RSS
Home
Can Obama "reset" the US-Russian relationship?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Andrews Air Force Base, July 5, 2009 (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)
The U.S.-Russian relationship has been tense over the past several years, as President Barack Obama arrives in Moscow on Monday with hopes of “resetting” the troubled relationship. However, the term “reset” may not the best word and at the end of the day just pure rhetoric, as any progress will have to be measured in small increments rather than major breakthroughs.
President Barack Obama arrives in Moscow on Monday for a lengthy working session with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. On Tuesday, Obama will have breakfast with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, followed by a major foreign policy address and meetings with Russian civil society activists.
The dominating issue will be arms reduction. Obama is expected to discuss with Medvedev ways to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) before it expires on December 5. The accord imposed ceilings of 6,000 strategic warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles on each side. The two leaders are expected to sign a framework deal that might bring the totals down to around 1,500 warheads on 1,100 missiles. However, these numbers will far short of Obama’s aim of achieving zero nuclear weapons.
Russia says a deal on START is possible but has linked any agreement with Washington’s plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe as a threat to its national security. According to Viktor Kremeniuk, deputy director of the official institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow, “Russia is not inclined to go very far in cutting down its nuclear weapons because of our relative weakness – and NATO’s massive superiority – in conventional forces. And we need to worry about U.S. deployment of anti-missile systems, which could upset any balance of offense weapons at some point in the future.”
While the White House is “reviewing” plans to station missile interceptors in Poland, with associated radars in the Czech Republic, it has suggested that the U.S. is in no mood to compromise on missile defense or with Russia’s demands that Washington withdraw its backing for Ukraine and Georgia’s eventual NATO membership.
Other agenda topics range from U.S. support for Georgia and Moscow’s sale of advanced air defense missiles to Iran, counter-terrorism, energy cooperation and economic development. According to deputy chair of the Russian State Duma’s foreign affairs commission, “Unfortunately, our agenda contains too many difficult issues; I’ll be surprised if we can solve any of them.”
There is, however, one area of hope for partnership, and that is in Afghanistan. Moscow has expressed growing willingness to support the struggling U.S.-led Western operations in Afghanistan. Russian news reported on Friday that a deal would be inked between Obama and Medvedev to allow NATO use a Russian “transport corridor” to resupply its forces with weaponry as well as non-lethal equipment. Further, last month, with Russian acquiescence, the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan relented on a previous decision and agreed to allow U.S. forces continued access to the Manas airbase, a vital link in Afghan resupply efforts.
It would be naïve to think that years of tension between the U.S. and Russia can be reset during this visit or in the near-term. We have already demonstrated some ignorance in our approach and embarrassed ourselves in the process. In March, in an effort to “reset” ties with Russia after years of friction, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov a mock “reset” button (see video below), but unfortunately the word on the botton “peregruzka” meant “overload” or “overcharged”, rather than “reset”. The incident was not only an embarrassing translation error, but also the fact that the botton was large and red summoned up thoughts not of easing tension but of launching a nuclear strike.
We are better off staying away from the term “reset” and focusing on understanding with caution this country that still harbors a lot of distrust against the U.S. The operative word here is “caution.” While Medvedev may represent the friendly face of Russia, Putin is still very much omnipresent in Russian politics and foreign policy decisions. Afterall, Medvedev was hand picked by Putin to be President, and Putin is politically astute and manipulative given his past as KGB officer. Obama is right to also meet with Putin on this trip, but it would behoove him that in addition to rhetoric to set specific and actionable timeline with milestones to help measure success in improving the U.S.-Russian relationship. Otherwise, there will be little hope of a serious reparation of relationship.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
