Breaking the Ice in Moscow
Published in El País
(Spain) on 8 July, 2009
by (link to original)
The preliminary agreement between the United States and Russia to reduce around a third of their strategic nuclear arsenals over a seven year span by means of a treaty, which will replace the treaty from 1991 and should be ready in December, is an encouraging indication that relations are thawing between the two superpowers beyond that of the previous doctrine. The conclusion from the first summit between Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvédev has left a handful of important questions up in the air between the two countries. They should match up to the previous expectations of a meeting where both new Presidents proposed to move forward, leaving the mentality of the Cold War behind.
Washington has managed to set a high bar for the reduction of nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles, something that Moscow was reluctant to do. From the summit the Kremlin gains explicit consideration as a superpower by Obama, who not only proclaimed that the relationship between both countries should be based on equality, but also stated that Russian cooperation is imperative for confronting challenges as crucial as Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan, the latter of which Obama has obtained permission to supply American forces using Russian airspace. Obama’s anti-proliferation agenda, especially relevant when it comes to the situations in Tehran and Pyongyang, has been reinforced by the summit. With difficulty, Washington and Moscow can aim to be examples of self-control if they do not try to find a way to rationalize their own arsenals.
Even though it has not been discussed formally, the agreement from Moscow is going to depend on the final decision that Obama takes over the anti-missile shield that the United States expects to install in Poland and the Czech Republic, and that Russia considers as unacceptable. The discussion over this matter that could have derailed the summit has been left up in the air, but the Kremlin will not sign a strategic treaty if Washington ignores their point of view regarding the anti-missile shield.
Obama had not gone to Russia to give lessons on governance, although in his message yesterday to students he envisioned a more open and law-abiding Russian society, but to move beyond being historic rivals and try to undertake common objectives instead. Beyond these words, the Russians continue to perceive the expansion of NATO as a threat, and the position of Washington on issues like Georgia or Ukraine as an open interference in their affairs. Neither the United States or Russia can allow themselves to return to something like the Cold War, but Moscow needs a nuclear treaty more than Washington. They need this treaty not only because their strategic arsenal is older, but because the recession makes it especially difficult for the Kremlin to enter into another arms race with the United States, despite however spirited Vladímir Putin shows himself to be. As the first step on a long path, the Muscovite agreement is welcome.
Washington has managed to set a high bar for the reduction of nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles, something that Moscow was reluctant to do. From the summit the Kremlin gains explicit consideration as a superpower by Obama, who not only proclaimed that the relationship between both countries should be based on equality, but also stated that Russian cooperation is imperative for confronting challenges as crucial as Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan, the latter of which Obama has obtained permission to supply American forces using Russian airspace. Obama’s anti-proliferation agenda, especially relevant when it comes to the situations in Tehran and Pyongyang, has been reinforced by the summit. With difficulty, Washington and Moscow can aim to be examples of self-control if they do not try to find a way to rationalize their own arsenals.
Even though it has not been discussed formally, the agreement from Moscow is going to depend on the final decision that Obama takes over the anti-missile shield that the United States expects to install in Poland and the Czech Republic, and that Russia considers as unacceptable. The discussion over this matter that could have derailed the summit has been left up in the air, but the Kremlin will not sign a strategic treaty if Washington ignores their point of view regarding the anti-missile shield.
Obama had not gone to Russia to give lessons on governance, although in his message yesterday to students he envisioned a more open and law-abiding Russian society, but to move beyond being historic rivals and try to undertake common objectives instead. Beyond these words, the Russians continue to perceive the expansion of NATO as a threat, and the position of Washington on issues like Georgia or Ukraine as an open interference in their affairs. Neither the United States or Russia can allow themselves to return to something like the Cold War, but Moscow needs a nuclear treaty more than Washington. They need this treaty not only because their strategic arsenal is older, but because the recession makes it especially difficult for the Kremlin to enter into another arms race with the United States, despite however spirited Vladímir Putin shows himself to be. As the first step on a long path, the Muscovite agreement is welcome.
Previous article![]( "The Passing of Palin")
Next article![]( "The American Friend")
