Last night, Angela Stent came to speak at Dickinson. The discussion encompassed a range of post-Soviet Union politics in relation to the United States. One of the points she made that I found most interesting was (in her words) that “Russia does not really have any allies.” Our class has covered an enormous amount of historical material on Russia at this point, but we have yet to discuss the last two decades in any kind of detail. As this is the first time I have learned about Russia in an academic context, I was surprised to hear Stent make that statement. However, it is certainly not shocking. We have noted in class that in many different contexts, Russia spent a lot of time focusing on itself and believing in it’s own potential without the help of outside countries. Not only is this mentality true for politics, but it’s true for artistic movements as well.

Since the turn of the 20^th century, Russia has been internalizing its methods and negating foreign relations (unless we consider taking new territory to be proper foreign policy). Stent also pointed out that Russia does not believe in meddling with other countries politics as the United States so frequently does. Is it truly necessary for Russia to become more social? I would argue that it is, but the issue of self-improvement is still Russia’s largest problem in many ways. Can self-improvement exist without more friendly global politics? This seems to me to be another idealized notion of Russian culture that will hold the country back until new policies are taken.

At the Clark Forum that I attended tonight there was a lot more cooperation between the U.S. and Russia then I previously thought.  Still, their progress and relationship is limited and in the developmental stages.

Putin has now agreed to meet with President Obama twice this year.  This will be a limited partnership with Russia. Like most European countries the U.S. has no plans to become their ally.  The Russian – U.S. relationship has been a steep and slippery slope since the down fall of the Soviet Union, but both sides have wanted to resolve the situation as much as possible and are disappointed it has not come to fruition.  This relationship has many dimensions and for the U.S. has importance due to Russia’s size, geography, nuclear arsenal, and its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.  In many ways then I previously thought, the U.S. and Russia share common goals.  We together would like to counter terrorism and and face the new and controversial arctic pass along with some global warming initiatives.  The U.S. and Russia’s splinter relationship can hopefully be glued to fit the needs of both countries so as to create the best correspondence possible.

Even with that said, the U.S. and Russia still have some points of disagrement that may prove to haze over things.  The state behavior of the U.S. to Russia is almost appalling because of Russia’s view of classical sovereignty.  They believe sovereignty means not interfering with other regime changes.

The ties between Russia and America can be mended but with time a patience.  The U.S can not expect everting at once and must be realistic and focus on common interests and values that both countries share.

Tonight we attended a lecture on Russia and United States relations since the fall of the Soviet Union, given by Georgetown professor, Angela Stent. The lecture summed up many of the policies that have been put into place by the United States and Russia in regards to one another and how these policies may have either solidified or damaged a potential friendship between the two nations.

Professor Stent started off her talk with a question that many people have asked me when told that I planned on becoming a Russian major. Why is Russia still important if we no longer need to worry about the Soviet Union and communism? Stent responded to this by bringing the point forward that Russia still has the potential to drastically affect our lives without us even realizing it as they not only have a permanent seat on the UN security council, but they also have one of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

As her lecture went on Stent continued to talk about various policies that Russia has put forward, but most importantly in my mind, she talked about the Russian views on these policies and how their point of view is completely different from an American’s. Of everything in her lecture I think that this idea of a differing opinion was one of the most important things that was brought up. For the most part, people (especially Americans), don’t really consider how another side feels about a particular issue and are quick to judge or condemn an action because of this lack of knowledge. I think that by putting the Russian point of view in higher importance that the American perspective, Stent was able to explain why relations between our countries have been strained and why they may talk a long time to get better. Without doing this, I very much believe that she would have been unable to get her point across as effectively.

Dr. Angela Stendt’s lecture on the prospects of US-Russian relations during the second Obama term presented valuable viewpoints on an important contemporary issue. To me, one of the most interesting aspects of her presentation was her discussion of Russian respect for state sovereignty.

                Since the 19^th century, the US has built an image as the policeman of the world. US intervention in foreign affairs is a contentious yet recurring issue, and often begs the question of whether or not one nation has the right to interfere in the actions of a legitimate sovereign state. According to Stendt, Russia has maintained a non-interventionist policy since the fall of the Soviet Union, as Putin believes in the importance of classical definitions of sovereignty. This concept came back to me when Stendt discussed the claim that the reason for terse US-Russian relations is that the US has not had enough empathy for the hardships that Russia has faced in the past two decades. It occurred to me that Russia’s non-interventionist policy may be a result of its desire to focus first and foremost on itself. Many Americans see Russia as a powerful, wealthy, and even potentially dangerous country. You can debate for ages about whether or not US interventions have accomplished more harm than good, but I wonder whether their policies of non-interference can make them less dangerous than a nation such as the US that tries to act as a global police force.

