Forward from the “Reset”

When the “reset” was introduced into Russian-U.S. relations, I wrote that it was a good thing. Still it is no more than, to use an outdated word, a normalization, whereas the new world requires not a simple normalization of Russian-American relations, but their fundamental and complete reconstruction. Otherwise, almost 50 years of Cold War infrastructure and philosophy of confrontation built into the foundation of the relations would drag them back.

Two weeks ago in Munich, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov and State Secretary Hillary Clinton exchanged the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ratification documents. Some time ago they both pressed the symbolic “reset” button. The “reset” came about; the parties signed and then ratified the new treaty. Still the “reset” has other, less hyped positive results.

During the last two years, though neglecting it by word of mouth, the parties made a bargain and began to respect each other’s important interests. Russia seriously strengthened its pressure on Tehran, supported the U.S. in Afghanistan and ceased, wherever it was possible, putting spokes in American wheels.

Americans stopped demonstrative supporting of any anti-Russian forces on the territory of the former USSR, stopped promoting NATO enlargement and refused the deployment of strategic antimissiles in Poland. For the time being they even do not deliver weapons to Georgia.

Now it is the time to move forward on the foundation of achievements. But there are no new ideas. It seems that during these days and weeks, celebrating our success, we begin to slide back. The process of the ratification showed that the fundamental problem of Russian-U.S. relations — almost reflexive confrontation — is not solved.

First American senators, and then Russian parliament acting in response, burdened the treaty with so many conditions that it started to look fragile. And it definitely looks like the treaty between the parties, which consider each other to be adversaries.

The weakened military-industrial complexes do not want to surrender. Americans made all efforts in order not to bind their hands for future development of a hypothetical and most likely mythological AMD, and for deployment of non-nuclear strategic armaments of the new generation, which are unlikely to be created since the U.S. overstrained and got involved in the debt crisis. Therefore, the U.S. will have to overcome it for 15 years at least, drastically reducing military spending and not increasing it.

The Russian military-industrial complex, encouraged by the promises of almost $20 trillion for armaments, requires new rockets, including heavy ones, capable of surmounting any hypothetical AMD systems, which are unlikely to be created. It is dangerous, if it is not a bluff aimed at demonstrating to Americans that their AMD will not work anyway and preventing its creation. In the past, such games nearly always led to arms races and the creation of absolutely senseless systems. The arms race during the Cold War was a tragedy, especially for Russian poor people.

It is obvious that the philosophy of mutual confrontation is not overcome and even nourished by the disarmament talks, though in reality we do not menace each other. We do not have such contradictions anymore where the solution of which could lead to a war; instead we have many common interests.

The professional “disarmers” are ready to involve us in new arms races, which will open new Pandora’s boxes. The American coalition of anti-nuclear dreamers and cold cynics, aspiring to convert non-nuclear dominance of the U.S. into political influence via reduction of depreciated nuclear arms, did not manage to launch movement toward “nuclear null.” Besides, it is revealed that the U.S. will not be able to retain such dominance due to budget deficit.

Now the talks on reduction of the tactic nuclear arms and on reduction of the conventional arms both in Europe are offered to start. Neither the first nor the second are needed, and are even harmful. The beginning of such talks will revive atavistic and unnatural fears and bring militaristic thinking back to Europe.

The symbolic achievement of the “reset” — hopes for possibility of creation of the parallel, linked AMD systems in Europe — is under threat too.

I am not sure that such systems are actually needed. I do not see threats which AMD systems must protect from; therefore, either there will not be any systems, or there will be very limited ones. At the same time, conversations about a joint work would be useful as they would give an impression that we are moving toward de facto allies’ relations, which would allow not to distract to a hopelessly outdated confrontation in Europe, but to deal jointly with really important challenges.

However, the reflexes inherited from the gone Cold War begin to work again. Even in Russia, rather realistic leaders, as if contending, begin to menace that Russia would deploy new rockets against NATO if their very inexact plans on the creation of a joint sectored AMD system were not accepted. What is it all for?

The pre-election period starts. Obama will have a difficult time. Probably Russia will be tempted to demonstrate its strength.

I appeal to everyone: stop and take a breath. Do not begin new talks in the spirit of the “reset,” which only will revive old demons. Do not spoil the “reset”-created positive political atmosphere by maneuvers and motions more appropriate for the past millennium. Deal seriously with elaborating of the new agenda for bilateral relations between Russia and the U.S., Russia and the old West in order to move forward, not wasting time, if Obama or other progressive forces win. If in the U.S. a frenzied candidate wins, we always can restrain him.

The continuation of the current model of Russian-U.S. relations, even in its positive, “reset” style, is hopeless. We automatically begin to quarrel, to show each other the “fig in the pocket.” The background of it is that North Korea got nuclear weapons, Iran is likely to get them, the already instable Middle East is crumbling before our eyes, aggravating the growing chaos in the international relations.

In order to move forward it is essential to strain mind and will.

Formerly, during a confrontation or a détente, Russians almost always only responded to the American initiatives. But Americans are exhausted. It is time to propose.