It is fair to say most observers of U.S. President Barack Obama's recent visit to Russia have concluded the summit was a net positive for Russia and the United States.
Both countries acknowledged that the deterioration in relations over the past few years must be ended and that a new approach needs to be embraced. This approach has been dubbed "hitting the reset button". While this is a catchy and memorable phrase, it means very different things to Moscow and Washington.
Making progress on a new nuclear arms agreement to replace the soon-to-lapse Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was touted as the summit's crowning achievement. While this was expected, it gave both Russia and the United States a public-relations opportunity to demonstrate that this bilateral relationship can produce tangible and mutually beneficial outcomes. Obama is a noted orator, but very soon his inspiring rhetoric needs to be translated into policy achievements: a START II treaty with Russia can be part of that process.
A wide array of other issues was discussed with varying degrees of agreement. Washington complied with Moscow's insistence that the reduction of offensive nuclear weapons needs to be tied to limitations on missile-defense systems. With this linkage accepted, it would seem the way is paved for addressing Russia's objections to U.S. proposals to place missile-defense systems in Central Europe.
There was also agreement on Afghanistan - Russia will now permit the United States to transit military ordinance via its airspace. There were also outright disagreements. Moscow and Washington found no common ground on the topic of Georgia. This was also expected, and so was not allowed to overshadow the summit in any meaningful way.
This description of how the Moscow summit went is conventional and one-dimensional. It underplays, or does not recognize, the meaning of the summit and the problems - even dangers - ahead for both countries if attitudes and behavior don't change on both sides. The first step to resetting is to accept how the Russians and Americans interpret what "resetting" of relations means.
Let Bygones Be Bygones
Many in Washington see this process as: "Let's turn the page; let's literally start again." This is a typical American approach, something akin to saying mistakes were made in the past by both sides and saying sorry in the present doesn't move the relationship forward. Essentially, many in the new administration take the position that it is not responsible for what Presidents George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush did when it comes to Russia. Washington's position is “let the past be the past and let's work in the present for a better future.”
Fair enough, but that is not how the Russians see things. For the Russians, separating the past from the present is not so simple. The past is what got all of us into this problematic present.
For Russia's political elite and its people, the recent past is very much part of today's political reality: NATO expansion, the illegal recognition under international law of Kosovo's independence, the moral and financial support of "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet space (and the resulting instability in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan), the unilateral walking away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, the backing of oil and gas pipelines challenging Russia's global energy-security policies, and the coddling of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili are on the short list of grievances cited. In sum, the Russians see an unrelenting siege against them from the West - particularly the United States - on multiple fronts.
Bridging this gap in approach requires enormous political will on both sides. The post-Cold War environment is just about 20 years old, and both the Russians and Americans must assess their future relationship with historical facts in mind.
Admittedly, Obama has already started this process. During his recent address in Cairo, he recognized that some past U.S. foreign policies have been counterproductive to U.S. security interests in the greater Middle East. He needs to do the same when it comes to Russia (and many other parts for world, I might add).
Embracing Mutual Interests
However, admitting mistakes should not be seen as being compelled to make concessions. Nonetheless, there is little, if any, evidence that Obama intends to continue Bush-era policies toward Russia and the post-Soviet space. Moscow should consider this seriously. This is Obama's first step toward clearing the air, as it were.
Russia, too, should clear the air. Damning a past that cannot be undone is a useless endeavor. It is hardly possible that NATO will turn around and "un-invite" its newest members. Nor is it likely the United States and other countries will withdraw their recognition of Kosovo. Obama cannot simply enact an "historic retreat" to please the Kremlin.
Nonetheless, Russia can and should start putting aside its very real sense of built-up resentment toward the United States. Both countries have made it clear they intend to work closely on a number of burning international issues - Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, non-proliferation, the Middle East - and this engagement should serve to bolster a foundation of trust between the two countries. Trust is where every relationship starts.
Now it is left to historians to assess what I call Russia's passage through post-Soviet purgatory. But this must not become an impediment for Russia when dealing with the United States on crucial global-security issues. Russia and the United States can have a partnership based on mutual interests without really embracing each other as strategic partners.
We can lament the past, but we can create a new and different future. Russia and the Russians want a clear recognition of this from the United States. Obama's Washington appears to be moving in that direction when facing the world. Russia isn't expecting Obama to apologize for the past; it only wants respect and the recognition that Russia too will define its security interests. If this happens, it will be difficult and even nonsensical for the Kremlin to ignore new overtures from Washington.
