Nixon Center: a strongly Pro-Russian report by a conservative think tank

[1curious]

http://www.nixoncenter.org/RussiaReport09.pdf

THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA

The group of the 19 influential experts and congresspersons created a report that represent sharp departure from the Bush Administration policies. The group includes some highly respected and influential stalwarts of American politics: Sam Nunn, LT. GEN. BRENT SCOWCROFT (RET.), GEN. CHARLES G. BOYD (RET.), ROBERT C. MCFARLANE, LEE HAMILTON and others.

Some revealing excerpts:


We must also significantly improve our understanding of Russian interests as Russians themselves define them.

Take a new look at missile-defense deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic

Accept that neither Ukraine nor Georgia is ready for NATO membership

Without deep Russian cooperation, no strategy is likely to succeed in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear war.

Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia


America has a strong interest in winning Russian cooperation: key U.S. allies would prefer such an approach


United States should take advantage of the window of opportunity created by falling prices to reopen its energy dialogue with Russia.

attempts to pull countries away from Russia or to block legal Russian activities are unlikely to succeed. Russia’s war with Georgia and its gas disputes with Ukraine should remind us that making the region a political battlefield can have dangerous unintended consequences

[Invisigoth]

Scarily enough, i completely agree with them, especially on Ukraine and Georgia.

[1curious]

Scarily enough, i completely agree with them, especially on Ukraine and Georgia.
Me too. This is an interesting development indeed -- a conservative US think tank that‘s close to traditional Reagan Republicans (NOT neocon!) is issuing the strongest to-date policy advocacy paper. These are NOT peaceniks, liberals or anti-NATO radicals.

What we are witnessing is the struggle between two Washington groups. One for a drastic change vs. another representing mostly cold-war-minded policy of containment.

It is the fact of American way of doing political business - the change can occur only AFTER intense, prolonged attempts to sell it. The main buyer, or perhaps even a seller, is Obama. Either he is actively engaging these groups to sell his own ideas prior to de facto change, or there is genuine push in Washington for a change. I believe it’s the latter.

[Mackie]

Washington should not expect that it can attempt to create its own sphere of influence on Russia’s borders while simultaneously seeking a constructive relationship with Russia

For this it has to be a think tank. O.o
But nice report. Hope Republicans will turn around and accept it. Or is it too close to Obamas foreign policy?

Would be nice to say byebye neocons:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk143/xMackiexl/87-Billion-Gang8sep03.jpg

[vryhpyammoadded]

Well, duhhhh… No kidding it would be good policy but I doubt the DC kleptocrats in power know anymore how to not break necks the hard way or on the other hand resist slipping people the bone on the sly.

Neocons, what? LOL…rofl

[matthew.manhorn]

Reagan had a more moderate approach towards the USSR during the last years of his presidency. It's kinda funny since the Republicans are more Russian-friendly than the democrats (Nixon's visit to USSR and Reagan's INF treaty, Bush senior being modest after USSR's collapse) while the Democrats (Truman being aggressive to Soviets, Carter boycotting 1980 olympics, Clinton expanding NATO to Yugoslavia) are more anti-Russian.

Bush was a smart man who befriended Georgia to secure its route to Azeri oil, but I still think relations with Russia value higher than those with Georgia politically. However the Cold War ended when I was born therefore I'm not sure about American people's mentality towards Russia.

[Ordie]

These guys are not the Neocons (Bush Doctrine) nor the Idealist (Albright) school of thought. They are sort of the middle.

Realist.

[Hilbert]

Scarily enough, i completely agree with them, especially on Ukraine and Georgia.

I second that.

[cold_warrior]

I agree with the statements about Ukraine and Georgia, however we can't sell out the Baltic states and Poland despite how butthurt Russia gets about their membership in NATO.

I'm of the view that there is a great potential for a Russia-China conflict in the future that will not end well for Russia given their deteriorating demographic situation. I believe that this, and not "retaking" Taiwan, is the reason for China's expanding military. Taiwan is really only of value to Bejing if they take it in one piece and undamaged while Siberia holds huge amounts of natural resources that China needs.


These guys are not the Neocons (Bush Doctrine) nor the Idealist (Albright) school of thought. They are sort of the middle.

Realist.

Not surprised. Nixon's Secretary of State was Kissinger after all.

[KilRemgor]

I'm of the view that there is a great potential for a Russia-China conflict in the future that will not end well for Russia given their deteriorating demographic situation.
Then why do they go that much for aircraft carriers/navy/submarines and attempt to control the seas? Those assets won't help them over Siberia.
China attacking Russia alone is quite strange, as for Russia plans for fighting should be quite simple (and should be told to China for deterrence): if China fights with regular army then its ok (and Russia does have a fair chance of winning there), but as soon as Chinese start giving AKs to random farmers, conscripts and reservists, nukes are in the air. Russia will be devastated by Chinese nuclear attack, but not destroyed, while China with its dam situation and population density will be gone off the map forever. There is no point for Russia to keep the war conventional if China decides to add few 10's of millions of fresh AK conscripts into the picture, even with ok demographic situation in Russia that would've been very hard to stop without nukes.

So China is unlikely to attack directly, for China it is much wiser to intervene only if, say, NATO attacks Russia, or some revolution happens in Russia removing effective leadership, or attempt 'peaceful takeover'. And if those doesn't happen, just buy the oil and sell the cheap Chinese goods back for profit.

[cold_warrior]

Then why do they go that much for aircraft carriers/navy/submarines and attempt to control the seas? Those assets won't help them over Siberia.
China attacking Russia alone is quite strange, as for Russia plans for fighting should be quite simple (and should be told to China for deterrence): if China fights with regular army then its ok (and Russia does have a fair chance of winning there), but as soon as Chinese start giving AKs to random farmers, conscripts and reservists, nukes are in the air. Russia will be devastated by Chinese nuclear attack, but not destroyed, while China with its dam situation and population density will be gone off the map forever. There is no point for Russia to keep the war conventional if China decides to add few 10's of millions of fresh AK conscripts into the picture, even with ok demographic situation in Russia that would've been very hard to stop without nukes.

So China is unlikely to attack directly, for China it is much wiser to intervene only if, say, NATO attacks Russia, or some revolution happens in Russia removing effective leadership, or attempt 'peaceful takeover'. And if those doesn't happen, just buy the oil and sell the cheap Chinese goods back for profit.

Well, these guys are sitting in Vladivostok, a place close enough to China to warrant a Chinese-language name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean_Fleet_(Russia)

But I agree with you that they would not hesitate to seize the opportunity presented by internal strife in Russia.

[Lokos]

KilRemgor:

The Chinese, whose demographic situation isn't that much better than Russia's, don't have a need for lebensraum in Siberia or the RFE. The only realistic hypothetical conflict scenario involves strategic resources. Which would be much cheaper to buy, in any case.

L.

[NavyTimes]

Seems very sensible indeed.

[ren0312]

These guys are not the Neocons (Bush Doctrine) nor the Idealist (Albright) school of thought. They are sort of the middle.

Realist.

Both the neocons and the idealists believe the US has a manifest destiny to remake to world in its image, the only difference is in the methods they use to achieve their same ends, sort of like the old good cop/bad cop routine, with the neocons being the bad cop, and the idealists being the good cop.