Russian opposition lands in Washington to urge stepping up pressure on the Kremlin

Washington – Probably to make sure that nobody has any doubts that America is indeed behind many opposition protests their leaders are landing in Washington to present a totally predictable agenda: Obama should sharply toughen up his attitude toward the Putin regime as the reset has failed and fresh ideas are needed.

This is exactly what Obama needs right now. At a time when he and his administration are desperately searching for the new ideas to solve the numerous domestic and external problems, the Russian opposition and their American friends are doing everything possible to significantly expand the list of such problems. The gathering began on at the Heritage Foundation, where opposition activist and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza who is now also a fellow of the Institute of Contemporary Russia (president Mikhail Khodorkovskiy's son Pavel), made his modest contribution to the discussion of recommendations for the US president. Among them the speediest deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, no military budget cuts, and the achievement of the total supremacy of all US space, ground, air, and naval forces in Europe and Eurasia. Russia needs to be forced to buy American meat and America has to expand military and economic cooperation with key Eurasian countries -- Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan (Georgia appears to have been dumped). But the main thing, of course, is support for the Russian opposition in the fight for democracy and human rights.

Kara-Murza particularly disliked the fact that "at a time when thousands of Muscovites had gathered in Pushkin Square to voice their protest against the dishonest presidential elections, the US State Department warmly congratulated Vladimir Putin on his victory." The main event, however, is expected to take place on March 4 in the US Senate, where the principal role will be played by Freedom House, since it is from there that Putin will really get it in the neck. So far Lyudmila Alekseyeva, Mikhail Kasyanov, Dmitriy Gudkov, and Liliya Shevtsova have been announced as speakers but the appearance of other oppositionists is also a possibility. On the eve of the gathering Freedom House and Liliya Shevtsova published their manifestos so no special sensations are expected, but who knows?

Freedom House is pushing for a significant increase in financial and moral support for the Russian opposition and also for a quest for more "innovative ways to achieve the political liberalization of Russia." As an innovative approach it states outright that it is necessary to "issue a tough challenge not only to Russia but also to various authoritarian organizations where it belongs including Eurasian Union, Collective Security Treaty Organization, Commopnealth of Independent States, and Shanghai Cooperation Organization."

Those who follow the news from the United States know that the main subject these days is the budget sequestration. However, in Freedom House's opinion, social security, healthcare, education, and even Pentagon are not as important as the support of Russian opposition, and so this budget line should not shrink but grow. The pitiful $50 million allocated to promote democracy in Russia is a drop in the ocean for such an ambitious program. One gets a particular pleasure to hear the call to challenge Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where one of the main players is China – our largest creditor to whom we owe almost $1.5 trillion. Now it looks like we have to ask them for more to fund the activities against the creditors themselves. It would be interesting to hear the Chinese comrades' response to such a request!

The even more stunning proposals, however, are emanating from the very heart of Moscow -- the offices of the Russian branch of the Carnegie Foundation on Pushkin Square. Liliya Shevtsova, a senior fellow with the foundation, proposes a much more radical approach -- a return to the policy of containment of Putin's Russia. This policy was first suggested by US diplomat George Kennan in his famous cable from Moscow in 1946 to limit the global expansion of Soviet communism. It was probably a good idea at the time but 50 years later it was the same George Kennan who called the NATO expansion to the East to be a great and tragic geopolitical mistake. 

Nobody disputes that Russian democratic institutions are still too weak and suffer from many deficiencies that accompany the early stages of democracy development. However, present day Russia is not attempting to spread its ideology or threaten anyone's security as the USSR did.

Present-day Russia is primarily a regional power with no particular global ambitions. It has, of course, its own interests, which sometimes do not coincide with those of US but these interests do coincide on the most important issues such as the fight against international terrorism, drugs trafficking, nuclear nonproliferation, and others. So the calls to revive the policy of Russia’s containment are not only inappropriate but also dangerous since they turn Russia from, yes, not very reliable partner into an outright enemy. I do not believe that America needs that but it is from here that Shevtsova gets her salary.

The position of the Carnegie Foundation leadership is also not totally clear. Jim Collins, former US ambassador to Moscow and now director of the foundation's Russia programs; his deputy Matt Rojansky; and also Dmitriy Trenin, director of this foundation's Moscow branch, are known for their sober and pragmatic approach to American-Russian relations. Both Moscow and Washington would be wise to listen to their opinions. It is also clear that the foundation's staffers have total freedom of expression, but can they contradict its strategic line at the same time? If this is not the case, is it possible to suggest that the foundation's leaders regard a policy of containing Russia as correct and are prepared to propose it to the White House?