Rupert Cornwell: Little hope of a new start with Russia
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The American Vice President, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, want to press the "reset" button in US relations with Russia, after the tensions of the later Bush years. Alas, President Barack Obama's trip to Moscow is likely to prove how difficult this will be, especially when an authoritarian regime in the Kremlin hankers for Soviet-era "parity" with the US.
Relations between Washington and its one-time superpower rival are not simple at the best of times. They are made more complicated now by the divided leadership structure. Formally, Mr Obama's counterpart is President Dimitri Medvedev. But no one doubts that real power still lies with former president Vladimir Putin, now Prime Minister.
And the Putin era has reconfirmed the eternal link between domestic and foreign policy in Russia. The more hardline the regime at home, the more assertive and uncompromising its policies abroad, reinforcing its message to its own people that Russia is somehow under threat from the West. Hence the anti-Americanism that again colours the Kremlin's world view.
Mr Putin has never hidden his belief that Russia was exploited and humiliated by the US during the chaotic period after the fall of communism. The former president has even declared that the disappearance of the Soviet Union was the greatest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century. Nor is it a coincidence that Russians are far more sceptical than most others, in Europe and elsewhere, that Mr Obama represents real change in Washington. The messenger may be different, but the assumption is that the US will ultimately look after its interests, just as Russia defends its own.
From this perspective, prospects for a substantial "reset" in US/Russian relations are modest at best. First and foremost, the Russian leadership will want to take the personal measure of this young and inexperienced American President, much as Nikita Khrushchev did of John Kennedy in 1961. Mr Obama will not make the mistake Mr Kennedy did, of appearing to be too soft.
Of the four main items on the agenda progress is likely on only two, the two where respective national interests do coincide. A Taliban victory in Afghanistan, raising the likelihood of instability in Russia's Islamic regions, would be scarcely less welcome to the Kremlin than Washington. Friday's announcement that US planes will be allowed to use Russian airspace to carry troops and weapons to Afghanistan is a sign that in this war, the two countries will co-operate.
They should also be able agree further steps – in outline at least – to reduce nuclear weapons, the one area where Russia has long had approximate parity with the US. But the Kremlin is linking any deal with US abandonment of its plans for missile defences in eastern Europe. Mr Obama is cooler on the project than his predecessor, but will not give it up.
On the two most contentious issues, the chances of progress are bleak. Russia, though worried about a nuclear-armed Iran, will not step up pressure on Tehran now, not least because tensions around Iran increase the value of its oil and gas, its two main exports.
Thorniest of all is Nato enlargement. A topmost priority of the Putin/Medvedev regime is to re- establish de facto Russian hegemony over the former states of the Soviet Union. Hence the Kremlin's constant pressure on Ukraine, and its military action last year against Georgia. Russia wants an implicit but cast-iron acknowledgement that neither country will join Nato. The US refuses to give one. As a result, Georgia remains an ever-perilous flashpoint, that could undo at a stroke every effort for a "reset" in relations between Washington and Moscow.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Violated promises - No expansion of Nato into the former Soviet Union - that didn't last long.
- the discarding of the ABM treaty
Humiliation - the willful disregard for Russian interests throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. When Russia cooperated in the post September 11th crusade, how was she repaid? with colour revolutions, lectures on Democracy and Human Rights (from Bush and Blair for god's sake) and attempted Nato expansion into Ukraine and Georgia (and anybody who claims Nato is not directed at Russia, why is the drive to expand targeted at Ukraine and Georgia and not at eg Morocco?). Then there was also the bombardment of Serbia and exclusion of Russia from the settlement of that war.
Hypocrisy - Pretty much everything under humiliation, but also includes areas where Russia struck back. US/UK launch wars against Serbia to separate Kosovo after Serbian violations of human rights. Georgia launches a surprise attack against weak but de facto independent statelet Ossetia, killing 10 Russian peacekeepers in the process. Russia strikes back, defeating and disarming the Georgian army quickly, and declining the opportunity to bombard Tblisi and topple Saakashvili. Instead they withdraw to Ossetia (admittedly keeping control of a safety buffer zone) and recognise Abkhazia and Ossetia. The Russians are roundly condemned in the west for attacking Georgia (even though Georgia was the agressor) and violating its territorial sovereignty (much as we did too Serbia). To truly underline the Hypocrisy, the same people who toppled Saddam, allowed him to be hung, flattened Fallujah, have sparked an excrement storm from Karachi to Baghdad and continuously back Israel's use of overwhelming firepower, these same people denounced Russia's use of "disproportionate force"
The USA arms Saakashvili and then gets snotty when Russia SELLS weapons to Iran for profit.
Downright absurd demands - The Ukraine decided it would like to leave the Russian sphere of influence after a western funded and backed victory for Yushchenko. Fair enough, they are free to choose. However Russia also decided, no more Friendsies? OK no more cheap oil and gas - MARKET PRICES would apply, not Soviet discount prices. Also fair - do we expect China to subsidise Japan or Taiwan? But he howls of rage in the western press were deafening - Russia bullies Ukraine. Conveniently the press repeatedly stated Russia had doubled the price, hardly mentioning the fact that the price was simply the market rate. Ukraine can't or won't pay its gas bill, so Russia cuts off its gas, so Ukraine cuts off Europe's gas. Once again, howls of anger, once again against Russia - Do we in the west supply people who don't pay their bills?
WHY IS IT A SURPRISE, CONSIDERING THE BRIEF LIST OF ATTACKS ON RUSSIA ABOVE, THAT THE REGIME AND PEOPLE HERE FEEL THREATENED BY THE US AND EUROPE? IT IS NOT ANTI_AMERICANISM IT IS THE DESIRE TO BE TREATED FAIRLY AND A DESPAIR WITH WESTERN ENCROACHMENTS ON RUSSIAN INTERESTS SO LONG AS RUSSIA WAS OBEDIENT AND ACQUIESCENT.
Even if there is a hint of paranoia in Russia about the west it is hardly surprising when a liberal US Secretary of State, Madelaine Albright declared that Siberia was too resource rich to be controlled by one country. From a craven position of western lackey under Yeltsin, Russia has come to the realisation that the only form respect it can get from the West is that based on strength. It is better to be feared and respected than pitied and humiliated.
Surely you jest? Russia is the cat that is kept to be kicked by others. Fairness doesn't come into it. It is simple James-Bond bad-guy hysteria, perpetuated by neocon twonks like Miliband and the FCO empty suits, and the BBC who chirp to Miliband's tune.