In Praise of Spheres of Influence

A recurring theme in U.S.-Russian relations for nearly two decades now is that America does not recognize a Russian "sphere of influence" over the countries on its borders. But the Obama administration has seemingly reformulated this position into a more sweeping one: that we reject the very idea that other nations can seek to influence events beyond their borders. Vice President Biden said as much in Georgia, as did Secretary Clinton. During recent testimony to the Senate, the State Department's Philip Gordon said bluntly "We reject the concept of a sphere of influence."

Of course, the administration does not reject the "concept" of spheres of influence. It objects to other nations having a sphere of influence. The U.S. loves having influence over other countries - in the Middle East, in Asia, in Latin America. And there's nothing wrong with that! To the extent that countries have security and commercial interests in other countries, they are going to want to influence those nations. Nothing about this is nefarious. One of the enduring successes of America's Cold War strategy was that we kept key regions of the world (Europe and Asia) under our influence and not the Soviets.

But now that there's no ideology at stake, the situation is murkier.

What the Obama administration wants to say is that Russia's influence on its immediate neighbors is detrimental to U.S. commercial and security interests. But rather than say this outright, and then go about defending the various interests at stake and why we need to lock horns with Russia over them, they retreat to self-righteous platitudes about how they're trying to transcend "19th century" politics. I guess some people fall for this kind of talk, but it doesn't really bring clarity to the issues at stake.

---------

Vice President Biden, speaking in Ukraine. Photo credit: AP Photos