STEPHEN COHEN: There seems to be a kind of a resentment in the West that
Russia has so many resources. It's so big and it's got all this oil and
this gas and timber and gold and diamonds and everything. ... I think
some American- some eminent American, and I don't want to defame her,
but I think it might have been Madeline Albright-said, "Russia has too
many resources for Russia alone to manage." Like Russia should share.
There's a kind of resentment. The only answer to this is blame God. I
mean, God gave Russia all this territory and all these resources. It
belongs to Russia. It seems to methat what the logical approach is, is
to learn how to cooperate. I don't think the Russians are determined to
be monopolistic or aggressive in the use of their resources. If nothing
else, they desperately need Western financial help in extracting them,
particularly as they get harder and harder to extract. ...


http://www.hd.net/transcript_list.php?pd=danrather
June 2, 2009

Dan Rather Reports
Episode Number: 419 v1
Episode Title: Rethinking Russia

Description: Tonight, excerpts from the first U.S. television interview
with Lakhdar
Boumediene, a man who spent nearly seven years in the U.S. Detention
Camp at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and was released just two weeks ago to France. See
the rest
of the interview on next week's Dan Rather Reports. Also, a discussion
with three
prominent Russia scholars on the state of relations between the United
States and Russia.

...

RETHINKING RUSSIA.

RETHINKING RUSSIA:
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
THESE DAYS THERE ARE NO SHORTAGE OF STORIES COMPETING FOR
NEWSPAPER FRONT PAGES, BLOG HITS, AND TELEVISION AIR TIME.
THERE'S THE ECONOMIC CRISIS, WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ,
PUBLIC HEALTH OUTBREAKS, BANK BAILOUTS, AND ON AND ON. BUT
BELOW THE SURFACE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT RISEN TO THE LEVEL
OF CRISIS, BUT STILL DEMAND THE ATTENTION OF OUR GOVERNMENT,
AND BY EXTENSION, US.
TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE A VITAL ELEMENT OF AMERICAN
FOREIGN POLICY THAT FOR DECADES DOMINATED THE NEWS, BUT
TODAY, GETS LITTLE MENTION: RUSSIA. THE COLD WAR, SO IT'S SAID, IS
LONG OVER. AND SO, TOO, IS THE IMMEDIATE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD.
FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH AND FORMER RUSSIAN PRESIDENT
VLADIMIR PUTIN HAD A COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP. AND NOW, EACH
HAS GIVEN WAY TO NEW LEADERS, WHO AT LEAST GIVE LIP SERVICE TO
RETHINKING THE TERMS OF RUSSIAN AMERICAN AFFAIRS. AND THERE'S A
LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
THERE'S THE SPREAD OF NATO IN THE FORMER SOVIET BLOCK, AND THE
PROPOSED AMERICAN LED MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER EASTERN
EUROPE. THERE'S RUSSIA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAN, AND THAT
COUNTRY'S PURSUIT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. AND THEN THERE'S ARMS
CONTROL BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA. THERE ARE
QUESTIONS ABOUT MOSCOW'S COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY IN ITS OWN
COUNTRY. AND ITS INFLUENCE IN COUNTRIES IT ONCE CONTROLLED,
LIKE GEORGIA.
HOW SHOULD THE UNITED STATES APPROACH RUSSIA? AND HOW DOES
RUSSIA VIEW THE UNITED STATES THESE DAYS? ALL LEGITIMATE
QUESTIONS. NOW, TO HELP US SORT THROUGH THESE IMPORTANT AND
COMPLICATED QUESTIONS AND AFFAIRS, WE WELCOME A TRIO OF
GUESTS WHO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON THESE TOPICS.
STEPHEN COHEN IS PROFESSOR OF RUSSIAN STUDIES AND HISTORY AT
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY. HE IS THE AUTHOR OF SEVERAL BOOKS ABOUT
RUSSIA, INCLUDING THE FORTHCOMING SOVIET FATES AND LOST
ALTERNATIVES: FROM STALINISM TO THE NEW COLD WAR, DUE OUT THIS
SUMMER. PROFESSOR COHEN, THANKS FOR JOINING US.
PROFESSOR STEPHEN COHEN
My pleasure, Dan.
RATHER
Dmitri Trenin is director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, which is part
of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. He is a retired colonel in the
Russian Army, and was
a member of the delegation to the U.S./Soviet nuclear arms talks in
Geneva in the late
'80s and early '90s. Colonel Trenin, thank you for being here with us.
COLONEL DMITRI TRENIN
Glad to be here.
RATHER
And Ariel Cohen is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
He specializes
in economic development and political reform in Russia and the former
Soviet Union, as
well as international energy security. Mr. Cohen, thank you for
participating in our
discussion. Well, first, Steve Cohen, let's start with you.
STEPHEN COHEN
Got a lot of Cohen's here.
RATHER
I should say, no relation.
STEPHEN COHEN
No relation, right.
RATHER
We seem to be moving into a period-President Obama likely to go to
Russia some time
this summer-in which Russia will be coming to the front. Steve, you've
been a vocal
critic of America's foreign policy towards Russia for quite some time.
Saying, in
particular, that the Cold War never really ended. Why is this? And how
does it explain
the current state of American/Russian relations?
STEPHEN COHEN
I don't think you can get the answer right if you don't get the question
right. Think back
20 years, and all of us are old enough to remember 20 years ago, I
think. I am, at least.
Reagan-President Reagan-left office in January 1989, about 20 years ago.
