Weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
Vladimir Putin, who was inaugurated as president of Russia on May 7, has instructed the Foreign Ministry to ensure compliance with the New START Treaty, focusing on the issue of ballistic missile defense. The meaning of the gesture is clear. Relations with the United States remain at the forefront and at the core of these relations is the issue of ballistic missile defense, a situation that is unlikely to change.
Putin created a stir by announcing that he would not be attending the G8 summit at Camp David next week but would be sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to represent Russia instead. This decision is highly significant, especially considering that one of the reasons for moving the meeting from Chicago, where a NATO summit is due to be held after the G8 meeting, is the unwillingness of both sides to start their interaction off with a conflict.
Since there has been no progress on the issue of missile defense, the tone of Putin’s potential statements had he attended the G8 summit, is predictable enough. It is in no one’s interest for this to happen, either from a security standpoint or on a political level. The lack of progress was due to the complexity of the issue itself and the election campaigns in Russia and the United States. As Obama told Medvedev in a candid moment in Seoul, unaware that his words were being picked up by microphone, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election if he is reelected, of course. Washington’s flexibility is vital for breaking the deadlock because Putin usually reciprocates to manifestations of goodwill, or more precisely, he does so when he feels that he is dealing with someone who is ready to negotiate and compromise, rather than talking to a brick wall.
The current difficulties in Russian-U.S. relations are hard to formulate: Putin has to understand that Obama is not George W. Bush. The world sees Obama as the polar opposite to Bush, but this is not so obvious to the new Russian president. Putin does not trust the United States as a matter of principle, but not because of his Soviet background or KGB training. The reason is more to do with his relations with Bush during his first two presidential terms. According to Putin, who was initially pro-American, instead of gratitude, the Bush administration responded to his moves toward rapprochement with the United States in 2000-2002 by launching an aggressive expansion into the post-Soviet space, withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, announcing plans to deploy BMD elements near Russia’s border, and setting a course for global hegemony.
As a result, Putin decided that, on the whole, gentlemanly agreements with the Americans are not possible: they do not honor their promises, they take every concession for granted and flexibility for them is simply a pretext for expanding their sphere of strategic influence. Agreements with them on some issues are possible in principle, but only after long hard bargaining, and when the results are sealed in a legally binding document. The START talks proceeded in accordance with this formula, and Russia’s 18-year marathon toward accession to the WTO is an even more explicit example.
The first – and so far only – meeting between Putin and Obama in July 2009 started with Putin talking fervently and passionately for 45 minutes about Russia’s complaints about U.S. policies. Obama listened attentively and promised to reconsider – to all appearances he has honored his promise. The reset between the United States and Russia took off in September when Obama announced his decision to cancel Bush’s plans to deploy a ballistic missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Kremlin welcomed the decision, and the process at last moved forward. However, the missile defense issue has once again reared its head. Putin believes that Washington is being disingenuous and that, whoever is president, will continue to advance its strategic project, disregarding the opinions of its partners.
Further statements on the readiness to continue working jointly can be expected to come from the Camp David talks, but practical discussions would be pointless until February or March 2013. Afghanistan may be the only exception and Medvedev may ask what Washington’s real intentions in this country are. Most Russian experts still doubt that U.S. troops will pull out of Afghanistan as planned. The general belief is that Washington will maintain a strategic presence there.
Contrary to what many believe, Russian-U.S. relations are not doomed to conflict under Putin, but they will be strained for the reasons outlined above. On the whole, the decision not to attend the G8 summit is fresh evidence that Putin dislikes diplomatic routine and endless protocol meetings with his foreign counterparts. He feels more at ease with foreign business leaders, who talk about practical issues more freely, with such meetings often culminating in practical projects.
