Russian Spring and US National Interest

One night the Khalif Harum al Rashid summoned his vizier Jafar and said to him: “I wish to go into the city to find out what is happening and to question the people about the conduct of my administrators so that I may dismiss those who they complain of and promote those they praise...”
from the Tale of Three Apples not Newton's, Beatles' and Steve Jobs' but the one from The Thousand and One Nights

The Khalif in Moscow seems to have forgotten that he has to check what people think of his administrators and confident in his popularity after ruling uncontested for over 12 years was unpleasantly surprised by his party's loss of more than 20 per cent of their seats in the Russian parliament regardless of the intimidation of his opponents and his control over the media (perhaps that was caused in part by the 20 per cent increase of internet penetration among the highly literate Russian population). Even worse he seems failing to acknowledge that the people have genuine concerns and dismisses the protesters in true Leninist style as paid by the West. To top it up US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed her concern with the rigged elections, prompting Mr Putin to retaliate that she was instigating the protests which is hardly try. Try spending several hours outside in the Russian winter. No matter how big a fan of Mrs Clinton you may be that thought won't be enough to keep you warm. Just how shaky Putin's position is at the moment can be discerned by his nervousness and lack of confidence (this is the man who rides his horse half-naked even when Sarah Palin is not watching from Alaska) but making the allusion that the white ribbons used by the protesters look like condoms is pretty low (and exposes ignorance that condoms may come in different colors). Gorbachev too (hardly a political competitor anymore) incurred the wrath of Putin by calling for a rerun of the elections.
Having said all that most of the protesters have spent most of their creative lives under the relatively secure, stable and prosperous rule of Putin and his political allies especially if compared with the chaotic Yeltsin regime. Those are the less flamboyant KGB guys (the more extravagant ones are in London dazzling the UK public with extreme wealth obtain though unthinkable corruption) and they may continue to rule Russia for quite some time with or without Putin mostly because they are unlikely to give up their positions without a fight. On the other hand the protestors are not the workers, soldiers and sailors of the October Revolution from the previous century. They are mostly middle class people who are looking for a government that can provide for more opportunities for development and innovation besides selling oil and gas to the West and China.
And that is where the interests of the people standing in the cold in Russia coincide with US national interest. A more democratic Russia where innovation and development will create more markets for US products and more products for US markets can only benefit the US middle class.
In that line of thought it was lucky timing that Russia was accepted as a member of the WTO just when it needs a boost. US – Russia relations cannot be fully covered by the philosophy of a “reset”. They need much more creative thinking to build a whole new system of interdependence and cooperation that will not only boost domestic economies but help create the conditions for stability and prosperity across Eurasia where pockets of volatile conflicts and regional animosities threaten to blow out of proportions, not to mention the imminent collapse of Chinese communism with yet unknown and unpredictable consequences.
The most precious legacy of the G.W. Bush era is the expensive lesson that the US cannot and should not act alone attempting to resolve international issues no matter how well-intentioned and powerful it may feel. It is debilitatingly expensive and the results are at best inconclusive if not disastrous.
The cheapest and most effective way to promote US national interest globally (and in space) is through cooperation – Marshal Plan style, or Kissinger's policy towards China style or International Space Station style. That is not confined to US international experience. Post WWII French policy to entangle Germany in an EU, (I remember it was originally an US idea) but it only became successful after France started pursuing it with religious fervor, and has managed to forge fascinating unity on the Old Continent torn by the most devastating wars in human history less than a century ago, and that united continent is one of the most reliable US trade partners and military allies.
Russia has moved a long way since the stagnation of the Brezhnev era. It is not perfect but it is moving slowly forward. It's in our interest to support that movement.

… the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand as in what direction we are moving: To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it— but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor...
--- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

Henry Kissinger sent to Russia by Obama: what to expect?

If Henry Kissinger is up to some secret negotiations dramatic results are bound to follow. Usually good for the US and the rest of the world: like the end of the Vietnam war, transforming China from worst enemy to best trading partner, and ending hostilities between Israel and Egypt. What can we expect now?
Russia has been steadily antagonised by withholding their WTO membership for no valid reasons, promoting NATO expansion while Russia is not invited they have no choice but regard NATO as a hostile organisation, prod neighbours like Georgia to physically attack Russian soldiers. Not the best trust building policies. But what should be done?
I think the best approach will be to hug the bear so hard it will find it hard not to respond. Let me explain:
1. That's the approach the US used successfully in post-war Germany and Japan, that was the approach used successfully by the brilliant Nixon-Kissinger team towards communist China. (I wonder how the US would have managed in a world where the worlds most powerful economies were hostile).
2. The mindless foreign policy of the Bush administration has successfully alienated the US from most of the civilized world and has left the current administration with almost no alternative than try and repair the eroded trust (which ultimately may be a good thing: nothing wrong with consistently positive foreign policy for a change).
3. Siemens (from Germany) is developing nuclear cooperation with Russia, Areva (from France) with China, Iran is sending a satellite in space with Russian help and Russo-Chinese and Russo-Indian military cooperation (not without their own problems) is developing. It looks like Joe Biden is on his way to start repairing the damage done by the Bush administration in alienating the Europeans. The alternative will be an undesirable anti-American Euro-Russo alliance (or even worse Euro-Russo-Chinese or Indian alliance. Unlikely because of the the importance of the US for these countries that will neutralize their interest in anti US arrangements. Possible US protectionism though could make that option more viable.

That's why I think Afghanistan is the smallest American foreign policy problem. I regret to be cynical but who cares about that illiterate mountain people and a bunch of smelly Taliban with flea infested beards. No one! Just cut of their sources of international currency and they will literally have no money to travel abroad to cause trouble. (If you really care about the Afghan people think about how to offer them better livelihood than growing poppies for the Taliban instead of how to send more troops that might be cheaper and more effective).

So I suggest:
1. Get Russia into the WTO, NATO and the EU which will lead to better transparency and trust. Keeping them out gives the government the excuse to brake international norms.
2. Get the Russian army into Afghanistan (if they are to share the fruits of democracy they should share the responsibilities too).
3. Increase academic exchange between the two countries for two reasons:
a) that may actually benefit the US in the flow of technology and b) that will increase understanding and good will between the two countries and make it more difficult for the ruling elites to resort to war mongering and scare tactics.
c)send government funded consultants to help improve Russian economy (no one want's to fight on a full belly:)