The Honeymoon’s Over, but No Divorce Yet

The “reset” in relations between Russia and the U.S. is over. However, both countries need each other too much to allow themselves a confrontation.

There has been a series of pointed statements made in recent weeks by Russian and U.S. politicians and diplomats regarding relations with one another. There have also been recent personnel changes in Moscow (such as the appointment of Alexei Pushkov as head of the State Duma International Affairs Committee and Dmitry Rogozin as deputy premier of the defense industry). This has led to talk of the end of the “reset” in Russian-American relations announced by the arrival of Dmitry Medvedev to the Kremlin.

Observers are calling for calm: There is talk of cooling relations between Russia and the U.S., but not about sliding into a confrontation. Regardless of the results of presidential elections scheduled in both Russia and the U.S. in the coming year, Moscow and Washington depend upon one another too much in vital areas of world politics to allow a break in relations.

Figuratively speaking, the honeymoon between Russia and the U.S. is undoubtedly over, stated Alexei Malashenko, the Izvestiya member of the Scientific Council of the Carnegie Moscow Center. But the end of the honeymoon does not mean divorce. A normal partnership with conflicts, permission seeking and compromises is developing.

The main issues on which Russia and the U.S. will be compelled to cooperate, regardless of any complications, are the questions surrounding mutual reduction of nuclear missile capability and the functioning of the “Afghan transit corridor” through which non-military cargo for the U.S. contingent in Afghanistan crosses Russian territory.

The situation has destabilized in neighboring Pakistan, through which American forces originally flowed, meaning that the importance of the “Russian corridor” will increase. Sooner or later the U.S. will have to appeal to Moscow for expansion of the transit of military equipment and supplies through Russian territory. This will give Russia a much more serious trump card in negotiations concerning missile defense and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe than President Dmitry Medvedev’s November promise to withdraw from New START treaty. Denunciation of New START is advantageous neither for Russia nor the U.S., but containing radical Islamists in Afghanistan and preventing their expansion into Central Asia is in the strategic interests of both countries.

Presidential elections, which will be held in 2012 in both Russia and the U.S., are also unlikely to have a decisive influence on the development of bilateral relations.

Paradoxically, the situations of the two main candidates for president in Moscow and Washington are very similar, noted the president of the American World Policy Institute, Michele Wucker, to Izvestiya. Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have lost a significant share of their popularity since coming into the office of president in their countries, but there is no credible alternative to Putin in Russia or Obama in America, so election results are generally predetermined.

Wucker said that statements by Republican candidates in the U.S. concerning the need to change the government of Russia should not be taken too seriously.

Mitt Romney and other candidates for the seat in the White House battle today not with Putin, but with Obama, reminded the American political scientist. Charges in the same vein as “who lost Russia?” are intended strictly for domestic use.

In the U.S. they understand, added Wucker, that in Russia today there are no legitimate contenders for president other than Vladimir Putin. Pro-western democrats are too weak and unpopular and will not be able to retain power, even if it lands in their hands. The expert considers the young populist-nationalists, thrust forward by the Moscow streets, as too unpredictable.