And he
wrote in his diary, "The Cold War is over." He believed that he and
Mikhail Gorbachev
had ended the Cold War.
Twenty years later, and people more or less agree that the relationship
is very, very bad.
I think it's a new Cold War, a continuation of the old Cold War. But
whether you call it
Cold War or not, people agree it's as bad as it's been for 20 years. So,
the question is, how
did that happen? What happened? What was lost? Why was it lost?
The prevailing answer in the United States is that it's the Kremlin's
fault, and in
particular, Putin's fault. That things were good in the 1990s, when
President Clinton and
President Yeltsin of Russia forged a partnership/friendship in this
telling. Then Putin, not
such a good guy, came to power, undermined democracy at home, pursued
neoimperialist
policies abroad, and destroyed the relationship with the United States.
So, the
Kremlin's to blame.
Now, if that's the correct answer, historically. Then it means this so
called resetting that
President Obama wants to do in American/Russian relations would require
Russia
changing its ways. Russia would have to change. We need not change. My
view is not
exactly the opposite. But it's considerably different.

That we are largely to blame for what went wrong. Because in the 1990s,
instead of
treating Russia as a coequal great power, we treated it as a defeated
nation. A nation that
had lost the Cold War. And in a way, we began to think of Russia as
analogous to Japan
and Germany after World War II. And from that mistake, made in the '90s,
I think all else
foll- all else followed. Right up to today.
RATHER
Ariel Cohen, you've written that there's a difference between quote,
"The real Russia"
and the "Russia we imagine." You met with the Russian Finance Minister,
who was in
Washington meeting with world economic leaders. I'm curious if that
meeting helped
clarify the difference between the two Russias and why that distinction
matters?
ARIEL COHEN
I remember, as a kid, in a pretty prosperous part of the Soviet
Union-the Crimea, in
Yalta-standing there at age of four with a number written on my hand to
buy bread.
That's what collapsed in 1990-89 in Eastern Europe, '90-'91. And some
people, in the
United States, are still sorry that this great socialist experiment
died. I say, "Good
riddance." But historically, the real Russia, the question that you
asked, the real Russia is
the Russia that goes back 1,000 years. It was an Empire. It grew as an
Empire. It took
over huge amounts of territories. It's still the largest country on the
planet. And people
say, "Oh, poor Russia. It feels surrounded. It feels attacked." By
golly, NATO withdrew
90 percent of American forces from Europe. And we are now facing a
serious choice.
President Obama and President Medvedev are looking at a serious choice.
How we're
going to move forward after we, like President Putin did, decried the
collapse of the
Soviet Union as quote, "The greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th
Century." Not the
Holocaust. Not World War I. Not World War II. Not 100 million people who
died in
China in purges of the communists. The collapse of the Soviet Union. I
say, we are in a
new century. We need to look forward.
RATHER
Dmitri Trenin, let me bring you into this. As a native Russian, what do
you make of this?
What kind of place is today's Russia? And particularly, what kind of
place is today's
Russia as opposed to how we've believed it to be?
TRENIN

Well, I think that in some ways, the Russia that we see today is...could
be compared to
the Russia of the last Czar. So, just close your eyes, imagine it's not
2009 but rather 1909.
And some of the things are familiar. You know, we have a Czar, we call
him President.
Or we may have two Czars. That depends on, you know, the people...
ARIEL COHEN
The more...the more the merrier.
TRENIN
Well-it's not an easy thing to manage that. And so far, people have
managed that.
That's, that's a different issue. You have capitalism-raw, rough, brutal
in many ways,
but real. Even in its lethality, it's very real. You have the media,
which are neither fully
free nor fully unfree. And you have a country which is basically moving
forward.
Moving forward to create a society which is shaped by the forces of
capitalism, and the
forces of globalization. Is that the Russia that people imagined in the
United States, 20
years ago? No.
A lot of people-not only the United States, but a lot of people in
Russia 20 years ago-
imagined this transition to be fairly quick, smooth, and turning Russia
into a version of
America, for some people, or Switzerland, for other people, or Germany,
for yet another
group of people. Well, Russia, as Ariel has said, has remained Russia.
Although in a very
different world, and under very different conditions. It's always-it's a
country that keeps
changing, and it will keep on changing.
RATHER
Ariel, you have something you wanted to add.
ARIEL COHEN
Just not to think that I evaded your question, and I didn't want to
disclose what Mr.
Kudrin, the finance minister, was talking about in Washington. He
basically painted a
pretty grim picture of what Russia is facing. And Kudrin now is famous
for saying that
the unique economic conditions that existed as the oil price was going
up and up and up,
are no longer there. Oil plummeted from $147 to $50. And now Russia is
facing pretty
dire straights, economically. And that is directly related to this
pretty rosy picture that my
friend Dmitri here painted.
Money is no longer politicized. Money is never totally non-politicized,
non-political. In
Russia or anywhere else. But now it is a rather small group of people
that control oil,
which is the lifeblood of Russia. Natural gas, the second lifeblood of
Russia. And natural
resources.
TRENIN
Well if I may...
RATHER
Sure.
TRENIN
Well, first of all, I think the crisis is a blessing in disguise for
Russia. Russia has been
beset by this oil and gas economy. And this was not doing any good to
Russia. People
talked about diversification, but you never diversify unless you have
to. And you have to
diversify when the price is low. I mean, this is a good thing that
happened. Now, it's not a
rosy picture. I didn't talk of Put-about Putin, I didn't talk about
politics. And politics to
me is not the most important part. Politics is a drag on Russia's
development. But the
issue is not that some people control this. Or the wider group of
people, smaller group of
people, control this and that. The issue is this: every single Russian
is a property owner.