That is why, although he has changed places with Dmitry Medvedev, Putin may try to preserve the previous tandem formula, which has proved quite effective in foreign policy. Prime Minister Medvedev could take on a broader foreign policy brief, becoming President Putin’s personal special envoy, especially since it is easier for him to find common ground with most foreign leaders. So what Obama was caught telling Medvedev in Seoul, and which caused such an uproar in the United States, may be a telling indicator of the possible format of Russian-U.S. communications for the next few years: “After my election, I will have more flexibility,” Obama said and urged Medvedev to relay this point to Putin. “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev replied.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Is Russia unpredictable? Perhaps, but one shouldn’t exaggerate – its randomness often follows a consistent pattern. But is the world at large predictable? The past two decades have seen all forecasts refuted more than once and have taught us only one thing – to be ready for any change. This column is on what the nations and governments are facing in the era of global uncertainty.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- SirkoNever Trust the U.S.22:39, 10/05/2012"As a result, Putin decided that, on the whole, gentlemanly agreements with the Americans are not possible: they do not honor their promises, they take every concession for granted and flexibility for them is simply a pretext for expanding their sphere of strategic influence."
Here...!!! Here...!!! Good for Putin.
Do not take a step back and most assuredly do not trust the U.S. Missiles out or no so-called 'reset' nonsense.The U.S. has never honoured a treaty unless it has faced overwhelming deterrence. During the Greek civil war in the late forties the leftists lay down their weapons foolishly trusting in the promise by the west in guarantees of national referendum. Metaxas the U.S. backed flunky dictator immediately executed thousands and with the help of the Brits established an repressive government for years. The overwhelming majority of the Greek people to this day are left leaning. The U.S. has done this innumerable times in Central and Latin America and around the world, from the assassination of Patrice Lamumba democratically elected in the Congo to the murder of tens of thousands including Ajende in Chile to propping up Markos for years in the Philippines, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Obama is not much better than 'Bushwacker'. He simply knows how to lie a little better. At the beginning of his presidency did he not give his word to Putin that the Missile Shield would be scrapped and then reneged.
- arsanlupinOh, please!15:10, 19/05/2012This from a psychotic Canadian, 4 generations removed from anything Russian. I doubt he’s ever even visited Russia; if he had, the Russians would probably have killed him out of sheer embarrassment. His blind anti-American bigotry is because he thinks it’s the fault of the USA his grandfather lost his job, 54 years ago. Everything else is simple ranting; a rational thought and a glass of water would probably kill him.
- free_mind50(no title)00:07, 11/05/2012conflict is not inevitable so long as Washington wills it. Years of anti-soviet propaganda ingrained in the western world has created a hostility of anything Russian and a false sense of superiority on the part of the western world.
Whenever there was possible reproachment between the two powers within the establishment worked night and day to sabotage it to keep the boogeyman of the soviet union going,and it is the same thing they are doing modern Russia.
President Putin sees this and that is why Russ must remain vigilant.
- SirkoNever Take a Step Back and Don't Let the Fascists Rest..08:43, 11/05/2012"Years of anti-soviet propaganda ingrained in the western world has created a hostility of anything Russian and a false sense of superiority on the part of the western world."
You are dead on...!!!
Not just vigilant, but proactive..
- metchi(no title)17:32, 11/05/2012this is not a comparison between the equal parties of the world... this is a tone of supremacy and a tutroing style that is not understandable in comparing a thousand years old Tsaria to less than 500 years old state... they - in whilte house- forget to tell whome they prefere to be the envoy: Butin - the krate kid- or Medvidev -the Kremlin kid... by the way being KGB in Russia is similar to being cia in the US... the differnce is in the other countries according to their degree of thier allaying...Munia
Image Galleries: Yury Gagarin: Life of the First Man in Space in Pictures
Infographics: History of the Paralympic Games
We have witnessed the total defeat of western Ukraine, Western nationalists and the West in general, which made the unfortunate decision to support the anti-government activity. They failed to realize that the collapse of Yanukovych means the collapse of Ukrainian unity. They set fire to their own home and planted a time bomb under Ukraine’s territorial integrity.