Our Ms. Brooks: Bush And Putin

Rosa Brooks' latest column takes a look at the relationship between President Bush and his counterpart in Russia, Vladimir Putin, and likens it to a marriage that has soured. In the earliest stage, President Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a kindred soul, as he so famously told us. Well, in retrospect, it appears that our president was right, but not in the way he would have has us believe. Mr. Putin, like Mr. Bush, said all the right things, but then went off and did what he wanted both at home and on the world stage to consolidate his personal power, much to the detriment of Russian democracy and the rest of the world. Mr. Putin turned out not to be the ideal partner Mr. Bush thought he had.

But like most marriages of convenience, it soon frayed. Putin refused to support the Iraq war in 2003, and by 2005, his government had launched a rollback of Russian democratic reforms. Bush was left helplessly on the sidelines, insisting that "Vladimir" had privately assured him of his commitment to democracy, and "when he tells you something, he means it."

Even so, U.S.-Russia relations got worse. By 2006, when Bush spoke of his hope that Russia would someday be "like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion," Putin was openly mocking: "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq." By February 2007, Putin was denouncing U.S. foreign policy as having "nothing in common with democracy." Rather, he said, it was "an almost uncontained hyper-use of force ... in international relations." By summer 2007, Putin was threatening to point missiles at Poland if the U.S. deployed a planned European missile defense system.

Was this a simple case of naivete by BushCo? Well, to some extent it was, but more was involved in the deterioration of the relationship.

If U.S.-Russia relations have soured, much of the blame lies with the Bush administration. Despite Bush's claims of friendship, the U.S. has generally treated Russia as a washed-up power, eager to learn at our feet and grateful for the occasional crumb of U.S. attention.

The Bush administration arrogance is certainly a major source of the problem. Who could have imagined that Russia would take offense at the deployment of US missiles in parts of Europe close to its borders? Well, most of us figured that out early on, and I'm sure there were plenty of people in our government who could see the potential problems, but their concerns (and ours) were brushed aside.

So now Mr. Bush is on his way to Russia for meetings with his good friend, ostensibly to try to save the relationship, and Ms. Brooks has a suggestion on how he can succeed:

In a universe run on fact-based pragmatism, not ideology, Bush would use his visit to Russia to accept the offer Putin put forward last summer: to open up an American-European-Russian dialogue about missile defense, one that might include intelligence sharing, technological cooperation and jointly operated missile defense installations -- some in locations offered by Moscow. We'd gain Russian goodwill and retain the freedom to try to develop missile defense systems that actually work. Russia would gain reassurance that no U.S. missiles are pointed its way -- and lose an excuse for bullying its neighbors.

Yeah, right. As if George W. Bush is capable of fact-based anything, especially when he's just gotten a stinging rebuke from NATO members who didn't want further expansion by adding more of the former Soviet Union countries.

Personally, I think taking away Bush's passport for the duration might be a more sensible way to ease world tensions.

290 days.