And you can have-- a pretty drab apartment in downtown Moscow. And you
can sell it-t
least you could do that before the-the crisis struck. You could sell it,
and you could buy,
with that money-you yourself, no one is controlling that for you. And-
you use that
money to buy a much nicer apartment in Miami, Florida. Isn't that...
that's-that's a
revolution.
ARIEL COHEN
It's like (UNINTEL).
TRENIN
It is a revolution. And that changes the social structure. And that
changes the mentality of
the people. And that brings-I would say, that's freedom.
STEPHEN COHEN
I have to say, Dan, though, in the sense that Ariel means it's the same
Russia, I think
that's wrong. I think that is wrong. Countries change. Russia can
change, it has changed.
But I have read most of what Dmitri has written, very lucidly. And he's
hooked onto a
theory that used to be popular in the West, that if you get capitalism,
and you get markets,
good things are gonna happen. You're gonna end up with democracy and
social justice.
But history tells us otherwise. Germany was a capitalist state, when
Hitler came into
power. Russia was a capitalist state when Bolsheviks came to power.
RATHER
And China's a capitalist state now, and-
STEPHEN COHEN
And nothing great is happening. So, I think this is a little too-and I
don't mean it in the
way I'm gonna say it-Marxist. It's too determinist.
ARIEL COHEN
Steve, I didn't understand what you said. You said I'm wrong? But you
said it's Russian
history. So, is my interpretation of Russian history is wrong? Or
Russian history doesn't
matter?
STEPHEN COHEN
I don't want to ascribe, put you in a school, because you may say you
don't belong to that
school. But there is a school of thought that essentially Russia doesn't
change. Russia
continues to be, essentially, a bad force in the world. It's in Russia's
genes. And it doesn't
matter of the leader's name is Stalin or Putin or Medvedev. Russia is
gonna act, because
it's conditioned to act a certain way.
RATHER
That's a school of thought.
STEPHEN COHEN
That's a school of thought. And therefore, we have to be on our guard,
because this is
always a dangerous Russia. For example, Ariel Cohen wrote, in the
Christian Science
Monitor, if I understood him, that Russia is more dangerous to America
today than it was
under Brezhnev or Gorbachev.
ARIEL COHEN
That's what you said, also, in your writings. You said that the current
Cold War is worse
and more dangerous-
STEPHEN COHEN
But I said different danger.
ARIEL COHEN
-than in, well, but you still said that it's more dangerous.
STEPHEN COHEN
Yes, but the danger is important to President Obama. Because the danger
because Russia
is a bad country, and will always be dangerous-
ARIEL COHEN
Well, I didn't write that Russia is a bad country.
STEPHEN COHEN
-put up your fists and keep 'em up. Or is the danger this: That Russia
is laden with
nuclear weapons, as are we, with biological weapons of mass destruction,
chemical
weapons of mass destruction. It's tottering and teetering today, under
economic strain.
And the gravest danger to America today is the instability of Russia's
infrastructures,
which are supposed to take care of all those weapons of mass
destruction. I believe
American policy should be made with that in mind. And not with Ivan the
Terrible, or
something that Stalin did in mind.
TRENIN
I would take issue with a couple of things, Steve. I don't believe that
Russia is as unstable
as it's...it's hoped by some or feared by others. There is, well, take
this tandem
arrangement: Putin, Medvedev. Never been practiced in Russian history
without a major
clash, of civil war or collapse of the state.
ARIEL COHEN
Crach.
TRENIN
Crach. And we've had a year of that arrangement.
RATHER
This dual leadership.
TRENIN
Dual leadership: Putin-Medvedev. Now, first of all, why this dual
leadership? The
problem with Russia is that you don't have institutions. So, and Putin
is, Putin was in a
minority. And is in the country, of those who wanted himself to step
down, formally, as
President. He could have continued. He could have changed the
constitution.
STEPHEN COHEN
Well, you have to tell 'em. He was pro-prohibited by the constitution
from serving a
third term.
TRENIN
Yeah, but he, he could have changed, changed-
STEPHEN COHEN
But he could have done it. He could have done it.
TRENIN
-the constitution. There was a huge overwhelming support for that.
Because people-
not because they loved Putin that much-but because they feared this
instability. Now,
his arrangement was, his decision to go about that was, was truly, well,
unusual.
STEPHEN COHEN
Creative.
TRENIN
In Russia, this whole thing called the Russian State is suspended on
basically Putin's
personal popularity. That's, that's what keeps the whole thing together.
And Putin
combined the formal power, the-the institution that is a shell of an
institution, the
presidency-with substance, that was himself. And he, he stayed on stage.
ARIEL COHEN
But it's, it's also, what you just described, went so much against what
the constitution, the
constitution did, proposed in Russia. What the constitution proposed was
a country with
real political life. What you have, since '03-'04, Mr. Putin and his
coterie deliberately
dismantling whatever little there was-from Gorbachev through Yeltsin and
in the
beginning of early Putin-whatever little there was of free media and the
semblance of
political life. That is now a desert. And there are no real
alternatives.
