The Shifting Balance of Power and Influence in the Russian-American Relationship

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, Igor Zevelev, Washington Bureau Chief, RIA Novosti, and former Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center, argued that the deterioration in Russian-U.S. relations since 2003 cannot be blamed entirely on Russia's increasing authoritarianism, as some American analysts do. During the Yeltsin administration and early in the Putin administration, he contended, U.S. and Russian leaders were able to cooperate in spite of various anti-democratic actions by both administrations. The central problem of U.S.-Russian relations today, according to Zevelev, is that the two countries have very different perceptions of the main issues in the international arena, and neither has enough influence to change the perceptions of the other.

Citing Joseph Nye, Zevelev argued that there is an important difference between hard and soft power. While hard power is the ability of one actor to coerce another into doing something it would not otherwise do, soft power is the ability to use ideology or values, influence, and leadership to set the rules of the game and achieve desired outcomes. The U.S. has advantages over Russia in hard power (due to superior military strength and a larger economy) and in soft power (by promoting the universal values of liberal democracy). In spite of these advantages, according to Zevelev, the U.S. has in recent years been unable to exert its influence or force Russia to changes its perceptions of, or its actions in the international arena.

Zevelev believes that the primary limitation to U.S. influence on Russia is that the U.S. has not succeeded in converting its hard power into soft power that would effect Russian preferences, desires, and perceptions.In fact, Russian and American perceptions of interests have been diverging since the mid-1990s. The major reasons for this failure of U.S. soft power, Zevelev argued, is Russia's increasing confidence and decreasing sense of ambiguity about its national identity. Russia has enjoyed substantial economic achievements over the past 7 years and is no longer forced to base its economic policy on the recommendations of other governments, the World Bank ,or the IMF. Zevelev noted that this progress has led Russia to a certain degree of overconfidence. Just as the U.S. tends to overestimate its ability to influence outcomes in Russia, Russia overestimates its ability to influence outcomes in other post-Soviet states, leading to serious Russian foreign policy failures over the past few years.

Russian and U.S. perception of interests today differ markedly in several areas, the most important of which are the war on terrorism and the promotion of democracy, according to Zevelev. Until the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Russia and the U.S. had compatible understandings of the war on terrorism. Today, however, Iraq has become central to the official U.S. understanding of the war on terrorism, while Russia views it as entirely separate. Zevelev argued that Russia is particularly unwilling to side with the U.S. in what it perceives as clashes with the Muslim world, because Russia views itself as a bridge between the Islamic and western worlds.

On the issue of democracy promotion, Zevelev continued, the Russian perspective has been diverging from the U.S. perspective since the late1990s, when political discourse within Russia began to emphasize stability and prosperity over democracy. Russian leaders, who are very much focused on hard power, cannot see U.S. democracy promotion as anything other than a smokescreen for the pursuit of American national interests, he argued. Therefore, U.S. democracy-promotion efforts are unlikely to be successful in Russia. Zevelev believes that they have, in fact, done a great deal to discredit the idea of democracy among many Russians.

Zevelev concluded that although the U.S. does have sufficient hard power to constrain Russia's actions in the international arena, it is unlikely that Russia's leaders will be persuaded to accept the American rules of the game any time in the near future. Given this constraint, Zevelev argued, the wisest course for the United States would be integrating Russia as a stakeholder in to international system. The U.S. should maintain a consistent policy of including Russia in international organizations such as the G8 and the Russia-NATO Council, and include Russia in initiatives such as the anti-terrorism coalition and efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Working with Russia will allow the two countries to find areas of common ground, while excluding Russia will only lead to greater strains in the U.S.-Russian relationship