Russia and the U.S. Have Divergent Foreign Policy Priorities

The issues that were touched upon during the negotiations indicate how serious President Obama is about reviewing the previous administration’s foreign policy guidelines. The world community is tired of those guidelines, which explains why the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the young head of the United States for merely announcing his plans. If he has enough political resources and will, Washington can find in Moscow a reliable strategic partner. In need of modernization, Russia is interested in this partnership. The new American administration is obviously aware that without the partnership with Russia, it will be hard to mitigate the damage that the previous American administration caused to its reputation.

The situation over the last ten years has not been reminiscent of peace after a long “cold war” but rather of fragile truce. However, today Washington and Moscow have a chance at a long-term partnership. This chance can be realized if the political elite in both countries actively work towards this partnership. The coolness in the relationship between our countries is due to mutual distrust. Russia has started to see America as an enemy and America suspects anti-Americanism in Russia’s every foreign policy move.

Understandably, as Russian and U.S. politics become more intertwined as a result of increased cooperation, both nations have to be careful about not infringing on each others’ basic foreign policy interests. However, there are many areas on the partnership agenda in which cooperation will serve the interests of either country. I think the view that the U.S. is weak does not correspond to reality. What has really happened is that other players in world politics and economy, including Russia, have gotten stronger. The world has enough problems that neither Washington nor Moscow can solve on their own.

These problems, along with simultaneous developments in economic and humanitarian areas, are most likely the reason for the “reboot” of relations between Russia and the U.S. The United States and Russia need to make use of groups whose interests coincide with normalization of relations between the two sides. Experts say that this “reboot” will bring to light the differing priorities of the United States and Russia; what Washington might consider top priority could be third or sixth on Moscow’s list. This suggests the possibility of certain concessions with virtually no damage to the national interests of the parties.

The negotiations with Hillary Clinton in Moscow showed that there certainly are contradictions between Russia and the United States. But the parties do not want to dwell on them, and if possible, they want to smooth out the differences. Russia’s position regarding Iran differs from America’s-–Russia does not consider tougher sanctions an effective tool, and has been proven correct by Iran’s increased nuclear program in the face of ever tougher sanctions. Planning a military invasion is a dangerous way to go. Political and economic leverage is the only thing left to encourage the Iranian leadership to meet international requirements. And in Moscow, Clinton said that not only war but also excessive sanctions can be avoided.

Antiballistic missile (ABM) defense issues related to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the new START treaty took top billing during the negotiations in Moscow. The sides discussed the possibility of creating a “common” ABM system. Russia already proposed including its radars in Armavir and Gabala in Azerbaijan into the system. Progress in this direction will lead to a number of positive effects. We can assume that the joint development of missile defense in Europe will change the lukewarm attitude towards President Dmitry Medvedev’s initiative for comprehensive European security. This will obviously also improve Russia’s relationship with NATO. Judging from the results of Clinton’s visit, both sides are planning to continue discussions on ABM issues to find an alternative to the elements of the American system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The START II negotiations, according to the experts, support Russia’s special status in America’s new politics. Russia is particularly interested in upholding this special status because the problems with the START agreement have systemic strategic meaning; making progress in many other areas of global security will depend on solving the START issue. This includes the issues relating to the ABM, NATO, conventional weapons and nuclear capability of the United States. These negotiations can become an institution for long-term cooperation between Russia and the United States. It should be noted that such an institution will no doubt improve international relations, especially the problem of nuclear proliferation because most of the warheads are owned by Moscow and Washington.

At the meeting in Moscow, Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov paid special attention to the work of Russo-American Commission, which was established by the heads of the two states. The purpose of the commission is to clarify the contents of the “reboot” and to strengthen the relationship between the general staffs of the two countries. The commission covers a wide range of issues, from the struggle against international terrorism to cooperation in space and atomic energy. It seems logical for Washington not to push the issue of NATO expansion into post-Soviet space in the context of START II negotiations.

Finally, I think the opportunity for the Russo-American Commission to discuss issues related to civil society will add important value to the “reboot” of relations between the two countries. I hope the American side will adhere to the words of its president, when he says, “democracy cannot be introduced into any country from outside.”