- The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 7, 2009

President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in principle Monday to cut their countries’ nuclear weapons stockpiles below 1,700 each within seven years of obtaining approval of a new arms treaty. Tuesday, Mr. Obama will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The two countries may have a window of opportunity to relaunch their relationship, which has been set back by Russia’s inflexible positions and litany of demands.

Some in the United States believe rhetoric alone can revitalize the deteriorating relationship between the two nations, yet expectations of a major breakthrough should not be high. There are tell-tale signs that Moscow may not be ready for a grand bargain with Washington on all items.

The Obama administration has expressed its desire to “push the reset button” on relations with Russia. Specifically, this has meant prioritizing a strategic arms-control agreement on an accelerated schedule (before the year’s end); offering the Kremlin an implicit deal on missile defense in Europe; downplaying NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia (also because of European resistance); and offering to speed Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).


To date, Russia has continued its policy of rapprochement with China, Iran and Venezuela - and consistent challenges to the central United States role in world affairs. The global economic crisis has done little to change this behavior.

Moscow has responded with minimal rhetorical nods, continuing its policy of push-backs and propaganda. Specifically, in spring the Kremlin promulgated a national security strategy that fingered the United States as a principal threat to Russia. Earlier, Moscow declared that it is no longer bound by the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

The Kremlin also is trying to gut the current principal framework for European and Eurasian security — the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) - by denying it funding and blocking its peacekeeping missions.

Last year, Russia recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after its war with Georgia and signed a “status-of-forces agreement” that permanently deploys more than 10,000 Russian troops on Georgian soil in five military bases.

On the economic front, the Russian government rejected WTO membership in 2009, which the United States promised to support. Instead, it has prioritized Eurasian economic consolidation through a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Mr. Medvedev, Mr. Putin and Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin called for the Group of Eight leading industrial nations to make the Russian ruble and the Chinese yuan reserve currencies and expand International Monetary Fund drawing rights — measures which, if enacted, would cause treasuries worldwide to dump their dollar reserves and thereby weaken the U.S. currency.

The Obama administration has been anxious to secure Russian cooperation on several pressing issues, such as arms control, nonproliferation, a joint policy on the Near East, and energy cooperation.

However, today’s Russia is a tough customer. The Cold War may be over, but Moscow, bristling with anti-Americanism, is carving out a sphere of “exclusive interests” in the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Obama should offer the Putin-Medvedev administration the option of joining the United States and the West in addressing today’s major global security and economic challenges. But he should do so on terms that take U.S. national interests into account and also the interests of America’s allies. Mr. Obama should resist Moscow’s bullying tactics and tough negotiating posture.

Specifically, at the Moscow summit, the Obama administration should avoid a stringent timetable on a strategic weapons limitations agreement under a signed memorandum incorporating the START II inspection procedures into the current Moscow Treaty on arms control.

Washington should reiterate an offer of ballistic missile defense cooperation with Moscow while pursuing plans to deploy missile defense in Europe at the earliest date possible, as the Iranian threat is likely to grow if the hard-liners prevail in Tehran.

Story Continues →