STEPHEN COHEN
Here's what I think happened. In 1991 and '2 and '3, the vast property
of the Soviet
State-I don't mean automobiles, but gas, oil, timber, all the rest,
television-was seized
by a political elite. And they've spread it a little bit. But basically,
these people have held
onto it. And this why you don't have democracy in Russia today. They
dare not permit
democracy, because the people hate them. They would vote not only to
take their
property away, but hang em-wait a minute. Every poll, including those
done by Gallup,
by Levada, the agencies we trust in Russia, come up with exactly 75
percent of the
Russian people think this property is illicit.
RATHER
Well, let me try to jump in here with a policy debate in this country.
STEPHEN COHEN
I think that takes you to policy. We ought to stop trying to promote
democracy.
RATHER
So, much has been made of Vice President Joe Biden's vow to quote
"reset" or "reboot"
U.S. Russian relations. And President Obama's secret letter to the
Russian President, in
which he offered to cancel America's plans for a missile defense system
in Eastern
Europe in exchange for Russia's help combating Iran's nuclear program.
Now, help me,
all three of you, to get behind the headlines here. What do you
make-Ariel, let's start
with you-of Obama's, President Obama's, early overtures? Is it
reasonable to think that
this or anything near this quid pro quo can work?
ARIEL COHEN
Before we get to that, first of all I think that a slogan, "pushing the
reset button", before
you conducted-I'm sorry, I work in Washington-a bureaucratic country
assessment.
And based on the assessment, based on the baseline, you formulate your
goals, and then
you come up with a policy and try to negotiate with the Russians what
your goals are.
We put the cart before the horse-
RATHER
By saying "restart", "reboot."
ARIEL COHEN
-push the reset button. And the State Department, in its wisdom,
couldn't even translate
the word-perezagruzka, "reset," in a proper way. They flubbed even that.
God help us,
with the competence of the people who are doing business there. And
later on, they ran
with a policy without the senior levels of the Obama Administration
being populated with
Russia hands. So, we did not do the bureaucratic job of Washington. One.
Two, the
missiles, the famous missile shield. The only thing that stands between
us an Iranian
rocket that can be shot at New York in, I would say, two or three years.
It's altogether ten
interceptors. Ten interceptors.
RATHER
That's what we have or what, there's no (UNINTEL PHRASE).
ARIEL COHEN
No. They're not, they're not even deployed! This is only the proposed
battery of missile
interceptors that the Bush Administration wanted to put in Europe and
Obama is willing
to give up. For what? Not clear to me. Hopefully, for cooperation on the
Iranian issue
with Russia.
RATHER
Well, we're gonna take a break. But before going to it, let me turn to
you, Colonel. What
do you make of this Obama offer of a quid pro quo? Any realistic chance
it may-- may
work?
TRENIN
Well, I think my best-and I know that Moscow's best-option would be
doing a joint
system. Something that the Russian's have-I mean, the assets that they
would be able to
put on the table. And put within the context of a U.S./Russian/European
system that
would be looking at the greater Middle East, and protecting Europe and
the countries
beyond from any hypothetical missile danger from the region. And that
would even start
creating elements of trust, mutual trust that does not exist today,
between the political
leaderships and political elites in Moscow and Washington.
ARIEL COHEN
The trust is absolutely key.
RATHER
Steve Cohen you were shaking your head in a negative to that thought.
STEPHEN COHEN
The real issue is the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders. If there
was no expansion of
NATO to Russia's borders, I doubt that Russia would care very much about
a missile
system that won't work against a threat that doesn't exist, against a
program that the
American Congress will not fund. The Russians know what's going on in
this country. It's
the inconnection with what they see as this...Pac Man like creeping of
American Western
power to their borders, in the form of NATO bases. Linked, then, to
missile defense-
which they believe, and there are scientists at MIT and Harvard who said
they're right-
could hypothetically shoot down their missiles, as they head up. The
point is they
perceive a grave, Western military danger coming at them. And I don't
know whether
they're right in fearing our power coming at them, but I can certainly
understand why
they're worried.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK, AND PICK IT UP AFTER THE BREAK,
TALKING ABOUT NATO EXPANSION. HOW IT AFFECTS OUR
RELATIONSHIPS. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK, SO STAY HERE WITH US.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
WELCOME BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT RUSSIA, AND THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE FUTURE. IN 1999 AS NATO BEGAN ITS GROUND
OPERATION IN YUGOSLAVIA AFTER THE KOSOVO WAR, A RUSSIAN FORCE
WAS DEPLOYED TO PRISTINA AIRPORT IN THE HOPE OF STOPPING NATO
FORCES FROM ADVANCING. A DRAMATIC EPISODE UNFOLDED IN WHICH
RUSSIAN PARATROOPERS ENDED UP DEPENDING ON BRITISH FORCES FOR
FOOD AND WATER. RUSSIA WAS EVENTUALLY OFFERED A WIDER ROLE
ON THE PEACEKEEPING FORCE. BUT, LOOKING BACK, THAT INCIDENT
HIGHLIGHTED TENSIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST THAT EXISTED
EVER SINCE PRESIDENT CLINTON BROKE A PROMISE MADE BY THE FIRST
PRESIDENT BUSH NOT TO EXTEND NATO "ONE INCH TO THE EAST." NOW,
THAT'S CONTROVERSIAL. SOME SAY THE PROMISE NEVER EXISTED. STEVE
COHEN, LET ME PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF. IF YOU COULD OFFER ONE
PIECE OF ADVICE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S POLICY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW, I
ASSUME ON THE BASIS OF WHAT YOU'VE SAID AND WHAT YOU'VE
WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE DON'T EXPAND NATO, RIGHT?
STEPHEN COHEN
Stop.
