Russia: Lost in Transition

Historically, Russia’s relationship with the West has been shaky at best. From the Crimean War in the 1850’s to alienation following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution all the way up to the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been “under attack.” This has forced them to adopt a mentality that is based in self sufficiency and autarky. As Western nations attempt to strengthen democracy in Russia in the 21st century, Russia has responded negatively to these perceived “intrusions.” Therefore it is important to ask what role the West should play in Russia’s development and what is hindering this from happening? In her book Russia: Lost in Transition, Lilia Shevtsova outlines two different ways the West can approach development with Russia: let them figure it out themselves or patiently create an international environment that the Russians feel comfortable in. Shevtsova clearly favors the latter. The West’s involvement is hindered however by double standards, ideological differences, and negative perceptions of the West’s motives by the Russian people. These must first be analyzed before showing how a cautious, assertive approach is the best way for the West to assist in Russian development.

Both the United States and Russia gained new leaders around the turn of the century: George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. While relations began on a rocky note, with foreign diplomats being expelled in both countries, Bush did not force reform onto the Russia. He instead focused on developing United States security interests, specifically involving terrorism following “9/11.” This developed an all take, no give relationship with the United States reaping all the benefits. Shevtsova states “It took Russia for granted...

... middle of paper ...

...h development of Russia, and the West’s involvement in that task. Russia must feel as though it is being treated as if it is a major player on the world scale, which it is. If it feels that it is being regarded lightly, it will shut itself off from the rest of the world and positive change will not occur. This means that using Russia to augment the United States’ security needs at no benefit to Russia needs to end. The West must recognize the differences in Russia and work around those differences in order to find a system that works for them. A realist approach is clearly not the answer as it only fuels negativity, and does nothing to encourage Russia to fix their internal problems which are hindering the country. If the West can engage productively with Russia, an era of cooperation will ensue which will be essential in solving the globes security problems.