What Did Obama Get Out of His Visit to Moscow?
Published in Izvestia
(Russia) on 8 July 2009
by Yekaterina Grigoryeva (link to original)
On Wednesday morning, after his first visit to Moscow, Barack Obama left the Russian capital. If not “Obama-mania,” then at least “Obama-optimism” remained in his wake. Should we expect this optimism to bear any fruit?
Everyone who participated in the talks with Obama noted that the very style of the Russian-American dialogue has qualitatively changed. The U.S. president did not arrive with ready-made solutions (e.g. “Here, we must do so and so”). Instead, he came with a desire to understand the actual situation. There is a psychological law that says if you really want someone to agree with you, show that you understand the opponent’s position, and only then say "but."
That’s exactly what Obama did. In fact, some of his key phrases surpassed many (even of the boldest) expectations. The following statement alone is very valuable. Obama stated: “Russia's future is up to the Russian people. Not every choice that's good for the United States is going to be good for Russia.” Sources close to the talks tell Izvestia that this and similar phrases were heard and appreciated.
This change in tone has already produced a significant result. During the visit, the Afghan transit agreement was signed. The agreement enables Americans to significantly cut costs with respect to their own military presence in Afghanistan (which is, of course, important for Obama’s approval ratings). The shorter flight route alone will save the U.S. approximately $140 million in fuel and other costs. In addition, Russia agreed not to charge a fee for the use of its air space, which also saved approximately $20 million.
It seems like Russia keeps making concessions to America, and what’s the good in that? But there is a benefit – the right, at any time, to inspect military cargo. In other words, after Washington listened to Moscow’s position, it didn’t shout, “we transport whatever we want and it’s none of your business,” but simply took a step towards mutual agreement. The agreement also clearly specifies what can and cannot be transported, and the rules for the inspections. Moscow also appreciates this approach. Izvestia’s sources say that no one, for pride’s sake, will inspect the aircrafts and, most likely, Americans will fly freely.
Can this “model” approach taken in the Afghan transit agreement be applied to other areas? Obama’s attitude seems to indicate that the answer is more likely yes than no. For example, sources say that during his breakfast with Vladimir Putin, Obama inquired in detail about the proposals Putin made to George W. Bush during his presidency. Among Obama’s inquiries was the area of missile defense. It seemed as though Obama’s advisers (perhaps, the same people who wrote “overload” [peregruzka] instead of “reset” [perezagruzka]) weren’t telling him everything.
The same applies to the South Ossetian situation. On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly emphasized (even in Moscow) that he supports Georgia’s territorial integrity. But there are parallel signals that paint a different picture. First, Georgia’s territorial integrity should not be recovered through military means. And second, the current U.S. administration considers some of its predecessor’s decisions in this area to be misguided and rash.
Once, Bush looked into Putin’s soul. Obama, it seems, is interested in rational arguments, not the soul. His first visit could be considered the “words” stage. The “deeds” stage will begin in September when the U.S. and Russian presidents meet again.
What was the most important aspect of Obama’s visit?
By Natalia Antipova, Vasiliy Voropaev
Ilya Ponomarev, Russian State Duma deputy, a participant in the talks with the U.S. President:
- I think that the main outcome of the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Russia is that now he knows more about Russia than any previous U.S. administration. He has demonstrated a desire to find out what’s really going on in Russia. I think that now, American policy will not operate with its eyes closed, but instead will hold itself more accountable for its actions. American politics will undergo major changes compared to the previous administration, even taking into account the views that the current Obama administration might have had.
But we shouldn’t talk about any radical changes in Russian-American relations. Especially considering that Obama himself, when I spoke with him, warned against any illusions or inflated expectations. He stressed that any changes will be very gradual, but profound and meaningful. The ideological stereotypes of the previous administration, which dictated neo-conservatism, will be gone. The rest will be up to us and depends on whether we can translate this conversation in a common language into concrete action.
Alexei Arbatov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of the Center for International Security at Institute of World Economy and International:
- I wouldn’t say that there were any major developments, or that we reached new horizons. But a major step was taken to restore the relations, which were practically destroyed in August of last year. Neither side lost, neither side won. I think that now, relations can only be built on the basis of mutual interest. As a result, to the extent that this important, albeit modest step, was taken, both sides won.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:
- The main outcome is the change in the relations’ climate. During the fall of last year, the mutual trust level declined approximately to the atmosphere of the early ‘80s, which was the early Reagan era. For 2008, this was, of course, unnatural. Currently, the character of cooperation has been more or less restored. This is not a guarantee that the mechanism will operate like clockwork, but at least it started working. This is a serious result. Both delegations and both presidents have said, publicly and privately, that the atmosphere of the dialogue is very good. That’s already not bad.
Online survey by Izvestia and KM.ru:
What are the main results of Obama’s visit to Russia?
