RFE/RL correspondent Robert Coalson spoke recently with Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Ariel Cohen: The Russians have an agenda that brings them into friction with the United States.
...
Having come back from Russia recently, I would say that the Russian leadership is not putting forward a comprehensive and coherent program of cooperation with the United States. There are small things that they point out, such as the visa regime that has been improved by an agreement between [U.S.] Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton and [Russian] Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov. But overall after Russia received U.S. approval for joining the WTO, there is no major, positive list of priorities. It is all criticism; it is all negative. And this is very disappointing. Because, after all, the Russians need to develop their economy, especially beyond oil and gas. And the United States could provide a lot of assistance in terms of investment, in terms of developing the lagging Russian health-care sector, etc. So, I would say that both sides should be working harder to come up with a positive priority agenda.
...
Cohen: If you go back over 100 years in history you find that in the late stages of the Romanov empire -- the last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century -- the regime was nationalistic and xenophobic. It was nationalistic and xenophobic, for example, compared to the more liberal regime under Aleksandr II, because it felt insecure. So, yes, there is a strong domestic dimension of anti-Americanism. It is to consolidate the society, to create what is called in Russian "vneshny vrag," the external enemy, and to boost the prestige of the intelligence services, of the military, of the state, of the commander-in-chief -- the president. That is, indeed, a means to legitimize the current regime that feels, somewhat, weakened in terms of its popular legitimacy because it needed to take extreme measures to create an impression that the ruling party was legitimately elected to the Duma in the December [2011] elections.
Ariel Cohen
But there is also a deep-seated suspicion and dislike of America for the rulers who come from the Soviet intelligence services and, unfortunately, believe their own propaganda. There is very little competition in terms of sources of information, in terms of competing world views in Russia today -- even in comparison with the 1990s. There is one world view that is fed by the intelligence services and anti-Western -- what they call anti-liberal -- and anti-American values play a very significant role.
...
But beyond that, what Russia needs and what Russia wants, the U.S. is not standing in its way. The tragedy is that there is part of the elite that thinks that in order to consolidate its power in Russia they need an external enemy and such an enemy can only be the largest superpower in the world. So this is really a hiccup from the Cold War. It's a mentality that does not take into account the realities of the 21st century -- or the real threats to Russia, such as economic underperformance, corruption, crime, and religious extremism in the North Caucasus and elsewhere in the Russian Federation.
*
President Vladimir Putin has overwhelmed the leaders of Russia's opposition with Soviet-style methods. But he will not be able to stop the modernization of Russian society in the same way. A new grassroots movement is already taking shape.
Putin's Russia is so stable today that it is even capable of withstanding the forces of economic crises, Moscow economist Vladislav Inozemtsev maintains in a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview. He argues the West should give up its hopes for democracy and modernization in the country and instead focus on business ties.
