The U.S. Cannot Solve Its Problems Without Russia

The global economic crisis, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction – the U.S. cannot solve any of these problems alone. It’s only now that the U.S. administration is beginning to understand that it needs to work together with Russia. In an interview on TV channel Vesti, Chairman of the International Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev spoke about the development of cooperation between Russia and America.

∙Why did Congress decide to alter Washington and Moscow’s relations, and to revive the former partnership of the two countries?

The U.S. previously thought that it would produce international security, and all the other countries would be its consumers. But in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, things didn’t turn out that way. The U.S. has a huge number of troubling spots around the world. America’s limitless self-confidence died down and, hence, it adopted a new tone. This time, questions are being asked, and it’s good that answers aren’t being given yet. This way, I perceive the new Congress and the new administration as partners rather than another problem that Russia has to deal with. If we keep up the dialogue – if our American partners will try to understand what’s unacceptable to Russia, and then propose some solutions, or take our suggestions – then I’m sure that the U.S. and Russia will make more progress in troubled areas than they have thus far. In that sense, I am an optimist.

∙In terms of specific actions, what kind of solutions does Russia expect from the new U.S. administration?

There are several of them. With respect to short-term projects, the first one that should definitely be stopped is NATO’s expansion to the Ukraine and Georgia. It all depends on what kind of position the U.S. takes. European partners of the U.S. realized a long time ago that they shouldn’t play around with this topic, because it’s very dangerous. The second project is the American missile defense in Europe. And finally, it’s a lack of cooperation regarding Afghanistan with Russia and countries belonging to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). This is a big problem for us Russians because there is a never-ending flow of drugs coming from Afghanistan to Russia, which in turn causes a huge number of other problems. And still, NATO and the U.S. react very unenthusiastically to Russia and the CSTO’s proposals to establish real cooperation. The same consumer approach was used in this situation: you give us your territory so that we can transport military or non-military goods, and then we’ll do everything ourselves. This doesn’t work either. But our country is suffering, and we are very interested in ensuring that this situation gets resolved.

The ill-fated Jackson-Vanik amendment is a matter of more symbolic than practical importance since it’s waived every year by the president of the United States. So, the amendment doesn’t have any practical effect. It’s simply a scarecrow that says, “Look at us! We’re keeping you in limbo!” This is annoying. But we don’t have to run after the Americans and beg them to repeal this amendment because Russian-American relations are progressing at their own pace. They’re going ahead, though probably not the way we’d like them to, but regardless of what the amendment’s authors or the current Congressmen think about them. If the amendment is removed – thank goodness. This will align American law with the realities of today. If not – the Congressmen themselves will have to face the world in this ridiculous way.

∙What are some common threats to Russia and the U.S. that can strengthen the countries’ relationship?

The assumptions are that Russia and the U.S. have common challenges and threats. I consider the current economic crisis to be an example of this. It’s clear that the American economy remains the strongest and it’s understandable that the U.S. is trying to solve these problems through domestic resources. On the other hand, this problem cannot be solved by any strong economy alone, not even the American economy. Negotiations are necessary. They will probably take place in London on April 2nd as part of the G20 summit, and during the first Russian-American summit. The threats are also obvious. They are terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and piracy around the Somali coast, which happened to us unexpectedly. There are more than enough problems. And each of them can only be solved together. Thankfully, the American administration is now beginning to understand this.

∙Is a new agreement in the works to replace START 1 (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), which expires this year?

This has always been on the Russian-American relations agenda. The experts haven’t started writing it yet. The American administration is only starting the negotiations, while we have already been prepared for a long time. Unfortunately, the time is running out. And it would probably be wrong to act now just because of the fact that if we don’t make it in time, the current agreement will be automatically extended. That’s wrong because the agreement is old. It generally carried out its purpose, and we definitely need a new document. On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to create a document that is mutually acceptable, but lacks substance. The new document should be specific. It should determine what will happen to the nuclear weapons that will be destroyed or removed from alert status. There’s not much time to do it, but it can still be done.

∙The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland said that the American missile Patriot will be deployed in Poland, regardless of the prospects for the construction of U.S. missile defense components on Polish territory. Why would Poland need Patriot if the U.S. suddenly abandons its plans?

Of course, the missiles are not needed. If they appear in Poland without the American missile defense, it will show that the project’s goal was not the defense from a mythical threat, but rather the increase of the U.S. military strength on the European continent. It is clear that the military power in Europe is not aimed against U.S. allies in NATO, but against those countries that are not a part of NATO. Above all, that’s Russia. Therefore, American logic will become more obvious. First, the U.S. extremely exacerbates a problem in order to demonize a country. Then, in light of this threat it declares some sort of maximum program. And later it negotiates a minimum program, which everyone will allegedly embrace with a sigh of relief. Whatever we do, we should not fall into this trap and our reaction to the Patriot should be as sharp and tough as it has always been against the U.S. missile defense program. At the onset, nobody believed that it was possible to stop this program. Now, we have moved forward significantly. I am sure that we will also come to an agreement with the U.S. about Patriot, as well as conventional military forces in Europe, and on confidence-building measures. We’ll come to an agreement about all those things we’ve nearly lost during the past eight years, but in reality both of our countries equally need.