RUSSIA: Its Place in the 21st Century and the Implications for the United States The findings of a trilogy of panel studies by recognized experts A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org CONTENTS Introduction by Herbert London Study Group Briefing Agenda and Panel Participants Part One - Plenary Session Rapporteur’s Report by Peter Schweizer Part Two - Panel Reports I. Internal Issues Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Congressman Curt Weldon Cornerstone Paper by David Satter II. Foreign Policy Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Senator Fred Thompson Cornerstone Paper by Dr. Richard Pipes III. Security and Military Issues Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Major General William Odom, USA, Ret. Cornerstone Paper by Dr. Keith Payne Part Three - Luncheon Address by The Honorable James Woolsey Further Suggested Reading on Russia and the United States For Additional Information on this Hudson Institute Project and Future Hudson Institute Events, See Contact Information on the Inside Back Cover. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org RUSSIA: ITS PLACE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES A Report of the Hudson Institute Study Group on U.S.-Russia Relations Introduction By Herbert London Ten years ago we watched with near disbelief as the last great predatory empire, the Soviet Union, began to unravel before our eyes - and with scarcely a shot fired. It was a heady time, an event of unprecedented magnitude. For half a century the confrontation between the Soviets and the West had loomed over the entire globe, preoccupied our leaders and dominated our politics, forcing us to spend immense sums on defense, yet still leaving us haunted by the constant possibility of nuclear war. America and the West could take some pride in bringing a victorious end to this long twilight struggle, for it was our free system and our determination to remain free - the “wall of resolve” in the words of Russian patriot Alexander Solzhenitsyn - that finally caused the Soviet Union to collapse of its own internal corruption. When the Russian people threw off the burden of Communism, hopes were high in both Russia and the West that Russia would make the transition to a free, democratic, and stable country. We provided considerable material aid and much moral support to help bring it about. Now, as we all recognize with regret, things did not work out that way. Instead Russia went through a further agonizing economic collapse, accompanied by social and political turmoil. The old Communist nomenklatura, often in the new guise of criminal cartels, fought with reformers not just for the reins of power, but also over what kind of Russia would rise from the wreckage. Corrupt oligarches emerged in leadership positions, no longer claiming the sanction of “scientific” Marxist- Leninism but simply the right of the most unscrupulous to rule. The Russian people sank deeper into poverty and misery. Sadly, many of them came to equate the cynical exploitation of the new class of oligarches with free market reforms. Relations between America and Russia, which held so much promise at the end of the Cold War, soured once again. It would be tempting to dismiss all this as irrelevant. Americans have had a tendency to be complacent since the USSR collapsed. Soviet Communism is defeated and discredited, and Russia seriously weakened. It no longer threatens us, many Americans believe. And yet, while no one wants to revive or perpetuate the Cold War, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that Russia retains 6,000 nuclear warheads, is modernizing its strategic arsenal, and still has considerable conventional military power. We must face the fact that Russia still has the means to undermine the interests of the United States and our allies. Moreover, what happens in Russia may determine its eternal behavior. If Russia is able to surmount its internal problems and transform itself into a free and democratic society, then it most likely will adopt a military posture and foreign policy that does not seek to make trouble for America and the West. On the other hand, if a virulent new form of lawless authoritarianism takes permanent root, Russia is more likely to embark upon irredentist or aggressive policies abroad. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Because we still have a vital stake in what happens in Russia, the Hudson Institute decided to convene a group of experts to study U.S.-Russia relations and how America might encourage the emergence of a stable, democratic country. Without casting unduly harsh or premature judgments, the Institute believed nevertheless that American policy had failed to help Russia make the desired transformation. The Institute also anticipated that a new U.S. Administration might assume office in 2001 and a new approach to Russia might ensue. When Russia elected a new President, Vladimir Putin, the time seemed propitious to move forward with this study, “Russia: Its Place in the Twenty-First Century and the Implications for the United States.” The Hudson Institute brought together the most experienced foreign policy analysts and defense specialists available to assess the current state of the relationship and to make policy recommendations for improving it. U.S. policy toward Russia remains the subject of intense debate in Washington, so we expected the discussions to be lively. But when the sessions occurred in the shadow of President Bill Clinton’s historic meeting with President Putin in Moscow, and also the release of the Cox Committee’s Report on the failures of U.S. policy toward Russia, our deliberations took on added meaning. Three panels were created, with special attention to selecting bipartisan participants from a variety of professional backgrounds. Panel members included Members of the House and Senate, former intelligence officials, military officers, journalists, scholars, and businessmen. The first panel addressed Russia’s internal situation, covering corruption, health care, and legal and economic reform. The second panel analyzed Russian foreign policy and how the United States might adopt valid and more effective principles for dealing with Moscow. The third panel examined military questions, including the present and future state of Russia’s armed forces. Once each panel met to discuss its topics in depth, all three were convened in a private plenary session for an overall discussion. Through the plenary session we hoped to find some congruence in all three panels that could form the basis of a consistent policy. The day after this plenary session, a public meeting was held on Capitol Hill to discuss findings and make policy recommendations. More than a hundred people attended the event, including Members of Congress and Staff, journalists, and representatives from “think tanks” and the policy community. The Bush Administration has the opportunity to renew improved ties with Russia. And while America’s ability to affect the internal course of events in Russia is limited, there is still much that we can do to help make our former enemy a friend, as we have with adversaries in the past. We hope the Report you are about to read will help policymakers introduce a greater consistency and soundness of purpose into America’s relations with Russia. The United States needs to pursue a policy that is consistent with American national security interests and that offers the best long-term hope for prosperity and freedom in Russia. Through this exercise and with this Report, we believe we have made an important contribution toward that goal. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Public Briefing of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group “Russia: Its Place in the Twenty-First Century and the Implications for the United States” Agenda June 6, 2000 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing Room 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Sponsored by The Hudson Institute Welcome and Introduction by Herbert I. London, President, Hudson Institute Panel I. How Will Russia’s Internal Problems Shape Its Sense of Itself and the Role It Wants to Play? Chair, Curt Weldon, U.S. Representative, Pennsylvania Fritz Enmarth, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council Daniel Fine, Research Associate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Satter, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Owen T. Smith, Professor, Long Island University Panel II. What Are Russia’s Foreign Policy Aspirations and How Realistic Are They? Chair, Fred Thompson, U.S. Senator, Tennessee, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee Constantine Menges, Director of the Program on Transitions to Democracy, The George Washington University Richard Perle, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Richard Pipes, Professor of History, Harvard University Roger W. Robinson, Jr., William J. Casey Institute Chair, former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council Paul Wolfowitz, Dean, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Panel III. Where Does Russia Want to Go as a Military Power and Can They Afford it? Chair, William Odom, Director, National Security Studies, Hudson Institute Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy Robert Joseph, Director, Center for Counterproliferation Research, National Defense University Keith B.