RATHER
Stop. Well, what has NATO-what, if anything, has NATO gotten wrong about
Russia?
And why do you take this view?
STEPHEN COHEN
Well, it got everything wrong. Let's to it the way we Americans usually
do it, according
to the adage: see things from the other guy's point of view. We wake up
tomorrow
morning: There's a Russian military base in Canada. There's a Russian
military base in
NATO. And they're building either in Cuba or Venezuela some kind of
anti-missile
system that could shoot down our missiles if we tried to defend
ourselves against
incoming troops. If that were to happen tomorrow, would you, would the
American
media say, "Oh, gee, that's interesting, ah, Let's not talk about it."
Or would Obama be on
the verge of being impeached if he didn't act decisively and
resourcefully? The analogy's
not perfect-and Ariel's nodding his head no-but part of the problem with
the Ariel
school of thinking about Russia is they find it hard to see it from the
Russians' point of
view by doing an analogy with the United States. I've stretched the
analogy a bit. But, it's
logical. I'd add one other thing. In addition to-first of all, we
promised the Russians we
wouldn't do it. So, we broke a promise. Well, the archive documents have
been
published. You can-
STEPHEN COHEN
-can you can nod-
ARIEL COHEN
Sorry, this-
STEPHEN COHEN
-your head no. But, the-
(OVERTALK)
STEPHEN COHEN
-documents are there.
ARIEL COHEN
There's nothing signed.
STEPHEN COHEN
Oh, please.
RATHER
Stay the, stay the course, Stephen, and we'll come to Ariel in a moment.
Your position is
we, we promised-
STEPHEN COHEN
They-
RATHER
-not to expand-
STEPHEN COHEN
We promised not-
(OVERTALK)
STEPHEN COHEN
-to do it and all the parties to that agreed that promise was made
except, former
Secretary of State James Baker says they misunderstood what he said.
But, there's almost
consensus on this. It began...it violated the Russian sense of trust in
the United States, and
that trust has never been fully restored. Both of my colleagues have
said, "The problem is
a lack of trust." But, if you wanna go back and trace the lack of trust,
you could begin
there. Let me give you the other examples, you know, what's on Russia's
mind. 9/11-
9/11...Russia-Putin's Russia-helped the United States in Afghanistan
more than any
other country in the world. More than any other NATO country. Putin
expected
something in return. What did he want? He wanted a fair-play partnership
with the
United States. What did he get in return after saving American lives in
Afghanistan? The
United States excluded Russia from the political settlement in
Afghanistan. We withdrew
from the single most important defense treaty in the eyes of the
Russians-the antiballistic
missile treaty. Withdrew unilaterally. And we-that is, President
Bush-pushed
NATO closer to Russia. That's what President Obama has to understand,
because what
does it mean today? We ain't getting nothin' for nothin' in Moscow any
more. They will
not give us a kopeck unless it is guaranteed they get in return
something of value. So all
these symbolic gestures aren't going to go anywhere. And that's why this
reset notion-
which is not a bad idea, lets try to get it right and start again-is
gonna come to nothin'
unless we're prepared to offer Russia something very meaningful. And
what they want is
for NATO expansion to stop.
RATHER
With that in mind, let me turn to you now, Ariel. You have a different
view about this
move of NATO towards Russia.
ARIEL COHEN
First of all, NATO transformed itself since the Cold War. NATO no longer
can fight any
meaningful conflict and Exhibit A in that is the bungling of the
Afghanistan operation. If
NATO was such a mighty alliance as Steve Cohen here repeats after some
people in
Moscow, then NATO would be victorious in Afghanistan ten years ago.
Never happened.
Won't happen. Because NATO is mostly A), a talk shop, talking shop. And
B), has
countries that don't really add to the defense capabilities. Point
number two, in my youth,
I made a mistake and went to a law school. And in law school, you learn
that anything of
any significance-selling an apartment, even selling a car-you put it in
writing. And I
challenge you to produce that archival government that that you
mentioned, that has
signatures of both sides, promising not to expand NATO. That document
don't exist and
you know it.
STEPHEN COHEN
I didn't say it existed. I was-I'm talking now. I'm talking now. To say
to me, "You
know it isn't true," like that as though I'm lying-I object to that kind
of discourse.
RATHER
If I may-
STEPHEN COHEN
If you, if...if you-
RATHER
Let's, let's, let's take your point-
STEPHEN COHEN
Yeah? But, we have evidence. We have evidence. Condi Rice, in her
memoirs-she was
Secretary of State, but, she participated before that in these
negotiations-records in her
memoirs that that promise was made to Gorbachev by the Bush
Administration. So, if
somebody is not telling the truth, it's not me, it's Condi Rice. The
other thing is-
RATHER
Let's drain the personal part of this out.
STEPHEN COHEN
Well, there's another thing here. I mean, I hold my own views. They
don't come from
Moscow, as Ariel Cohen implied when I spoke about NATO. My view is my
view;
Moscow's view is a view. I find your views...unfactual. But, they're
your views. I don't
think you get 'em any place else.
RATHER
Colonel, you've been listening very patiently here. Let me put to you:
if President Obama
or one of his high-policy advisors were here, what would you advise him
on this question
of expansion of NATO, or not?
