United States of America vs. Russian Federation
The Russian Federation and its relations with the other states, especially the US, have seriously gone through a tremendous rollercoaster following the latest events. However, the most beautiful, yet challenging task of international relations, is the necessity to always observe a situation through a spectrum of theories, analyzing its every corner, shadow, and substrate. Without having a wide perspective regarding this conflict, sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking that both stability and good cooperation were genuine elements of the interstate dynamic. Then, suddenly, Russia started to keep the prior-Soviet states under close observation, get involved as a supporter in various conflicts, such as the Belarusian- Polish one, and initiate aggressive acts, such as sending troops to the Ukrainian border. But what if we can understand what is going through the minds of those governing Russia? Let’s try to find the “motive”, as the criminal stories writer, Agatha Christie, would say.
In the winter of 1990, tensions were rising, as the anti-communist demonstrations advocating for the unification of Germany were starting to increase. Until then, the German eastern side was under soviet control, whilst the West belonged to the liberal states. Russia knew that a brutal fall of the Berlin wall would decisively compromise its power, therefore it was already taking into consideration the scenario in which to approve the unification of Germany, to seem as if it listens to the voice of the German population. Moreover, in February, the US secretary of state, James Baker, went to Moscow to make some guarantees to the soviet leader, Mihail Gorbachov. Baker told Gorbachov that he shouldn’t worry, because, if he agrees to let a unified Germany become a member of NATO, not even the smallest part of the military jurisdiction of NATO would expand eastwards. And this is not the only time this kind of promise was brought up. Numerous times after, the American leaders under the Reagan and Bush administrations, stated during conferences- “Every expansion of the NATO zone is unacceptable”! History showed us that Gorbachov trusted these verbal guarantees- after all, why would he have needed anything written?
The problem now arises- without a written assurance, the grounds on which the United States promised to the Soviet Union not to begin a territorial expansion in Europe became highly debated. Russia perceived the current activity of NATO as violating their agreement. Therefore, being the witness to the recent eastward expansion of NATO, which consisted of newly-added neighboring states of Russia to NATO, such as the Baltic Sea States, and countries that developed partnerships with NATO, such as Ukraine, Russia felt that its territory was worryingly encircled. This came as a threat to its security, power, sovereignty, and good relations with the prior Soviet states. Hence, Russia longs to reclarify its position and capabilities to the world, with little consideration for future sanctions. Thus, we can analyze the conflict between Russia and the US through an action-reaction perspective- action: the USA broke its promise of not expanding NATO eastwards; reaction: Russia started to become aggressive. And the competing interests are the following: the USA wishes to significantly mark its influence in Europe through NATO, while Russia wants to significantly mark its influence on the prior Soviet state- NATO is the one that makes the difference.
The question is- how are the Russian interests and worries shaping its politics? According to the realists, politics drives economics and not the other way around. Therefore, Russia used energy resources as a foreign policy tool for punishing the states that were overriding its intentions. Shortly after, in 2022 the natural gas exports to Poland and Bulgaria were cut off, raising an indubitable point regarding its international position. The fact that the other countries brutally saw that they were significantly dependent on the energy supplies of Russia, provided Russia with a kind of reinforcement and security precaution. By making the others aware of its power, the international community is highly constrained in taking effective actions against Russia's aggressive acts. All of the states know very well that this is a vulnerability that can be cruelly exploited by Russia to its advantage.
Having all of these in mind, there is more in the relations between the US and Russia than what we see on the surface. That’s why the observation of Lord Palmerston, a past Prime Minister of Great Britain, is still applicable, valuable, and realistic even for our case -" Britain doesn't have eternal allies, and it has no perpetual enemies. Its interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow!". This emphasizes that since always the state of cooperation between states was a manifestation of the transience. Because under any agreements, commitment promises, and operations of reciprocity, lie each state's fulminant interests.
Comentários