The Realist Prism: U.S. Must Move Beyond Binary Approach to Foreign Policy

The Realist Prism: U.S. Must Move Beyond Binary Approach to Foreign Policy

Mitt Romney’s recently described Russia as the “No. 1 geopolitical foe” of the United States, arguing that Moscow consistently “lines up” with America’s adversaries. But does the claim stand up to closer scrutiny? After all, Moscow has not extended material and financial support to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, arguably the greatest challenges to the United States, even though there are ample geopolitical justifications to try and bog Washington down in multiple Middle Eastern quagmires, thereby deflecting American attention from Eurasia. Nor does Russia reflexively block any and all U.S. priorities, as the Soviet Union routinely did during the days of the Cold War.

Nonetheless, Russia does not see eye to eye with the United States on every issue, with Syria being exhibit No. 1. It also does not fully support the American position on Iran: Moscow has been reluctant to impose draconian sanctions on Tehran, even if it has cooperated with more limited measures, including canceling the sale of a major air-defense system to Tehran that, if it were deployed, would make any U.S. or Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities much more problematic. Indeed, Moscow has itself adopted the rhetoric of “selected partnership” to characterize its relations with the United States. It believes it can have an energy partnership with America, highlighted by Exxon-Mobil’s alliance with state-owned Rosneft to develop new offshore fields in the Arctic, and it actively supports the transit of U.S. troops and materiel into Afghanistan. Yet Moscow does not feel obligated to support every last U.S. foreign policy preference and feels that it can oppose the United States on some issues without having to jeopardize those areas where productive relations have been created.

But Russia’s position -- supportive of the U.S. on some issues, in active opposition on others -- does not fit well into America’s historically binary foreign policy approach, by which other states are classed as either “friends” or “foes.” An outgrowth of the Cold War era, reinforced during the War on Terror, the attitude that countries are either “with us,” and thereby expected to more or less line up with every U.S. position, or “against us,” and therefore classified as adversaries, is hard to shake.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.