TRENIN
Well, I don't think that they would need my advice. I think that the
reset that people are
talking about was not the reset of U.S. policy toward Russia. It was the
reset of U.S.
foreign policy, full stop. That's what- that's what changed. And if you
look at the Obama
agenda, it doesn't include promotion of democracy of in Georgia, which
was Mr. Bush's
social project. It doesn't include Ukraine, which was, again, something
that the, the
people around President Bush certainly encouraged. The problem with
Ukraine is not that
Russia opposes that. It's morally or politically practically
indefensible to claim that a
neighbor can actually have a veto on the foreign policy orientation of
another country.
RATHER
Russia applied to Ukraine?
TRENIN
Yes. The problem in Ukraine is that you have the government, which is
led by...you
have the president, let's say, who he's an ideologue who believes that
Russia is a
boogeyman that needs to be protected against. He represents about 20, 25
percent of the
Ukrainian population, who think more or less along the same lines.
Fifty-plus percent of
the Ukrainian population think that Russia is part of the extended
family. So, on that
fundamental issue, Ukraine is fundamentally split. The bulk of the
Ukrainian people don't
want to be part of Russia, absolutely. Even though who are Russian
speaking and are
ethnic Russians. They don't want to be part of Russia. But, they don't
want to part with
Russia. And they would see NATO as wedging them away from Russia. And if
worse
comes to worst, we might see a Yugoslavia-type scenario unfolding in
Ukraine. Now,
Georgia. They see Russia as a threat and they want western
integration-they want
NATO, whatever, to protect. But, those people believe that Abkhazia and
South Ossetia
are an inalienable part of their territory. Basically, those two
territories declared
unilaterally their independence because, like the Kosovars and the
Serbs, the Abkhazs
and the Georgians found it difficult to live together when the federal
state was no longer
there. So, if NATO accepts a country like Georgia and the borders that
NATO countries
recognize, it means that NATO is importing a possibility-but, a real
possibility-of a
military clash with Russia.
RATHER
On that point, Steve Cohen, having studied at the Cohen unofficial
school about Russian
with correspondents, I recall you saying for years that Georgia is one
thing, and
important. But, Ukraine, that in Russia-the colonel has addressed the
feelings in
Ukraine-but in Russia, it's sort of, there is no Russia without Ukraine.
STEPHEN COHEN
I think Dimitri Trenin is exactly right. My prediction and I don't
usually predict is as
follows: that if we persist in trying to draw Ukraine into NATO, Ukraine
will split into
two provinces. One will go to Russia. One will go to Poland or some
place in that
direction. You will therefore have a divided Europe-as we had in Berlin
for 40 years-
an epicenter of a new Cold War. Only this will be located right on
Russia's borders.
There's a very important point that I think Obama and his people have to
ask themselves.
On one level, it is true as both Ariel and Dimitri say, and I think you
agree, that a country
has a right to choose its own allies. Therefore, if Georgia wants to be
a member of
NATO, it has every right. There are, however...where there is a right,
there are also other
rights. And one right is a country to be free of the menace of foreign
base on its borders if
it has a long, historical conflict with that foreign power as Russia
does with the United
States. I would argue the following: that yes, Georgia has a right to
join NATO. But
Russia has a right not to have a NATO base on its borders in light of
the historical
context. And that the American president will have to choose, as judges
often have to
choose, between two rights. And if I were the American president, in
this case, I would
choose for the right of not having a foreign base on the border because
we wouldn't
tolerate it either. And that's...not much more complicated. It's
commonsense to me.
ARIEL COHEN
But. but, this, this flies against 50 years of reality in western
hemisphere when there was
massive Russian presence in Cuba, and I did not hear you objecting
publicly or loudly
like you object to NATO basis on Russia's border, to presence of the
Soviet troops. And
if you did, please educate me. I would like to read that.
RATHER
And let me interject. There will be those who hear you say what you just
said as a "well,
there's Dan Rather once again, with one of these blame America for all
its problems."
What do you say to such a person?
STEPHEN COHEN
Well, I said that I recently turned 70, celebrating my 50th anniversary
studying Russia. I
lived 50 years hoping that we would understand Russia, and Russia us,
enough that one
day, not that we'd be friends-because Dmitri and I can be friends, but
great powers can't
be friends, but they can be partners. Hoping we'd be partners. It didn't
happen. And I feel
that for the very light work for which I'm paid a decent salary, being a
professor, I need
to think critically about everything. And based on what I've thought
about, what I've
witnessed (COUGH) and the turning points that I've seen, both in Moscow
and
Washington, I believe that the lost chances were lost primarily in
Washington. One
footnote: I also would argue that the true patriot thinks very
critically in times of crisis
about his own government's role in this crisis. It's not enough to say,
"We're good,
therefore, we're not at fault." We are good, but in this case, we were
at fault.
RATHER
WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IRAN BEFORE WE LEAVE HERE. SO, ONCE
AGAIN, LET'S TAKE A SHORT BREAK. OUR DISCUSSION OF RUSSIA, THE
UNITED STATES, WHAT MAY BE AHEAD, WILL CONTINUE IN JUST A
MOMENT. SO, STAY HERE WITH US.
RATHER
ONCE AGAIN, WELCOME BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UNITED
STATES, RUSSIA AND THE FUTURE. LET'S TALK ABOUT IRAN. YOU CAN'T
TALK ABOUT U.S., RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIPS-NOW AND IN FUTURE GOING
FORWARD-WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT IRAN. IRAN ALLEGEDLY,
SUPPOSEDLY AND REPORTEDLY IS AT VERY MINIMUM RIGHT ON THE
BRINK OF BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. PUT THIS IN
CONTEXT OF U.S., RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIPS. BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS
WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN NOT HAVING IRAN AND NORTH KOREA
BECOME NUCLEAR POWERS. COLONEL, LET'S GO BACK TO YOU. PUT THIS
IN SOME PERSPECTIVE FOR US.