                Tonight’s lecture also confirmed my belief going in that I am woefully ignorant of global politics. I thought Stendt’s presentation was an accessible and well-organized primer for those who wanted to learn more about US relations with Russia, and as we move forward in our study of Russian history I look forward to contextualizing many of the details of tonight’s talk.

I thought that Angela Stent’s brief mention of the reaction to Putin’s reset in her US-Russian relations talk this evening was interesting because of the contradiction set up between class and civil rights.  She said that the urban middle class believed that the Duma election was rigged and that they had no say in the matter.  She then went on to say that the thing the US has the most in common with Russia is a concern for civil rights.  While the demonstrations exhibited by the middle class seemed to be similar to those found in the US before and after elections, it seemed interesting that on a national and international scale that Russia would politically disregard an entire influential sector of the population, which does not seem to be in line with the pursuance of a policy of civil rights.  I think it can also be widely agreed that demonizing the US in response to the elite’s protest was definitely not the right solution, although it can be likened to our own Red Scare of years past.

This made me think of the relatively unsuccessful quests of activism we have studied in this class and references a history when demonstrations were the only means of participation in a political party under the Tsar.  From this incident and Stent’s answer to the democracy question, it seems clear that Russia’s government is unable to leave behind a past of power leaders with little respect for the people over which they rule.  In the absence of democracy, authoritarian leadership certainly provides for the social certainty she said was wanted by the Russian people, but only because there can be no choice but to be certain of one’s station when the government ignores the ideas of its people.

Professor Angela Stent’s lecture covered a myriad of facets of Russia-U.S. relations. What struck me most was her focus on the need for U.S. officials to better empathize with Russia, to better understand their unique position.

Many Russians see U.S. as Russia’s main adversary, a view that is only encouraged by state-run media. It is hardly surprising this would be the dominant view, given the humiliation Russia has experienced. Moving from a superpower to a severely weakened state with a dirty past and a dim future, it is natural that the people of Russia would support a leader who seemed capable of earning the respect Russia has sorely missed.  We see Russia as an extremely powerful, therefore dangerous, country. However, Russians feel acutely vulnerable. This sense of vulnerability can lead to bitterness, as they see the U.S. constantly undermining them, whether it is tightening the “noose” of NATO or criticizing Russia’s human rights abuses, while being soft on China.

She also mentioned the important divide between the middle class in Moscow and the working class in the provinces. When the protests erupted last year, it was commonly held view in the U.S. that these protests signaled that most Russians were against Putin. However, Moscow is not Russia, however it might seem to other nations. Putin is well supported outside of Moscow, both in the provinces and his home city of St. Petersburg. Although he clearly abuses his grip on power, it is not a sure thing that even if elections were completely honest, he would lose. That fact is not just indicative of Putin’s popularity but also of the lack of any viable opponents, a reality made sure by Kremlin policies.

After the lecture, I was left with several questions regarding the future of Russia, the most important question regarding the possible effects of oil prices. Putin’s popularity is heavily due to the economic success enjoyed under his watch. However, this economic success is mostly due to a reliance on the exportation of expensive oil. However, when oil prices fall (and it is a question of when, not if) I wonder what the effect will be on Russian politics. People are less likely to permit civil right abuses if the economy tanks, but Putin will likely turn to even more authoritarian techniques, to stay in power.

As I was looking through various news stories regarding Russia, I noticed that almost all of them are about something negative such as military activity or potential threats against the United States. I think this goes back to a blog post I had the other week about the portrayal of Russians in American films. Ranging from economic protests to the Kremlin encroaching on new spheres of influence, the media coverage of Russia only seems to further push Russians away from the western countries.

I’m not saying that the Russians are not guilty of many if not all of these things; however, I think it is important to show both sides of a civilization, rather than just the politics that go against the United States. We see this problem not only with Russia but with the Middle East as well. Media coverage of the war on terror has led to a vast amount of negative press regarding Muslims and middle-easterners in general. This has in turn caused a very negative public opinion of these groups. The same thing happened during Soviet times and will continue as long as the people condone this kind of media.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russia/index.html

If you just look at the New York Times almost all of the stories featured are negative in some way or another. Because this is one of the biggest sources of news in the United States, many people are influenced by this, thus making the problem worse.