RT Expert View: Will Obama’s victory improve Russia-U.S. relations?
Published 08 November, 2008, 13:05
This week RT experts discuss how the relationship between Russia and the U.S. might develop after Barack Obama was elected as America’s next President.
Peter Lavelle, RT political analyst and anchor
The U.S. has a president-elect – Barack Obama. He has a mandate for change. Will he use that same mandate when it comes to foreign policy and relations with Russia?
Obama’s approach to Russia remains unclear (and I don’t put much stock in what he had to say about it during the presidential debates). On the other hand, President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia made it clear, if only indirectly, that Russia’s position on NATO expansion, anti-missile defense, and other issues remains the same.
Will the Russia-U.S. relationship again start off on the wrong foot?
Sergei Roy, editor, www.guardian-psj.ru security website
Obama’s victory over that Cold War relic, Senator McCain, has been welcomed, and even enthusiastically celebrated, by the “entire progressive mankind,” as we would have said in the good old Soviet times. The day a black-skinned person won the election was even declared a national holiday in some African states. The festive scenes in European countries on this occasion were enough to make you believe that the world was on the threshold of a Golden Age, all because an Afro-American called Barack Obama won the highest office in the U.S.
As Russians know, perhaps better than most, the euphoria of the night before is inevitably followed by the morning after, and now is the time for a sober assessment of what Obama can, and will, do in the grey hours of the morning.
It is a platitude of political science that politicians’ election campaign rhetoric and post-election actions bear little relation to each other. On that premise, Obama’s fiery rhetoric promising Change! and then more Change! Will, little by little, peter out.
An indication of that we have already witnessed in his acceptance of the Republican administration’s bailout plans for the U.S. financial system. In simple, even crude terms, that plan means curing the current crisis, which eventually stems from printing lots of U.S. paper money, by issuing more paper money, also without collateral. If that’s change, it’s a funny kind of change. And people here in Russia need not think it will not affect them. It will, and it does concern them, along with the rest of the world.
U.S.-Russia relations are one area where little change from the pre-Obama policies and practices is likely. In fact, Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama were singing in unison on that theme during the entire election campaign – with one notable exception: McCain insisted on kicking Russia out of the G8 (that would have been change!) while Obama reasonably opted for no change in this area.
For the rest, Obama’s and McCain’s statements on Russia were pretty much interchangeable. Consider, for instance, what the two were saying on the March 2008 presidential elections in Russia. Obama came up with denunciations of Russia “backsliding on democracy” which any moss-brained Republican would be proud of (on this, see my article “A Bad Case of Humbugama” at www.guardian-psj.ru under the Editor’s column).
Consider next, and most importantly, Obama choosing Joseph Biden for his running mate. On Aug 27, 2008 at the Democratic Convention in Denver Sen. Biden presented his plan for the new administration’s “real war,” the war against Russia and China. For Biden, the greatest mistake of the Bush administration was its failure “to face the biggest forces shaping this century. The emergence of Russia, China and India's great powers”.
Now, what was the “consequence of this neglect”?
“Russia challenging… Georgia's freedom. The Obama-Biden administration will repair those criminal mistakes… Barack and I will end that neglect. We will hold Russia accountable.”
Note that, though he is speaking of a war against Russia and China, Biden’s “real war” is with Russia only: Russia alone will be held “accountable” – for kicking into line a U.S. puppet that went clinically bonkers and launched a bombardment of a sleeping city and killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Obama, too, promised his followers to contain “Russia’s aggressiveness,” in true Biden spirit – using the very words that State Secretary Rice is mouthing. Change? Don’t make me laugh…
The Good Book says: “No one puts new wine into old wineskins” (Luke 5:37). Alas, ours is a different case: the skin may be new, but the wine is old – and sour.
Bruce W. Bean,Prof., lecturer for Michigan State University College of Law
I do not believe that the Russian-U.S. relationship is off on the wrong foot for it is the “lame duck” Bush Administration that remains in charge until January 20, 2009.
“Change” and “hope” were the two dominant themes of president-elect Barack Obama’s successful campaign. Those of us who follow Russian-U.S. relations closely certainly do hope for immediate, positive change in this relationship.
There is a basis for this hope arising out of two matters which have annoyed/offended/threatened Russia: (1) the Bush Administration’s plans to place missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic and (2) NATO’s continued march east towards Russia.
Under the correct circumstances, Obama could quickly and easily make meaningful progress in Russian-U.S. relations in each of these areas. He has declared that he is in favor of continued research and development on missile defense. To me this suggests that Obama has no intention of immediately deploying the Czech and Polish radar and missile installations.
A half measure Obama could pursue would be to give President Medvedev private assurance that there will be no such immediate deployment. Arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic can be delayed indefinitely or terminated as befits U.S. relations with those countries.
For obvious diplomatic reasons the “correct circumstances” for such a positive step does not include a “threat” from Russia. One day after Obama’s election President Medvedev, in a major speech, briefly mentioned placing short-range Iskander tactical missiles in Kaliningrad to counter the missile defense installation in Poland.
If this reference can be viewed as a threat, then no such progress will be made, and we can confirm that there are forces within the Kremlin intent, for their own reasons, upon ensuring that Russian-U.S. relations do not improve. Otherwise, Obama’s announced policy preference will give Russia precisely what it needs.
As to that colossal, bureaucratic anachronism, NATO, as a mere half measure, Obama could assure President Medvedev that NATO will make no further moves east. This gives up very little and saves hundreds of millions.
On the other hand, if the president-elect, who is clearly an intelligent, alert leader, wishes to bring U.S. foreign policy in line with the political realities which became clear two decades ago to all but the most hide-bound, self-interested careerists and cold warriors, he will conclude that NATO has served its purpose.
Obama will then find a way promptly to shut down NATO completely, while granting NATO its proper place in 20th Century history. In any event, NATO will not serve as an important instrument of 21st century American and European foreign policy.
With the estimated $90 billion thus saved, Obama afford a few of the many items high on his list of domestic priorities.
What Obama will be able to do once he assumes office is unknown. But let us hope that one of the changes he will institute is a recognition of the importance of Russian-U.S. relations
Regardless of what Obama feels he can do with NATO, the U.S. will remain the world’s pre-eminent military power. The Russians and the Chinese freely acknowledge this. Indeed, even al Qaeda understands this.
Whatever happens, it is entirely too early to claim that Russian-U.S. relations are off on the wrong foot. After all it is the webbed feet of the lame duck Bush Administration which remain in power until January 20.
discuss it