39%: This was the first meeting, but we’ll see the real results in the fall, at the G20 summit
31%: Russia had made concessions, but so far, received nothing in return
28%: Nothing has changed; the visit was a formality
2%: Our relations were really “reset”
3261 people participated in the survey.
Everyone who participated in the talks with Obama noted that the very style of the Russian-American dialogue has qualitatively changed. The U.S. president did not arrive with ready-made solutions (e.g. “Here, we must do so and so”). Instead, he came with a desire to understand the actual situation. There is a psychological law that says if you really want someone to agree with you, show that you understand the opponent’s position, and only then say "but."
That’s exactly what Obama did. In fact, some of his key phrases surpassed many (even of the boldest) expectations. The following statement alone is very valuable. Obama stated: “Russia's future is up to the Russian people. Not every choice that's good for the United States is going to be good for Russia.” Sources close to the talks tell Izvestia that this and similar phrases were heard and appreciated.
This change in tone has already produced a significant result. During the visit, the Afghan transit agreement was signed. The agreement enables Americans to significantly cut costs with respect to their own military presence in Afghanistan (which is, of course, important for Obama’s approval ratings). The shorter flight route alone will save the U.S. approximately $140 million in fuel and other costs. In addition, Russia agreed not to charge a fee for the use of its air space, which also saved approximately $20 million.
It seems like Russia keeps making concessions to America, and what’s the good in that? But there is a benefit – the right, at any time, to inspect military cargo. In other words, after Washington listened to Moscow’s position, it didn’t shout, “we transport whatever we want and it’s none of your business,” but simply took a step towards mutual agreement. The agreement also clearly specifies what can and cannot be transported, and the rules for the inspections. Moscow also appreciates this approach. Izvestia’s sources say that no one, for pride’s sake, will inspect the aircrafts and, most likely, Americans will fly freely.
Can this “model” approach taken in the Afghan transit agreement be applied to other areas? Obama’s attitude seems to indicate that the answer is more likely yes than no. For example, sources say that during his breakfast with Vladimir Putin, Obama inquired in detail about the proposals Putin made to George W. Bush during his presidency. Among Obama’s inquiries was the area of missile defense. It seemed as though Obama’s advisers (perhaps, the same people who wrote “overload” [peregruzka] instead of “reset” [perezagruzka]) weren’t telling him everything.
The same applies to the South Ossetian situation. On the one hand, Obama has repeatedly emphasized (even in Moscow) that he supports Georgia’s territorial integrity. But there are parallel signals that paint a different picture. First, Georgia’s territorial integrity should not be recovered through military means. And second, the current U.S. administration considers some of its predecessor’s decisions in this area to be misguided and rash.
Once, Bush looked into Putin’s soul. Obama, it seems, is interested in rational arguments, not the soul. His first visit could be considered the “words” stage. The “deeds” stage will begin in September when the U.S. and Russian presidents meet again.
What was the most important aspect of Obama’s visit?
By Natalia Antipova, Vasiliy Voropaev
Ilya Ponomarev, Russian State Duma deputy, a participant in the talks with the U.S. President:
- I think that the main outcome of the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Russia is that now he knows more about Russia than any previous U.S. administration. He has demonstrated a desire to find out what’s really going on in Russia. I think that now, American policy will not operate with its eyes closed, but instead will hold itself more accountable for its actions. American politics will undergo major changes compared to the previous administration, even taking into account the views that the current Obama administration might have had.
But we shouldn’t talk about any radical changes in Russian-American relations. Especially considering that Obama himself, when I spoke with him, warned against any illusions or inflated expectations. He stressed that any changes will be very gradual, but profound and meaningful. The ideological stereotypes of the previous administration, which dictated neo-conservatism, will be gone. The rest will be up to us and depends on whether we can translate this conversation in a common language into concrete action.
Alexei Arbatov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of the Center for International Security at Institute of World Economy and International:
- I wouldn’t say that there were any major developments, or that we reached new horizons. But a major step was taken to restore the relations, which were practically destroyed in August of last year. Neither side lost, neither side won. I think that now, relations can only be built on the basis of mutual interest. As a result, to the extent that this important, albeit modest step, was taken, both sides won.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:
- The main outcome is the change in the relations’ climate. During the fall of last year, the mutual trust level declined approximately to the atmosphere of the early ‘80s, which was the early Reagan era. For 2008, this was, of course, unnatural. Currently, the character of cooperation has been more or less restored. This is not a guarantee that the mechanism will operate like clockwork, but at least it started working. This is a serious result. Both delegations and both presidents have said, publicly and privately, that the atmosphere of the dialogue is very good. That’s already not bad.
Online survey by Izvestia and KM.ru:
What are the main results of Obama’s visit to Russia?
39%: This was the first meeting, but we’ll see the real results in the fall, at the G20 summit
31%: Russia had made concessions, but so far, received nothing in return
28%: Nothing has changed; the visit was a formality
2%: Our relations were really “reset”
3261 people participated in the survey.