The United States and Russia: What's to Talk About?

by Gerard Emershaw

President Obama has decided to pull out of a planned one-on-one summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow next month. This marks a dangerous turn in relations between the White House and Kremlin. The Wall Street Journal and many other mainstream sources claim that Obama's snub of Putin is due to Russia granting temporary asylum to whistleblower Edward Snowden. Joel B. Pollak of Breitbart claims that the snub is due to Russia's insistence that it will enforce its homophobic anti-gay laws during the Winter Olympics in 2014 in Sochi.

Regardless of why President Obama canceled the summit with President Putin, it is a major mistake. President Obama—like most presidents since McKinley—loves wielding powers that are not granted to the president in the Constitution. Whether it's declaring war or assassinating American citizens with drones, modern presidents love to act like Caesar. One of the few powers granted to the commander-in-chief in the Constitution is the power to make treaties. Thus, the President has the power to meet with foreign leaders as the sole representative of the United States. While Congress has the responsibility to confirm any treaties that the President makes, foreign diplomacy mostly rests with the executive branch.

Some may argue that not meeting with Putin is no big deal. What are the chances that some big agreement will come from the summit? What is the real harm if Barry and Vlad do not have a face-to-face chat in September?

The truth is that it is a big deal. The Cold War has only been over for two decades. While this may seem like a long time, Putin's belicosity and Obama's aloofness could be just the combination that again freezes American-Russian relations and begins a new Cold War. Putin has acted as if that is what he wants for much of his time in the Kremlin. Obama seems to enjoy “kinetic military action,” so maybe he would also enjoy a Cold War.

There are five very good reasons why President Obama should meet with President Putin as often as possible.

1. Syria

In 1914, problems in the seemingly insignificant country of Serbia ignited World War I—which lasted four years, led to the mobilization of more than 70 million military personnel from more than twenty of the world's most powerful nations, and killed over 9 million combatants. Syria is just the kind of insignificant nation which could ignite a war between the United States and Syria.

Russia is one of the staunchest allies of Bashar al-Assad's Stalinist Ba'athist Party in Damascus. The United States is arming the Jihadist Syrian rebels which includes elements of al Qaeda in its ranks. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. The United States, in contrast, has no real significant interest in Syria. Syria's petroleum industry accounts for just a drop in the bucket of world production. A Jihadist-dominated government in Syria is likely to be a greater threat to the United States and allies like Israel than the Stalinist paper tiger al-Assad.

The United States is well advised to take a non-interventionist approach in Syria. Unfortunately, President Obama loves nothing more than to take a Wilsonian approach. But instead of “making the world safe for democracy,” President Obama tends to make the world safe for radical and violent Islamic fundamentalism as he has already done in Libya. Given that President Obama seems fully committed to aiding al Qaeda-friendly elements in Syria, it is even more essential that President Obama meet early and often with President Putin. The effects that can potentially be caused by the violent and foolhardy interactions of two such despotic and arrogant leaders in a civil war are as dangerous as can be. Syria is even more Podunk than Cuba was in the 1960s. Therefore, it is just the sort of place that could cause the next Cuban Missile Crisis type situation.

2. Nuclear Arms

Neoconservative and neo-progressive wonks have all been quaking in their boots for years over the possibility of Iran eventually developing or acquiring a single nuclear weapon. Well, Russia still has 8,420 nuclear weapons. Of these, an estimated 1,720 are operational, 2,700 are in storage, and 4,000 are “retired, awaiting dismantlement.”

Taking every possible step to ensure that Russia dismantles as many of these weapons as possible is in the best interests of the United States given that Russia's weapons actually do pose an existential threat to the United States and her allies. Allowing Snowden, anti-gay Russian laws, Obama's pride, or anything else to get in the way of diplomatic discussion between the United States and Russia on the issue of nuclear arms is nothing short of insanity.

3. The cost of a new Cold War

The United States is approximately $17 trillion in debt. Its military budget is already an unsustainable $865 billion. Even with no true superpower rival, the United States insists on spending more on its military than the next 13 nations combined. What if President Putin decided to reignite the Cold War? He has been trying to gin up a new Cold War for some time now. How could the United States afford a new Cold War? Sure, the Military-Industrial Complex and the neocon chickenhawks would adore a new Cold War, but how can the American people possibly afford one?

4. Trade

American trade with Russia in 2012 consisted of nearly $11 billion in exports and nearly $30 billion in imports. Endangering so much trade would certainly be detrimental to the United States economy as well as the world economy. Russia has a population of over 140 million people. While there is some disagreement over the numbers, most agree that the Russian middle class is growing. It would be far better for the United States to treat these middle class Russians as potential customers for American businesses than to treat them again as potential targets for American weapons of mass destruction. What the American and Russian economies can both use is even more free trade between the two nations. The last thing that they need is another Cold War. Despite what crazy Keynesians might believe, war—whether “hot” or “cold”—is not good for a nation's economy. What is good for the economy is the production of goods that consumers—whether in Saint Petersburg, Russia or St. Petersburg, Florida—wish to buy.

5. Oil

It is a crying shame that an advanced space age and computer age civilization like the human race powers itself with the remains of dead plants and animals—a.k.a. oil, petroleum, "black gold," Texas tea, etc. Nevertheless, since the world is so dependent on oil, it is a good idea that the United States remain friendly with as many petroleum producing nations as possible. It is unlikely that Americans will support many more "humanitarian" regime-changing, nation-building enterprises in oil producing nations. Plus, unless the neocons and neo-progressives fancy a war with Canada, Mexico, or Norway, there simply are not that many petroleum exporting nations that the United States has not already waged a war of aggression against. The United States needs cheap oil, and Russia has it. Russia is one of the world's largest oil producers. Having cordial relations with as many oil producing nations as possible is the best way to ensure that cheap oil is available as long as possible as the world nears "peak oil."