guaranteeing the independence of Eastern European or Caucasian countries such the Baltic countries, Ukraine or Georgia, who fear a Russian invasion and occupation. Therefore, it is the right of these countries to seek U.S. protection.

But by militarizing these states, and expanding U.S. influence to Russia’s border, NATO is actually making Russia feel encircled, and thus less secure. In fact, it is worth noting that Moscow lost more than the equivalent of the entire European Union in territory with the fall of the Soviet Union.

Moscow has lost its control over its satellites in Eastern Europe, which now are all part of the Western military alliance. According to Fyodor Lukyanov, chair of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, President Vladimir Putin’s description of the disappearance of the Soviet Union as a “major geopolitical disaster” in 2005 “captures the sense of loss that many Russians associate with the post-Soviet era.” For centuries Russia’s security strategy has been to defend its territory by expanding it, thus acquiring a “strategic depth” that would protect the “core” of its territory. Now that NATO, after integrating countries that were previously part of the Warsaw Pact, seeks to expand to countries that were previously part of the Soviet Union (such as Georgia and Ukraine), Putin is ready to use military means to save what is left of the Russian sphere of influence. For example, after pro-Western forces ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovych, Putin responded by invading Crimea.

One might ask whether it would not be antagonistic to U.S. values to sacrifice the concept of self-determination of people in the name of world stability. And yet this concept, applied to certain Eastern European and Caucasian countries, is not as simple. For example, in Eastern Ukraine, most people speak Russian and share cultural ties with Russia, so they are unwilling to develop strong ties with the West at the expense of their ties with Russia. To those who worry for the populations who do not identify with Russia in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus, we must look at one country only: Finland. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed that Finland would not be part of either of these two powers’ spheres of influence, yet it would be allowed to hold free elections and adopt the economic and social model which it aspired to. Finland was able to stay independent, adopt liberalism and experience high growth until the 1970s and rising living standards. The example of Finland is not too far from the European order envisioned by Mikhail Gorbatchev and other Soviet reformists at the end of the Cold War. In reality, I believe that such an order is the most realistic way to promote both stability in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus and cooperation between Russia and the United States.

Such an entente between the U.S. and Russia is much needed in light of the rise of China, and the future Cold War between the U.S. and China that is slowly taking shape. In fact, by alienating Russia, the U.S. is pushing Russia closer to China. And the U.S. cannot afford containing both Russia and China, especially because these two powers, facing a common adversary, are likely to form a geopolitical entente. America has to make a choice, and I believe that because Russia is a declining power holding on to what is left of its past influence (due to its economic decline), whereas China is a rising power; and the U.S. should seek cooperation with Russia in order to better contain China’s rise.

Emile Riachi is a Trinity sophomore.