Penpals

On the whole, the Russian press has taken the news that the Kremlin is preparing to send a well-intentioned answer to Barack Obama’s “secret message” positively. This letter was given to Vladimir Putin on April 15 by Thomas Donilon, assistant to the U.S. president on matters of national security.

Despite the fact that as yet there has been relatively little information released about these “secret negotiations,” a faint hope has appeared once again that the “wave-like” relations between Russia and the U.S. have entered a new phase — the peak of the tension is over and now it is time for both sides to seek spheres of cooperation, rather than excuses for arguments.

The information about Obama’s conciliatory message, which Donilon was to convey, appeared in the press as early as mid-January at the peak of the tension caused by the long-standing controversy over the European segment of NATO’s missile defense system and the “Magnitsky Act.” However, the date of Barack Obama’s meeting with his representative was postponed more than once and was held only in mid-April, just three days after the U.S. published the names of Russian civil servants who were to be included in the “Magnitsky list.”

From official reports of this visit, it is very difficult to draw any firm conclusions. On the eve of the meeting, the White House released an announcement saying only that the discussion would cover the “next steps in our bilateral relationship, as well as a range of key foreign policy, security and economic issues on our international agenda.” The White House press service went into only a little more detail on the results of Donilon’s visit. It is mentioned in a message only that the discussions of issues relating to the two countries were “comprehensive and constructive.”

In a publication on the topic of discussion, the Kremlin press service revealed almost nothing, although in the detailed list of meeting participants, a number of names were given: Deputy Minister of Defense Anatoly Antonov, “representatives of the Federal Security Service and Foreign Intelligence Service” and also “U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.” This in itself signifies that the painful topic of missile defense was discussed at the meeting.

The following day, this fact was confirmed by the Security Council of the Russian Federation, which named the most pressing topics of the meeting as “the prospects of development of the U.S. missile defense system and the upholding of strategic stability.” In the same message, it was recorded that Donilon transferred “a message from President Barack Obama.”

Information regarding the contents of this document has, in the course of the last few months, been given to the press in limited quantities. The journal Foreign Policy has stated that in the letter, Obama “clearly formulates his plans for further arms reductions and perhaps the conclusion of an agreement on American missile defense measures.”

In its turn, the Russian press has stated that the main idea of the president’s message is that of reconciliation: “Two great powers with unique historical positions should solve global problems and not argue over small details.” Aside from this, it was stated that the letter contained 27 points, which touched upon issues of economic cooperation and a program for nuclear arsenal reduction. But once again, the key problem was that of NATO’s system of missile defense in Europe.

It is assumed that the U.S. is offering to conclude a so-called “executive decision” with Russia on the issue. But in the opinion of Barack Obama, for the moment, the U.S is only “providing information” to ensure that the nuclear programs of both countries do not violate the strategic parity and “do[es] not pose a threat to deterrence.”

If the recent information that has appeared in the press is valid, we can conclude that such a proposition from Washington contains two obvious downsides for Moscow. Firstly, the executive decision, which the U.S. president has the right to take without the agreement of the Senate, is not actually an international treaty: The next president could easily cancel it, undoing the progress made in bilateral relations.

The second downside is the essence of the agreement. “Providing information” on missile defense is not at all the aim the Kremlin is hoping to achieve. After the failure of negotiations to establish a joint missile defense system in Europe, Moscow insisted on concluding an agreement that would guarantee that NATO’s system was “not directed against Russia.” However, it would seem that long and fruitless discussions forced Russia to soften their position.

Even three months ago in Munich, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a series of harsh statements on the missile defense system. After several weeks, the head of the foreign ministry met with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in Berlin and reiterated the need for a “guarantee that the system would not be aimed within the Euro-Atlantic region or against Russian nuclear potential.”

However on May 7, two weeks after Donilon’s visit to Moscow, Sergei Lavrov met once more with John Kerry; the tone of statements made afterward changed dramatically. “An intense, interesting exchange of opinions took place on the paths for the development of relations between our countries, with an emphasis on the necessity of giving a more positive dynamic, including through the expansion of trade and investment links and contact between peoples. The issues of military-strategic stability and its influence on American plans in the area of missile defense were discussed,” the foreign ministry stated, regarding the results of Lavrov and Kerry’s conversation.

Aside from this, we can also see “positive signals” in the announcements of Vladimir Putin, who informed us during the May visits that the answer to Obama’s message was “already being prepared.” Going from this, we can conclude that the mutual concessions made by Russia and the U.S. on such painful topics as NATO’s missile defense system have really come out of the prolonged phase of the “cooling” of relations between the two countries.

It is now expected that a return letter will be delivered by Nikolai Petrushev, member of the Security Council, on May 20 in Washington. Soon after this, the two presidents will meet personally: in June, at the G-8 summit in the U.K. and in September, at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.

In this respect, Barack Obama’s proposition to create a “secure channel for digital video communication” between Moscow and Washington appears symbolic. According the Russian press, this initiative is named as one of the points included in the U.S. president’s letter. On June 20, the 50th anniversary of the famous direct line between the U.S. and the USSR, known as the “red telephone,” will be celebrated. The necessity for such a link was admitted by both sides in 1963, following the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, it seems, the “red telephone” will be something like Skype. It is the 21st century, after all.