First published at Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty
28 July, 2009, 16:56
Thats right. I am not a US citizen and I stand by my comment about America not being bombed. No American has suffered a blitz from bombers in the air dropping thousands of pounds of munitions from enemy aircraft.. This is bombing. This is what the Europeans and many other countries understand by bombing. Concerted daily attacks where the population runs for shelters when the sirens wail.Thousands die as a result. 9/11 was not an instance of "bombs" hitting the ground from aircraft designed to drop munitions and kill those below. The B52 is one example and it has brought death and destruction to many populations.9/11 was a terrible attack where two civilian planes were flown into buildings.The outcome was not predictable. To label it as bombing is rather stretching the definition to somehow validate the US has been bombed..
The readers comments underline my point about understanding history.
27 July, 2009, 08:08
@sierra nevada
I think he meant a war situation were no one has tried to invade the US and in both cases you mention the US had prior warnings and intelligence reports telling them of an impending attack with the 9/11 story having more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
What’s funny about his statement on the missile shield?
Putin’s offer of hosting it in Turkey and Azerbaijan would intercept any missile coming from Iran faster than it’s location in Poland and Czech Rep.
Only a fool would not realise it is not aimed at Russia and laughable to think otherwise.
27 July, 2009, 00:07
"I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts." The story (this WW of the Ancient world) which brought into existance this phrase should be well remembered, especailly by those who would not like finding themselves in the same situation as the old Trojans.. resisting global trends from the West in their own times. If I could para-phrase I would say: "I fear the Greeks/the strong of the day most when they bring gifts."
26 July, 2009, 19:41
Michael Hockney, NOT being a US citizen, I was surprised to hear your comment that the USA has not been bombed! Evidentally, you must not have heard about those "Japs" who sent bombs on strings over to the West Coast, or maybe even 9/11? I loved your comment about turning down Russia's offer of missle defense, completely laughable. I always come to RT for a good laugh. Great site!
26 July, 2009, 16:01
Dear Mr. Lavelle:
I have become familiar with you on RT.tv and would like to express how impressed I am with you and RT.tv. I find your weekly program "In Context" extremely compelling and am entralled with your talent and intellect. Please keep up the good work.
23 July, 2009, 07:17
Peter,
I very much enjoyed your article as it brought to mind many similar conclusions I have drawn with regards to recent US/Russia relations.
Understand that my views come from a very mixed and privileged background, I have lived in The United States as well as The Russian Federation. I have a good understanding of how Americans view Russia and why. In America an average person can become President, and they do. The point is that from a very young age an American is indoctrinated by The Flag and The Pledge of Allegiance. This begins as soon as one enters Grade School. It did with me. As a British "alien" I had to hold my hand over my heart and recite The Pledge of Allegiance. It wasn't "our father which art in heaven". No. But it was a profound statement of indoctrination at a very tender age. I did not question it. I just did it.
Then came History and Geography. American History and American Geography. I can still recite the names of every State in the Union, as well as their respective Capitals. As a (now) British-Canadian this has supplied me many free pints of beer to the utter bemusement of my American friends who lost the bet. The point is this. Most Americans in the present education system are spat out into the real world with a very limited knowledge "of" the World. Ask an American to name the Queen of Canada or 4 Canadian cities. You will win the beer 7 times out of 10. This is not a statement to slam Americans, no, but it is a statement to slam how they are taught about the World around them. It is very important because one of these people eventually becomes President.
The result of the Media and Government propaganda is that they believe that the US is the only democracy in the World and that only the US has true freedom. As the most litigant society on Earth I would beg to differ on that issue. I was once in the town where they tried Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the kidnap of Charles Lindbergh's son. A friend of mine had forgotten to vaccinate her cat and was a hair's breath from having her driver's license revoked as a consequence. Freedom?
Irrespective, the issue here is one of historical indoctrination and an inability to accept that history can be written in many different ways. I agree that it is nearly childish to admonish past indiscretions and clean the blackboard for a new lesson. One has to understand the past and history proper to have a balanced and viable viewpoint, especially as a politician on a global stage.This is especially true with regards Russia and its pivotal role in recent history and, of course, The Great Patriotic War, our WW2. I still have great reservations that the US President is properly prepped by his advisers on exactly the magnitude of the Russian sacrifice in that great struggle.Frankly I do not think it can be properly comprehended by a country that has never been bombed.
