Why invest in Russia?

POST: The fog of the “new cold war”, Economist.com, Dec 7th 2006

I don't dispute the facts here, nor the trajectory. I also agree this was easily forecast, as I noted in a recent post (Look who comes out of the Soviet experience most adept at moving ahead? Cops and criminals).

But trying to elevate Europe's task ahead (maturing both Russia and its relationship with it--a generational task at least) into a geo-strategic challenge on par with the Cold War is--as the preamble admits--risking the charge of absurdity.

Is there a serious bleed into security affairs? No.

Does the U.S. want any ownership of such a resurrected stand-off? Much less pick up the "near abroad" to boot? No way.

Do these concerns trump the clear requirement to focus on building more important relations and alliance with China (to include its maturation)? Hardly, and I'd say the same for India to boot (Hell, wouldn't even prioritize it over Brazil.)

Does the upside (alliance and resources tapped) on Russia potentially outrank that trio on the Long War? Maybe with serious effort, Russia ties India for long-term importance, but I think I get 95 percent of that help from Moscow with no effort beyond what the Europeans will need to do anyway, so why make the effort in a busy world?

In sum, I stipulate the backsliding (nothing is linear--not even America's membership under Bush!) but cannot summon the argument for recasting America's approach, Russia's membership in the Core (which isn't about democracy, as I've always argued), or Russia's relative importance in the Long War (again, why pick fights I don't need to divert resources I can't spare).

I'm an ideologue about markets, not democracy, and I suffer managed markets before I take on security burdens that time will heal on its own. My idealism, as I note in BFA, is long-term. My realism is short-term. That's how I think we hold a Shrink the Gap strategy together over the long haul, just like we did containment.

Thanks to Eric Hansen for sending this in.