Dr. Nikolai Zlobin, director of the Russia and Eurasia Project at the Washington-based World Security Institute, specializes in US-Russian relations, international security, US policies toward Europe and Asia, American political history, Russian foreign policy, and the struggle against international terrorism. Invited to the US in 1993, he has been working there ever since, while retaining his Russian citizenship. He He
Zlobin is also the founder and director of the international news and information agency Washington Profile. Despite the latest failures of the US, he thinks that its role as the world’s only superpower will increase. In the Eurasian region, the US will continue to protect its interests in the field of security and energy. To this end, it will seek to prevent conflicts, defuse tensions, and create favorable conditions for its economy.
What is the Americans’ attitude to Washington’s “leading” role in the world? Is the US influencing Ukrainian and Russian policies and, if so, in what way? This is the subject of the Washington expert’s interview with The Day.
“I think there is strong opposition in the US to the idea of influencing other countries because the American elite is increasingly aware that some powers go beyond the limits of US national interests and even run counter to them. Being an overextended state is a bad role to play. The more the US is overextended throughout the world, the weaker it is within its own limits. Globalization is playing a dual role. The more the US influences the world, the more the world influences the US. This creates very many problems that frighten the American elite.”
“Is the US influencing Ukrainian and Russian policies?”
“Of course, the US is influencing the policies of Ukraine and Russia, although the possibilities for such influence are very slim. I think the US is mainly influencing policies by positioning itself, more or less, as a certain guarantor of international security in the Eurasian region. This lets Ukraine and Russia pay more attention to problems of energy, the economy, and improving living standards instead of arming themselves to the teeth and trying to establish a zone of defense around themselves. In fact, no matter how critical one may be of the US military bases in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, they may be considered a guarantor of security. And those who would like to destabilize the situation know only too well that they will, in all likelihood, deal not only with Moscow and Kyiv but also Washington. I think this is a major factor.”
“Can you name the levers that the US still has for influencing Ukrainian and Russian policies?”
“There are too few levers. Frankly speaking, I don’t think there are any tactical levers left. As for strategic ones, everything boils down to the overall understanding that threats, problems, and challenges are almost the same for all countries. There is also the common belief that the US is prepared to focus on preventing threats and challenges. There is some influence on the elite in this case because one should come to terms and try to find a common language. The Russian and Ukrainian elites want to be recognized and gain legitimate status all over the world. They want to be first-class elites, but whether or not they will be allowed into the ‘first-class compartment’ depends on the Europeans and Americans. That is why this opinion does exist. They are undoubtedly also using the experience that the West has accumulated in institution building and conflict resolution. I think the possibilities of direct influence are almost nil. Moreover, there are increasing possibilities of the Ukrainian and Russian elites exerting influence on US policies.”
“In what way?”
“Intellectually, for example. The collapse of the USSR created a funny situation: the US, with all its might and intellect, had a colossal army of Sovietologists who suddenly became totally obsolete - just because they were Sovietologists. At the same time, there were no experts on Russia proper, let alone Ukraine or Kazakhstan. There was not a single expert in Washington who could speak Georgian and was knowledgeable in problems of Georgian politics. For this reason, experts from other regions ‘seized’ the post-Soviet space. Turkish experts began to advise the Americans on the Caucasus. Experts on Asia began to consult on Central Asian policies. As for Eastern Europe and Ukraine, the Americans began listening to the Poles and experts on Eastern Europe, which is wrong because they have their own interests. In this case, the Ukrainian intellectual elite can offer some serious assistance.”
“Can you explain why during election campaigns in Ukraine some parties always exploit the slogan that the US is guiding our country’s policies? The Communists even called the US ambassador to Ukraine a Gauleiter.”
“I think the US can intervene in the internal policies of a state as much as that state allows it. Iraq is a typical example. The Americans totally occupied the country. They pay all the local bureaucrats’ salaries from the US state budget. They established the political system and the mass media in Iraq; they organized the elections, only to lose them. There are limits to everything. I think every country in question enormously exaggerates America’s role in principle. Many politicians, as well as elites and groupings, would like to present America as a behind-the-scenes figure that pulls strings, so that when it comes to the crunch they can put the blame for their own mistakes or the mistakes and behavior of their political opponents on America and create unfair conditions for political struggle. For example, they can claim that there is a certain factor in Ukraine, which in fact does not exist.”