Russia and the US: Can We Break the Vicious Circle?

On Nov. 16, 1933, diplomatic relations between the U.S. and USSR were established. On one hand, this helped the economic interests of both countries. When the Great Depression occurred in the U.S., the USSR became the main market for the export of American mechanical engineering. Stalin’s industrialization was based on this foundation.

On the other hand, strategic interests played an important role. Hitler’s coming to power in Germany and Japanese aggression against China forced the U.S. to take notice of the great European powers. Thus, a new phase in the cooperation of two great powers was created.

In the multipolar world and before, there were periods when, regardless of their opposing ideologies, Russia’s strategic interests coincided with those of the U.S. During the American colonies’ war for independence, Catherine the Great rejected King George’s request to direct Russian troops against the “rebels” and instead announced “military neutrality” which allowed the English blockade to be broken. In 1862, during the American Civil War, Czar Aleksandr II supported the North, directing Russian fleets to New York and San Francisco. This was due to the threat posed by England’s intervention in the Polish uprising; in case of war, the Russian fleet was to act against the English in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. In 1917 the U.S. entered World War I against Germany, becoming allies of Russia right up to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

In this way, the presence of a common enemy — first England, then Germany — created a base for cooperative and even friendly relations. This was confirmed during World War II, when mutual cooperation between Moscow and Washington peaked. Regardless of contradictions and differing ideologies, the U.S. and USSR achieved victory over fascist Germany and military Japan.

Without understating the role of the Soviet Union in Germany’s defeat, the great importance of American help in the Lend-Lease Act should be noted, when the USSR received not only weaponry from the U.S., but also strategic raw materials and food. Cooperation allowed for the creation and base of a new world order and support for international security — the United Nations.

Unfortunately, the U.N.’s potential was never realized. The Cold War broke out — the global confrontation of two socioeconomic systems. Washington and Moscow became enemies. A bipolar world appeared, with two superpowers becoming irreconcilable ideological and geopolitical enemies. Any regional conflict turned into a new field for the confrontation. The greatest danger of the confrontation between the U.S. and USSR was in the nuclear arms race. A situation of mutually assured destruction arose.

But the instinct of self-preservation created a new mutual interest in the necessity of coming to an agreement on the rules of rivalry, in order to avoid a nuclear war. This allowed peace to be saved under Cold War conditions. In 1963, after the Cuban missile crisis, the first agreement on weapons control was signed — the agreement restricting nuclear tests in three spheres. Afterwards, other agreements were signed: the NPT, ABM, START, INF, CFE and so on. This doubtlessly aided the ending of the Cold War.

The Soviet Union fell in 1991. Russia rejected communist ideology and started on the path toward market reform. This brought an unprecedented socioeconomic crisis. Russia ceased to be a superpower, and its ranking in the world hierarchy fell sharply.

The bipolar world order ended. In Washington, this was taken by all as victory in the Cold War. The illusion of a unipolar world arose, in which the U.S. was the only superpower. The ideological and geopolitical confrontation between Moscow and Washington stopped. Under these conditions, a strategic partnership between America and Russia was announced. But it was a superficial partnership; the asymmetry in the power of the two countries was just too great. Institutional and juridical bases were not formed for such a partnership, and neither was there an economic base. Aside from this, the system of mutually assured destruction played a destabilizing role which was incompatible with such a partnership.

The expansion of NATO, war in Kosovo and the United States' exit from the agreement on missile defense led to a new cooling off period in our relations. In 2008, after the Russo-Georgian war, Moscow and Washington found themselves on the border of a new Cold War.

However, America’s attempt to consolidate a unipolar world failed. The U.S. was faced with a severe economic and political crisis. The formation of a multipolar world forced Washington to correct its policies. After Obama’s election, a “reset” in Russo-American relations was announced. This allowed a new START treat to be signed, the Jackson-Venik amendment to be removed and an agreement was reached on Russia’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.

But soon, relations stagnated. Once again propagandistic confrontation began. Polls show that both in America and Russia mutual distrust has risen highly. We have to admit that a new agenda was not successfully worked out after the “reset” became outdated. This summer, the Obama administration decided to announce a pause in relations with Russia. Similar sentiments seem to prevail in Moscow. As a result, the Russian-American dialogue on strategic issues has reached a dead end. True, in August there was a successful meeting in Washington, where political and military questions were examined in the “2 plus 2” format with the ministers of foreign affairs and of defense. But the September summit’s cancellation meant that that success would not be built on.

Neither is there any special progress in the trade and economic relations of the two countries. A decision was made that trade and investment issues would be supervised by the U.S. vice president and Russian prime minister, but it has so far not been realized. Nevertheless, Moscow and Washington continue to cooperate closely on a range of international issues. First and foremost, this relates to the unprecedented agreement on the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. The first results have already been achieved. In addition, Russia and the U.S. supported the conference in Geneva on global political regulation in Syria. However, the success of this diplomatic initiative is far from guaranteed.

Russia and the U.S. also cooperate in the search for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. Recently there has been notable progress in this area. We cannot exclude the possibility of reaching a political compromise.

In this way, Moscow and Washington are presented with a not-inconsiderable number of possibilities for mutual action in the fight against contemporary challenges and threats, and the regulation of regional conflicts. It will be necessary to continue dialogue in the sphere of weapon control, taking into account the inextricable link between strategic offensive and defensive means.

Unfortunately, Russo-American relations in the last 80 years have shown a cyclical character: reset — cooling— confrontation. Then everything repeats itself. Can we break out of this vicious circle? For this, we would need to make a concentrated effort.

Firstly, it is necessary to create an institutional base, a mechanism for the constant cooperation of both sides. Secondly, positive cooperation should be strengthened juridically, with binding agreements. Thirdly, we will need to replace the system of mutually assured destruction with a new system of mutually assured stability and security. Fourthly, we will need to build an economic base, without which relations will be unstable due to a skew in military-political problems.

America’s main rival in the budding multipolar world of the 21st century is not Russia, but China. Historically, in a polycentric system of international relations Russia and the U.S. have never been enemies. In order not to allow for a new ideology and militarization in Russo-American relations, both sides should learn to be pragmatic regarding differences and to recognize their mutual interests. Without constructive cooperation, Moscow and Washington could create chaos in a multipolar world. Our countries carry a special responsibility for global strategic stability and the state of international security as a whole.