TRENIN
I think that the Russians have no special warmth for the rulers of Iran.
One of the first
things that every Russian schoolchild learns, is that the entire Russian
embassy was
wiped out in Tehran and Tsarist times, and everyone was killed-almost
everyone was
killed, including the ambassador. Russia invaded Iran. Last time, it was
in the 1940's. So
the relationship is, is a very difficult one. And yet, from the Russian
perspective, the
Iranian leadership is, is a bunch of fairly pragmatic people. They look
at the Iranian
revolution. They compare it with the Bolshevik revolution. And they look
at the regime
in Tehran as a post revolutionary, Stalinesque regime. So, it's not
interested in fermenting
revolutionary trouble around the world. Rather, it's using revolutionary
slogans for great
power, in pursuit of great power interests. You have a country which has
2,500 years of
unbroken history as a state. It makes it second only to China in terms
of seniority among
states of the world. It's not Pakistan in that sense. And if a country
like that wants to
develop nuclear weapons, it will. From the Russian perspective, people
don't become
nuclear because they want to nuke somebody. They become nuclear-and the
Soviet
Union was an example of that-because they feel threatened, insecure.
They want to
dominate. And that's how the Russians see it. They see it in other words
as a rational
situation that should be addressed rationally. From the Russian
perspective, the worst
thing that can happen is an attempt by the United States, or the United
States and Israel,
to preempt the Iranian nuclear weapons program through a military strike
that would
mess things up, that would not achieve its stated objective. But, would
make sure that
Iran after a while reconstitutes its program, develops its nukes, and
becomes a hostile
nuclear power which is not very far away from Russia itself.
RATHER
I wanna move on. We have only a little bit of time left here. I wanna
move on to the
question of energy. Russia has, I'm checking myself here, the largest
natural gas reserves
in the world. It ships much of it through Ukraine to Europe, whose 25
percent
dependency on Russian gas may reach 60 percent by maybe 2030 or so. This
past winter,
we had this gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine-highlighted Europe's
energy
dependence. How serious of a problem is Russia's pipeline politics? And
what should
President Obama do about it?
ARIEL COHEN
I just came back from Germany a couple of weeks ago. And the German
elite, left and
right, conservative and liberal, are enamored with Russian gas. They
don't want the
Nabucco Pipeline that would bring Caspian Sea gas through Turkey into
Europe, that
would be an alternative. They're not interested in LNG, Liquefied
Natural Gas. Nuclear,
forget about it. So, they want Russian gas. And there are countries now
that are
dependent close to a 100 percent. Finland, Czech Republic, Croatia,
Serbia-they're all
dependent on their main source of energy for electricity. But if I may
just go back to Iran.
Iran is important for Russia also in the energy global dimension.
Because, together with
Iran, and Qatar, Russia controls over 60 percent of world gas. So, like
OPEC, what
they're creating slowly but surely is, a gas cartel. So, it's a massive
clout that they get
together with Iran. Well, if Iran becomes armed with nuclear missiles
and covers the
whole of Middle East, it's not about Israel. It is intimidation of Saudi
Arabia, the arch
enemy between the Shia and the Sunni. And the fight for primacy in the
Muslim world
between Iran and the Saudis. And a potential threat towards Egypt,
Turkey, et cetera.
Then Iran becomes the main counterbalance to the Sunni Arab American
allies in the
Middle East who are controlling the world's gas station.
RATHER
I wanna move forward with a couple of questions that might appear to be
coming out of
nowhere. Question, Steve Cohen: what are the possibilities of somewhere
down the line,
not too far out in the midst, of a new (UNINTEL) between Russia and
China? A
Russia/China axis to offset American power?
STEPHEN COHEN
If I had to say-and I don't feel any special expertise in this area-I
would say it depends
largely on America's policy toward Russia. If you gave Russia a choice,
it would prefer to
be close to the United States. It doesn't wanna be...have a hostile
relationship with China
and it needs this economic relationship with China. But, if it had to
choose-no reason
why it should-but if it had to choose, it would choose the political
relationship with the
United States. So, in that sense, I would say that much depends on our
policy.
RATHER
Ariel, what do you think?
ARIEL COHEN
I think, yes, it's a marriage of convenience now. The Chinese are
starved for energy.
They want Russian gas. They're building a pipeline from Russia into
China. They're also
grabbing everything they can in Kazakhstan, in Turkmenistan. Oil, gas,
you name it!
RATHER
The Chinese?
ARIEL COHEN
The Chinese! Winning every serious oil bid in Kazakhstan since 2005.
But, in the long
term, as the Russian population is declining-Russian is in a serious
demographic
decline. The Muslim population is going up. The Slavic Orthodox
population going
down. In the long term, this may be a liability for Russia in Siberia
and the Far East.
These are six, seven time zones rich with every element of the periodic
table: timber, oil,
gas, water. Water is a top priority for the Chinese politburo since '99.
And, yes, there is a
document there to prove that they are focusing on water, wheat, oil and
gas.
RATHER
Well, Colonel, again, you've been patient and listening here. Chances
of-- any kind of
Russia/China axis developing to counterbalance American power?
TRENIN
I don't think that the Russians are considering now a choice between
America and China.