I remain hopeful for the new engagements. What is essential for both sides is to not simply demonstrate understanding and respect, but to actually prove they have respect for each other. Words are not enough now, Russians are tired of words from the West. This will be the "proof of the pudding". It is no different than saying "I do" at the alter, it means absolutely nothing unless there is a true demonstration of respect with actions in the years following. Anyone can say "I do". Now say "I do" when you know the church is being surrounded by soldiers. Why are they here, what are they doing? Sorry, run it past me again, what business has The NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization in Georgia? Georgia has a coastline with The Black Sea. If anyone thinks this is not a provocative action to Russia is either stupid or daydreaming. Similarly to reject Russian help with missile defense strategies is equally provocative. No. Russians deserve respect and they expect their elected representatives to be treated with equal respect on the global political stage.After all, Russia is an important member of The United Nations and the Charters to which it abides by. Is it at last happening? I hope so. It is in all our interests.
23 July, 2009, 07:07
Reset for the USA administration has a totally different meaning and interpretation that that viewed by the Russian government.
In so much as the summit may have brought the leaders of the USA and Russia to dialogue again and to politely state their areas of cooperation and differences.
Unfortunately it seems that the USA has not surprised anyone with any new approach to USA-Russia bilateral relations.
In fact they must be pleased about the outcome of this summit more so than Russia.
After all they managed to achieve concessions out of the Russian government on transit flights over Russian territory for US military aircraft to Afghangnistan and concessions on the Nuclear treaty reductions without having to compromising their so called nuclear protection shield in eastern European NATO countries.
Additionally none of the Russian governments concerns over NATO expansion,sphere of influence in the Caucasus and energy concerns were addressed by Obama.
So unless the USA is willing to give some concessions to Russia and to recognize honestly Russian concerns, I do not see any happy outcome for future relations between the USA and Russia in the long term.
19 July, 2009, 11:52
I am wondering what were the achievements of the Russian counterpart in this summit.
In case those achievements were kept secret, I hope that this time Russians have made Americans sign something off, the NATO enlargement to the Baltic nations teaches.
The reduction of nuke piles is only a tool of propaganta and nothing more than a good way to save money for the maintenance of the older arsenal. Both parties will scrap the obsolete weapons while continuing investing in research and production in the field. How America is going to balance out the Russian concessions? It looks to me that nothing changed at all and Americans have not aknowlegded any of Russian securuty issues.
It's enough looking at the world map to understand that USA and Russia cannot follow the same geopolitical path: the US are surrounded and protected by oceans, and talking about sphere of influence for the USA close to its borders means only the Central American countries and Canada while Russia needs a sphere of influence in order to secure its border and guarantee its security, in the same time the Monroe Doctrine is still valid. If the US meant really to reset the relations with Russia, they would have aknowledged the difference between the two countries.
17 July, 2009, 01:27
This article is optimistic about what's going on. The reset is to bring back Yeltsin or total weakness. This is necessary to break up Russia and steal her resources. Population reduction would be an added bonus. If the US wanted a traditional sphere-of-influence way of handling things, there wouldn't be a need for a reset in the first place.
16 July, 2009, 16:28
There is certainly a lot of cans in this one, enough to keep a recycling company busy till eternity. Everything is possible, Russians however, want to know what the chosen reality is. There is talk of Obama's washington, but I think that doesn't exist yet. What we have now is Washington's Obama and a power struggle under way, to determine what can and can't be done with respect to Russia. Russia has played this game pretty straight. It knows there are huge vested interests in maintaining Russia as a perpetual 'enemy' for the US. Five hundred billions of dollars in the defence industry each year is pretty hard to justify, if we are all sitting around smoking peace pipes. Also persuading Wall street that the world should be a free market, and not one owned by them, Is also a difficult concept to sell and get them to swallow. They see the US military as a commercial tool. So what happens next is very much down to the US, and I think we all in reality know this, we are not naive, for Russia and the US to be close, would take a paradigm shift in the thinking of the 'financial few' that control the US government. Obama has a huge task to regain control of the US for the American people. To do it, he has to step on a lot of toes, of the ones eager to crown themselves global omnipotents. The struggle for Obama is clear to see, he says some things in Moscow, then the hawks quickly counter and obfiscate when he returns, and this, is in his own administration. He is at the moment a commander in speach, until he gets home to see mum and dad. He is like the juvenile learning to grow up and make his own decisions, only to have them continually overidden when he gets home. Will America pass puberty with respect to Russia, who knows, it all depends on Obama managing to gain his independence of action. He may just turn out to be a chip of the old block, an old grey man, wanting to control everything, shouting at anyone who wants to be free. and enjoy a bit of life. Don't give us cans, they often have holes, give us a hand back, for we have already outstretched ours. This is now a US issue, so continaully pontificating about the likely response, is as poinless as pacing the floor as an expectant father. What will happen will happen, regardless of what the dad does, only the Mum, doctors and baby have a say in what will happen. In this case these are all American.