Moscow and Washington Have Not Been Reset

This new period of Russian-American relations, in which the relationship has been “reset,” has not been characterized by significant improvements. Talk is cheap, and Americans are constantly proving that they are good speakers and actors. But when it comes to actually doing something, it’s easier said than done. In reality, Russian and American adversity hasn’t ended (although, of course, it’s no longer on the same scale as the Cold War).

First, missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland remains a problem. Barack Obama still hasn’t given up on that idea. The second problem is “color regimes” (countries that underwent “color revolutions”) near Russia. Georgia is currently trying to replace Saakashvili with someone more predictable and manageable. The same thing is happening in the Ukraine. According to authoritative opinions, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, former chairman of the Verkhovna Rada and a person with big electoral prospects in western and central Ukraine, has strong American support (primarily financial). We don’t expect “color counterrevolutions” yet. The current prospect in the post-Soviet sphere is that one set of U.S. allies will replace another. Russia will once again have to work with them, because its own candidates don’t have a viable chance at the Ukrainian or Georgian elections.

This problem is related to the latest “gas war” between Russia and the Ukraine. According to several political scientists from Kiev, it started when Yushchenko called the head of Naftohaz Ukrainy, and ordered him to disrupt the negotiations. It’s likely that Americans played a part in this. But perhaps it’s only the former American administration that got involved in this matter.

The third problem is the ill-intentioned Jackson-Vanik amendment, which is still on the books. It restricts trade between the countries, including the trade of high-tech products. According to several economists’ predictions, which they base on previous global economic crisis experience, Russia will be able to overcome the crisis only via new technologies, and the transition to a new technological era.

Obviously, this will not be possible without imports from the “golden billion” countries, i.e., the West. If Obama’s administration had warm, or at least neutral, feelings toward Russia, the amendment would have been repealed. By the way, the U.S. is once again talking about repealing the amendment, but this has happened many times before. Remember that even during the early 1990s, when Russian foreign policy was the most favorable to the U.S., the trade restriction wasn’t lifted. It’s unlikely that Obama will do so. But at least it’s a good test for the change in America’s attitude toward Russia.

Fourth, America didn’t like that Russia contributed to the removal of the U.S. base from Manas, Kyrgyzstan. There is a threat that new U.S. bases will open in other Central Asian countries. Fifth (and most importantly), Russian and American leaders have different views of how they will overcome the global financial crisis. Americans are trying to preserve the dollar’s dominant role in the global economy, or (as the rumors say) replace the dollar with another currency (controlled, obviously, by the New World). Russians, on the other hand, want the dollar to collapse. Russia is also looking forward to the creation of many regional reserve currencies, or one world reserve currency that isn’t directly controlled by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Of course, some may say that the U.S. and Russia are more similar than different, that we agree more than we disagree. The above shows that though the rhetoric is changing, the relationship between the two countries is essentially the same. In short, even if we’re closer in our ideologies, we still have different interests. Two bears can’t live in the same den. Either one of them will eat the other, or the den will collapse. So the only element missing in the revival of the Cold War is an ideological conflict. But since it seems that the Russian government is not planning a major ideological transformation in Russia (a change in rhetoric is not the same as an ideological change, because the latter requires a new way of thinking), there’s no danger that the Cold War will resume. Nor will our countries have eternal friendship. The result is neither peace nor war.