Russia-U.S. Relations Need a Break

Interview

There are many issues relating to the future of Russia-U.S. relations. Nevertheless, the decision to cancel the summit should not be perceived as a breakdown of dialogue. The two countries need to take time out to understand what they have achieved and missed out on, to inspect their progress and review errors. Valery Garbuzov, deputy director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the RAS, shares his view of the situation.

Interview

There are many issues relating to the future of Russia-U.S. relations. Nevertheless, the decision to cancel the summit should not be perceived as a breakdown of dialogue. The two countries need to take time out to understand what they have achieved and missed out on, to inspect their progress and review errors. Valery Garbuzov, deputy director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the RAS, shares his view of the situation.

Does Barack Obama’s refusal to meet Vladimir Putin imply that this is the end of the “reset”?

There were difficulties in Russia-U.S. relations since long before the Edward Snowden incident. The armed conflict between Georgia and Russia, missile defense, Syria, strategic arms control, Iran, human rights in Russia, the Magnitsky Act and the adoption of Russian children by U.S. couples – these are the issues that provoked considerable tension between the two countries.

It is no doubt that the “reset” proclaimed at the beginning of Obama’s presidential term bore fruit: cooperation on Afghanistan, the resumption of talks on arms control and the signing of a new treaty. The Obama administration has taken into consideration Russia’s stance on a whole range of issues, including cooperation in outer space. But that was all that the “reset” could give.

A new agenda (increasing the scale of economic, primarily trade and investment cooperation, countering terrorism and drugs trafficking, promoting cultural and scientific exchanges, etc.) has yet to be shaped. Judging by their statements, it seems that the countries have been long prepared for this, but Moscow’s intransigence on missile defense, Syria, arms control, on one hand, and a general anti-Russian attitude in a certain part of the U.S. political elite (represented primarily in the Congress) on the other hand, prevent the countries from developing a new agenda.

The fact that Russia granted asylum to Snowden (which Sergei Lavrov called “an anomaly, an episode”) has proved to be a boiling point that escalated the routine of previous differences to the stage of crisis. Under such conditions, the meeting of the two heads of state could hardly be appropriate.

Valery Garbuzov

Mr. Garbuzov, what overlapping interests of Russia and the U.S. could you point out? Do you believe that cancelling the summit hampers the development of cooperation between the two countries in the sphere of overlapping interests?

It is obvious that today both countries need a break. They clearly need to understand what they have achieved and the opportunities they have missed, to review the progress and assess errors. But more importantly, it is necessary to shape a concept of constructive Russia-U.S. relations based on overlapping or intertwined interests which would be guaranteed against unforeseen failures (similar to the Snowden case). They (common interests) were defined over the course of the “reset,” which has proved to be limited both in time and substance.

As for the summit cancellation, this should not be perceived a total breakdown of dialogue. I hope that the pause will not last long and will not lead to a “deep freeze” in bilateral contacts. I believe that the leaders will meet before the end of Obama’s presidential term.

We should also think about the future. For example, it is unclear what kind of relations Russia and the U.S will have if a Republican is elected head of the U.S. administration, how strong the positions of anti-Russian lobby in the newly elected Congress will be, under that scenario.

U.S. foreign policy is not always developed in the White House. It depends on the overall balance of political power in the country, the balance of power in the Congress, which is often not taken into account.

How do you assess the outcome of the “2+2” meeting? What does it mean for Russia? Has Obama’s refusal to meet Putin influenced the outcome of the talks?

I assess it positively. A substantive and professional discussion of the whole range of issues that define our bilateral relations, an exchange of views on key issues in world politics which are not held occasionally but on a regular basis, support dialogue and the necessary level of trust between Russia and the U.S. – the lack of which is clearly observed today.

Given this situation, a meeting between the two countries’ Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defense was a must. It was constructive and quiet, which clearly contrasted with the atmosphere reigning in Russian-American relations in recent days. This may testify to the fact that it is a serious, calm, confidential dialogue on specific, even controversial issues that underpins bilateral relations, making sure it does not collapse completely.

What will Russia-U.S. relations look like in the short term?

I think the Obama administration is genuinely interested in the development of a constructive, although not an easy dialogue with Russia, to achieve concrete results in areas where substantial groundwork has been done and the prospects have been outlined. These sectors (and areas) include trade and the economy in general, strategic stability, military and technical sphere, outer space, countering terrorism and drug trafficking, cooperation in unstable regions of the world, etc.

Interviewed by Natalia Evtikhevich, program manager of the RIAC