Setting an Agenda for Cooperation
Red Square, Moscow (cc photo by Alan Cordova)
Clifford Levy and Peter Baker write for the New York Times that President Barack Obama’s top priority in Moscow is following through on an earlier informal agreement reached at the G-8 summit to enact bilateral reductions in nuclear arsenals though he “also expected to touch on the war in Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, terrorism and the jousting for influence in other former Soviet countries.”
These proposed bilateral nuclear reductions are an important part of getting the global non-proliferation regime back on track and moving us toward global nuclear disarmament. But the choice of priorities also highlights something important about Obama’s approach to world affairs. The US-Russia relationship is multifaceted, and there’s plenty of stuff we disagree about. And within the category of “stuff we disagree about” there’s a particular sub-category of stuff that it’s exceedingly unlikely we’re going to agree about. Most notable among these is Russia’s relationship with the post-Soviet countries. The United States would like to see these treated more-or-less as “ordinary” countries and insofar as is realistic absorbed into the Western European order. Russia, by contrast, sees them in much the way that the United States has traditionally viewed Central America and the Caribbean—at times nominally independent but fundamentally part of a Moscow-centered sphere of influence.
There’s a certain amount of sentiment in the United States that not only should the U.S. continue to disagree with Russia’s perspective on this, but that we ought to somehow elevate such disagreement to the very top of the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship. The president should go over there, denounce the Russians, get denounced back, and then come back to Washington empty handed but full of self-righteousness. This is part and parcel of the phenomenon whereby people don’t grasp the difference between a pundit and a president. It makes a lot more sense to focus a visit on something like the nuclear issue, where U.S. and Russian interests are roughly in alignment and some high-level discussions stand a decent chance of bearing fruit.
9 Responses to “Setting an Agenda for Cooperation”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Funny, CNBC said President Obama was in Russia to improve business relations, opening opportunities for American branded multinational corporations.
Kissinger, Baker, Perry, Schultz and Nunn paved the way with their March visit to Russia. The Carlyle Group’s David Rubenstein visited Khazakstan in May. Carlyle has over $1 billion to invest in Asia. While most is targeted for India and China, some $200 million could go toward Russia.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/07/carlyles-wiggle-room-in-104-billion.html
July 6th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Obama in Prague: “As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven”
My hope is that Obama will come out with some report that proves it is not cost effective, and he will scrap the wasteful missile defense plans.
Or at least scrap it in return for something from both Iran and Russia.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Belarus — which was promised $2 billion in Russian aid — is in open rebellion against the Kremlin, flaunting its preference for Europe while also collecting money from the International Monetary Fund. Uzbekistan joined Belarus in refusing to sign an agreement on the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces, an idea Moscow sees as an eventual counterweight to NATO.
…
But the biggest came last week when Kyrgyzstan — set to receive $2.15 billion in Russian aid — reversed a decision that had been seen as a coup for Moscow, last winter’s order terminating the American military’s use of the Manas Air Base there.
“A game of chance has developed in the post-Soviet space: Who can swindle the Kremlin in the coolest way?” wrote the military analyst Aleksandr Golts, when news of the Manas decision broke.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/europe/03russia.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=Russia&st=cse
The Kremlin’s methods have been reactive and often bullying, combining incentives like cheap energy or cash disbursement with threats of trade sanctions and gas cutoffs.
The war in Georgia seems to have hurt Moscow in that regard. Rather than being cowed into obedience, as most Western observers feared, the former republics seem to have grown even more protective of their sovereignty.
But it’s interesting they’re allowing flights to resupply Afghanistan.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
The problem with mattls analysis is that it is actually in the us national interest for russia to have its sphere of influence. It will check us power and may keep us out of war, and it will give russia an incentive to relieve us of the financial and military burdens of policing that part of the world.
The problem is that too many us policymakers are addicted to imperialism. We’re safer in a multipolar world with a strong russia, even if it means we don’t always get our way.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Interesting that just as Russia’s “sphere of influence” is starting to bite back at its alleged big brother (Ukraine and Georgia being excellent examples), the US is having problems of its own (Honduras, Cuba, many countries in South America). The thing about being part of someone’s sphere of influence is that nobody in the sphere seems to be very happy with that designation.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Ahh, arms control talks. The hobby horse of well meaning people everywhere, who refuse to accept reality. No arms control talks have ever worked in the past; they won’t work in the future, either. The relevant thing to worry about is what relations are like between rival powers. If there’s trust and cooperation, the weapons on hand don’t matter (we don’t care how many nukes France or Britain have, for instance). If there’s no trust or cooperation, agreements are nice photo-ops for politicians, and nothing more.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Clifford Levy and Peter Baker write for the New York Times that President Barack Obama’s top priority in Moscow is following through on an earlier informal agreement reached at the G-8 summit to enact bilateral reductions in nuclear arsenals though he “also expected to touch on the war in Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, terrorism and the jousting for influence in other former Soviet countries.”
These proposed bilateral nuclear reductions are an important part of getting the global non-proliferation regime back on track and moving us toward global nuclear disarmament
===========================================================
Was it off track?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stockpile19dec19,1,3284043.story
U.S. to cut nuclear weapons stockpile
The Bush administration said Tuesday that it would make a 15% reduction in the nation’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, taking the overall inventory down to less than a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War in 1991.
A major effort to retire older weapons was accomplished five years ahead of schedule, allowing the new round of cutbacks, said Thomas P. D’Agostino, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The additional cuts would be done by 2012.
The overall size of the nation’s nuclear inventory is classified. But under the terms of a 2002 treaty, the U.S. and Russia are committed to reducing deployed weapons on missiles and aircraft to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.
It is believed the U.S. holds about 4,000 additional weapons in reserve status, though those numbers are classified.
Separately, the Energy Department on Tuesday unveiled a long-term plan to modernize and reduce the size of its weapons research and production complex, saying it would cut about 20% of its current 37,000 workers and close about one third of its facilities.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Reuters reported:
In addition to Boeing, John Deere, and PepsiCo, executives from U.S. oil majors ExxonMobil, Chevrov, ConocoPhillips and aluminum major Alcoa are traveling with Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE5651KZ20090706?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
July 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
[...] in Russia. From a few days ago, Matthew Yglesias: There’s a certain amount of sentiment in the United States that not only should the U.S. continue [...]