David Taintor

Russia has always been an integral part of the United States foreign policy. Once fierce rivals, today the world’s largest countries share common interests on a broad range of issues, including counterterrorism and reduction of strategic arsenals.

During the presidential election campaign, when commenting on Russia, Barack Obama primarily focused on the need to keep Soviet nuclear-weapon stockpiles out of the hands of terrorists. Yet, recent developments in the international arena and rhetoric voiced from Moscow suggest that Russia will be high on President Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

One of the first announcements Obama made after the inauguration in regard to foreign policy was that Afghanistan is a major priority for the United States. And this draws in the Kremlin.

Russia’s president Dmitri A. Medvedev has announced that Russia will not be ignored on issues related to its “near-abroad.” Its recent action of putting “sticks” into the United States transport route for delivering NATO shipments to Afghanistan proves it.

Clearly, Russia is using the so-called “carrot and stick” approach to force the United States out of its interest zone.

The worrisome thing is that now Russia’s special-interest zone includes not only former Soviet territories, including the Caucasus and Central Asia, but also Afghanistan.

Even in his congratulatory telegram to Obama, President Medvedev highlighted that he hopes for a constructive dialogue with the president, based on trust and consideration of each other’s interests. All this indicates that the post-cold war era may not be so “post” after all and that Russia’s impact on global affairs should not be underestimated.

If Russia does not hesitate to use the “carrot and stick” approach towards the United States – one of the world’s leading powers – what pressure might it impose on the “near-abroad” countries falling within its special-interests zone?

Russia, once a master of the East European countries, still has an important impact on countries from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Since 1993, Moscow has used the concept of the “near-abroad,” implying less than complete sovereignty for its neighbors. Although it has been 20 years since the end of the Cold War, those countries continue to bear the burden of decades of isolation and repression.

They may be “too large to fail,” as once said by Winston Churchill, but they are still vulnerable to the Russian monopoly of energy resources and the ambitions and interests of neighbors in the East and West.

Is Russia becoming a global power? What is the role of Western European countries trying to balance their economic interests with the European Union’s common policy towards Russia? These are only several of the questions seven professors and diplomats from Europe and the United States will address at the 11th Symposium on East Europe to be held on April 3-4 in Haas Fine Arts Center.

I believe that hearing an expert-level analysis of global politics from the “insiders” point of view will help individuals get a better grasp on political, socio-economic and cultural developments not only in East nations but in the world as a whole.

UW-Eau Claire has always stressed diversity in education, and numerous foreign languages, culture and history courses are proof of that.

Each year a great number of Eau Claire students live and study in other parts of the world, thus broadening their perspectives and immersing themselves in another culture. But this time students do not have to leave Eau Claire to get a grasp of the world – the world is coming to Eau Claire.

Sprice is a senior political science major, international student from Latvia and guest columnist for The Spectator.