This is exactly the choice that they would want to avoid. But Russia is,
is a country which
is very much rooted in Europe. It is an extension of Europe. The Far
East of Russia is not
East Asia. That's Eastern Europe. And that Eastern Europe is, faces the
prospect of being
tilted more and more towards the great economic powerhouse of the
region. That is
China. And to the Russian leadership, that is the most important
geopolitical challenge
that they ever faced. Because what makes Russia a Russia in the eyes of
the Russian
people-not Muscovy-is the fact that it stands across 11 time zones and
ends on the
shores of the Pacific. And that what gives the Russian leadership and
the Russian elite a
global outlook. A mentality of a great power.

RATHER
We're near the end. But, I promised myself I'd bring this subject up.
We've talked about
the size, the immense size of Russia, and its riches in natural
resources, and its desire to
not only be seen as, but to be, a major world power. We know that they
consider much of
the Arctic as their sphere of influence. We know that they've been doing
more
development in the Arctic than any other country in the world: exploring
it, finding out
its natural resources. Professor Steve Cohen, where does this fit in to
the picture when we
talk about the United States trying to get back on some firmer and
friendlier footage with
the Russians.
STEPHEN COHEN
The Arctic? The Arctic?
RATHER
Yes.
STEPHEN COHEN
It was you that said, "Now, that would be a really cold war." Didn't you
say that once?
(LAUGHTER)
RATHER
I did.
STEPHEN COHEN
I know you've been looking at that, Dan. I don't know. I mean, you know,
Russians are
laying claims to the oil and the resources there. It seems to be me to
be an ideal
opportunity-because of the costs and technology of extracting
anything-for
cooperation. But, I thought that about Caspian Oil, too. And we didn't
seize the
opportunity. We decided to compete. Let me end by saying one thing.
There seems to be
a kind of a resentment in the West that Russia has so many resources.
It's so big and it's
got all this oil and this gas and timber and gold and diamonds and
everything.
RATHER
And water.
STEPHEN COHEN
And water. I think some American-some eminent American, and I don't want
to
defame her, but I think it might have been Madeline Albright-said,
"Russia has too
many resources for Russia alone to manage." Like Russia should share.
There's a kind of
resentment. The only answer to this is blame God. I mean, God gave
Russia all this
territory and all these resources. It belongs to Russia. It seems to me
that what the logical
approach is, is to learn how to cooperate. I don't think the Russians
are determined to be
monopolistic or aggressive in the use of their resources. If nothing
else, they desperately
need Western financial help in extracting them, particularly as they get
harder and harder
to extract. So, it seems to me a wise American policy is pursuing that
attitude. It is-
those resources belong to them. If you don't like it, complain to God.
But, since they are
there, why wouldn't we do like we do with other countries? Try to make
relationships that
benefit Russia and the United States. I don't feel that's really even
been tried in recent
years. And I'd like to see President Obama try.
ARIEL COHEN
I think that if Russia was interested to cooperate on developing the
natural resources-
especially the hydrocarbons, oil and gas-the U.S. companies would be
standing in line
knocking on the doors and maybe getting on their knees. Unfortunately,
the Russian
government, in its wisdom, passed a law, barring any company with the
exception of the
state-owned Gasprom, and state-owned Rosneft-the gas company and the oil
company- to develop these resources. So, we can provide some technical
services and
somebody in Houston, Texas will make some money. But, we will not be
partners in that
development. Russia has 18 icebreakers. Seven of them with nuclear
power. We have two
and a half icebreakers-diesel-and we're not building any new ones. If we
don't
change-if President Obama doesn't change-the outlook of our interest in
the Arctic, I
think we are going to lose the Arctic to the Russians. And they're going
to be very cold.
But, making a lot of cold cash in the Arctic.
RATHER (ON CAMERA)
WELL ON THAT NOTE, WE HAVE TO COME TO AN END, THANK YOU ALL
VERY MUCH. TONIGHT'S LIVELY DISCUSSION IS AN IMPORTANT
REMINDER OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE WORLD TODAY. IT'S TEMPTING IN
JOURNALISM TO JUMP FROM CRISIS TO CRISIS. AFTER ALL, THAT IS IN A
WAY ONE DEFINITION OF NEWS. BUT, CONSIDERING A COUNTRY LIKE
RUSSIA IS A SOBERING REMINDER THAT EVEN TOPICS THAT DON'T
DOMINATE OUR POLITICAL DEBATES, NEWS COVERAGE OR FOREIGN
POLICY DISCUSSIONS...CANNOT SIMPLY BE IGNORED. IT IS ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES OUR ELECTED LEADERS FACE, BALANCING THE CONCERNS
OF THE MOMENT WITH THOSE THAT NEED TO BE MANAGED IN THE LONG
TERM. RUSSIA HAS A LONG PROUD, AND AT TIMES, TORTURED HISTORY.
SO HAS THE UNITED STATES. THESE TWO COUNTRIES DIFFER GREATLY IN
THE NATURE OF THEIR BIRTH AND THEIR EXISTENCE TODAY. BUT BOTH
COUNTRIES, STRETCHING ACROSS CONTINENTS, EXTEND THEIR
INFLUENCE AROUND THE GLOBE. THE SHAPE OF RUSSIAN/AMERICAN
RELATIONS IN THE YEARS AHEAD WILL IN TURN HELP SHAPE THE WORLD
WE ALL CALL HOME. I WANT TO THANK OUR GUESTS AGAIN FOR THEIR
PARTICIPATION TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR
WATCHING. THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR THIS EVENING. FROM NEW YORK,
FOR HDNET, DAN RATHER REPORTING. GOODNIGHT.