Partial Reset

The negotiations between the United States and Russia regarding the signing of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty began Tuesday. This treaty is viewed as an indicator of President Obama’s declared reset in Russo-American relations. Just how radical can such a reset be? The logical development of events suggests that the idea should be approached with cautious optimism.

Obama, of course, is a modern man, not very limited by the stereotypes of the Cold War, which were clearly reflected in the ideology and actions of George Bush Jr. and John McCain. However, external politics is an international business, and changing long-term priorities – even if initiated by the country’s leader, is not that simple. Obama himself reminded us of this when he announced the renewal of military tribunals in Guantanamo, which he was just recently trying to close. Russian politicians will also have a hard time parting with deeply-rooted suspicions of American intentions, which Moscow believes have brought nothing but trouble and insults in recent years.

The factors that have previously aggravated U.S.-Russia relations, such as American aggression in Iraq and the Orange Revolution in Kiev followed by attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO, have lost urgency to a considerable degree. America is getting ready to slowly pull out of Iraq, and frankly the anti-Russia project in Ukraine turned out not to be so popular. The admission of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO promised at the last meeting in Bucharest will not take place anytime soon. And that is a good thing; nothing poisons Russia’s relationship with the United States more than the expansion of NATO. In addition, the American presence in areas contiguous with the regions of the Commonwealth of Independent States will not be reduced, and no one has officially abandoned the expansion of NATO, nor are there any plans to abandon it. NATO’s military exercises in Georgia, despite Russia’s protestations, still continue. All the other exercises along the periphery of our borders will continue just as planned as well.

The Obama foreign policy team concentrating on Russia – Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Ambassador to Moscow William Burns and Senior Director of Russia in the National Security Council Michael McFaul – is very professional and disposed to cooperation. These are the masterminds of “perezagruzka.” However, this strategy, which is based on finding common ground, is widely criticized in America, especially by the wounded veterans of the Cold War. A huge number of individuals who now labor over America’s foreign policy have acquired experience in former socialist republics where their tasks consisted of trying to pry these countries away from Russia, a country they’re used to working against. The experts who truly know Russia and have worked in the country are in the minority. It is not surprising that the State Department could not find a person who could explain the difference between “perezagruzka” (reset) and “peregruzka” (overload), which caused the infamous diplomatic incident.

It is wonderful that Obama announced his readiness to maintain control over arms, which was ready to expire if a Republican was to inherit the government. Moreover, he did not exclude the possibility of a move towards a nuke-free world, which was met with support from his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev.

However, this does not mean that the negotiations of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is to replace START-I, are destined to be a success. There are many stumbling blocks: First, the problem of the so-called “return potential;” we want to limit all warheads and carriers (including the ones in storage). Americans are ready to consider only the operating ones. Second, and this was recently confirmed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, is that Russia intends to combine the new treaty negotiations with the issue of the development of an American anti-missile system. Although Obama’s administration has postponed the development of the anti-ballistic missile system components (mostly due to questions of its effectiveness) in Poland and the Czech Republic, it is not ready to return to the conditions of the agreement that were denounced by Bush. The negotiations are not promising to be easy.

Both the Foreign Policy and Defense departments will conduct the negotiations of the new agreement. Under Bush, White House leadership took on more hawkish positions in international relations than the American servicemen who held the martial flame of the administration in control. It seems the situation is changing under Obama. At a time when the Obama administration announced a new era in its relationship with Russia, military leadership started talking of an increased threat from that country. During a March meeting in the Senate, John Craddock (United States Army General and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe) said the following: “There have been changes to the strategic situation on the territory of European command in the last year, especially following the newly harsh position of the Russian Federation in relation to our friends and allies – those who share a border with Russia, and those who rely on Russia’s energy resources.” Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO’s prognosis was based on the absence of the threat of intrusion in Europe and Eurasia. “The error of this prognosis has now been proven.” More specifically, according to the estimates of American servicemen, Russia is as dangerous and aggressive as ever before.

Obama’s administration announced that Afghanistan, and now the adjacent Pakistani territories, are its main international priority. The attention given to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in connection with the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, is also on the rise. Indisputably, Russia and the United States have a large field of mutual understanding. Moscow has agreed to facilitate the non-military cargo passage into Afghanistan and voted for a fairly harsh U.N. resolution regarding North Korea’s ballistic missile test. However, it is obvious that Russia will not go as far as the United States in punishing Tehran or Pyongyang and will never support exerting military pressure on the two states. The Kremlin is interested in crushing the Taliban, but openly criticizes the United States for allowing Afghanistan to turn into a threat and it seems like it’s not disinterested in reviving its own game in this country.

Among the Russian elite circulates the opinion that the economic crisis has seriously weakened America’s position in the world, and it is exactly this reason that caused the decision for a “perezagruzka,” which will decrease the numbers of its competitors. Besides that, Russia is one of five major American creditors (along with China, Japan, Great Britain and Brazil), holding its economy afloat. That is why America is expected make concessions. Washington, on the other hand, thinks that Russia’s economy is in a free-fall and is in a desperate need of foreign investment. And that’s why they expect concessions from us.

Russia is a major energy producer, and America is a major energy consumer; in principle the two could have a very productive dialogue on energy. However, it does not yet exist. The United States is more concerned with how to decrease its allies’ energy dependency on Russia and how to build pipelines that bypass Russia’s territory. In turn, Moscow has not shown a desire to allow American oil companies into its market.

And so on, and so forth.

The idea of “perezagruzka” has given many hope. It is unforgivable to miss a chance to make positive improvements in this bilateral relationship. At the same time, the larger the hope, the greater the disappointment will be if something goes wrong. Therefore, it is better not to have high hope.

Just in case.