MOSCOW. (Edward Lozansky for RIA Novosti.)
Despite the August lull and summer vacations, American experts on Russia have been fired up by a policy brief issued by Anders Aslund, director of the Russian and Eurasian Program and Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, entitled "Putin's Decline and America's Response."
If Aslund had issued this report as a private individual, it could have been ignored. After all, his other predictions, such as his claim that Putin would inevitably be overthrown by a KGB coup or a mass public uprising, have not stood up to serious analysis and showed Aslund to be an amateur.
But the full text of this latest report was published on the official site of the respected Carnegie Endowment, which has a center in Moscow. This means that observers of U.S.-Russian relations cannot disregard it as simply being the personal opinion of an intellectually weak political scientist.
The report makes a number of highly questionable recommendations to the White House. If anyone in the Bush administration takes them seriously, which it is to be sincerely hoped they will not, it will cause major problems.
The heated debate began when Aslund's report was sent to thousands of Johnson's Russia List subscribers. Johnson's Russia List is one of the web publications most respected by the expert community. Its owner, David Johnson, asked readers to submit their comments, and the overwhelming majority of experts were scathing of the report. In my opinion, the most dangerous part of the report is the section containing recommendations for the U.S. administration, where in effect the author calls upon America to finance a revolution in Russia. He writes:
"Given that the recent democratic breakthroughs in Russia have been connected to elections, their monitoring should be a focus of U.S. support, and the best monitors have proven to be nongovernmental organizations... The Untied States can assist in setting up independent exit poll for elections. The most effective protests in the region have been those led by student activist organizations: Otpor in Serbia, Kmara in Georgia, Zubr in Belarus, and Pora in Ukraine. Their techniques are well known, and can and should also be disseminated in Russia."
In this way, Aslund, and in effect the Carnegie Endowment, are calling upon the White House to "roll out" another "color revolution" just like the ones in Ukraine and Georgia. The leader of the Russian revolution, which it seems could be called a "birch" revolution, after one of the symbols of Russia, has already been selected. It is none other than Mikhail Kasyanov, who is either in hiding or taking an extended vacation abroad.
Aslund has done Kasyanov a disservice, which could result in the indefinite extension of the Russian Yushchenko's "vacation". However, this is not the main issue. If Aslund's crazy ideas were only taken up by the Washington think tanks, which are funded by Yukos, it would be regrettable, but not a disaster. Unfortunately, their influence can also be felt in the White House. This is extremely dangerous, because the consequences of a "birch revolution" in Russia would be catastrophic for Russia and the rest of the world. Given the total demoralization of the Russian democrats and the absence of a charismatic leader, the democrats would not win 10% of the vote even if they did the impossible and united forces. This would bring such people to power that the staff of the Carnegie Moscow Center would be sent packing.
I voted for Bush and would say I sit on the right flank of the Republican Party. Therefore, I think I have the moral right to say the following to my fellow party members, George Bush and Condoleezza Rice:
Dear George and Condie, I fully share your dream of promoting freedom and democracy in the world. But you should know that this is a very long process and that America, despite all its might, cannot simultaneously carry out this process in all countries in just a short period of time. We should be establishing priorities and timescales. Compared to many countries, Russia, despite its shortcomings, is a guiding light of democracy. And so I would like to ask you to ignore Aslund's unsolicited recommendations and leave Russia alone. Let us first deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea.
America does not have that many reliable allies and so it would be inadvisable to try to force our values on potential friends. At the very least, would it not be better to ask the opinion of Russians first? Maybe we should poll them on this issue? I would say the overwhelming majority of Russians want to live in a free and democratic state, but I am sure that they would prefer to build such a state using their own forces, without external interference.
There are many foreign policy problems on America's agenda now. Several years ago, they were limited, by and large, to the states belonging to the "axis of evil". But problems in Eurasia are mounting year on year. Beijing is quickly building up its geopolitical muscle, trying to raise the status of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to draw in such heavyweights as India, Pakistan and Iran. There may come a day when Eurasia becomes stronger than America, and the balance of power, at least in this region, will largely depend on which side Russia takes.
Russia, with its vast energy resources that are well protected by its nuclear might, now has a choice. It no longer needs American assistance or even its money. Moreover, Russia has grown tired of Washington's endless exhortations and lecturing. This is why the U.S. should review its strategy in this geopolitical situation and focus its efforts on creating an American-Russian strategic alliance. At the very least, it should not push Russia into China's arms.
Dr. Edward Lozansky is president of the American University in Moscow
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
