It is unclear how the United States can answer the Russian demand that guarantees that the missile defense system will not be used against Russia, because Russia would like it in the form of legal guarantees that would be impossible for the president to deliver.
Valdaiclub.com
interview with Angela Stent, Professor of Government and Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Brookings Institution; Vice Chair, World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Russia. Member, Council on Foreign Relations. Member of the Valdai Discussion Club.
How our bilateral relations will be affected following Obama’s reelection?
I think that the fact that Obama was reelected is really a positive signal for the US-Russia relations. There will be continuity in policy, we’ll continue presidential bilateral relations. There won’t be, though, such an active policy during the second term towards Russia for several reasons. One of them is that there are huge pressing international problems: the explosions in the Middle East, Syria, Iran and pulling out of Afghanistan. And secondly, the things that Obama administration wanted to accomplish in the first term have largely been accomplished: the new START agreement, cooperation with Russia on Iran, cooperation on Afghanistan. The missile defense clearly was not accomplished. It is possible that there could still be a deal on that in the next Obama administration, but I think, that the Russian position is fairly clear. It is unclear how the United States can answer the Russian demand that guarantees that the system will not be used against Russia, because Russia would like it in the form of legal guarantees that would be impossible for the president to deliver. So, the major part of the “reset” was accomplished and I am not sure what the next steps are. There will be more focus on the smaller steps, on the human dimension, but I don’t see any big projects. And the other task will be to make sure that relations do not deteriorate on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, on Iran. And even though we do not agree on what we should do vis-à-vis Syria, we still have to work together, if there is going to be some negotiated settlement there.
We all remember what Obama told Medvedev when his microphone was on, he said that he was going to be “more flexible”. How flexible can the US president actually be?
Obviously, you can give verbal and informal guarantees. There can be understandings. But the problem with understandings is that they are not formally written in a document. So, that comes back to the level of trust and whether the Russian side would be willing to accept guarantees that do not have seal on them. That could only be accomplished if it is in a broader context of something where the Russians believe that the US has credibility.
How important do you think for US-Russia bilateral relations are personal relations between the two presidents and what do you think about these relations?
The personal relations are very important. Take president Obama and former president Medvedev. They both were young post Cold War presidents. Mr. Medvedev was interested in a new technology. I do think that personal relationship was important. My understanding is that during some very difficult points during negotiations on new START or Lybia the personal calls were important. The Obama administration always understood that no foreign policy would be taken without Prime Minister Putin’s approval, but still it was president Medvedev who was negotiating them. The fact that he is Prime Minister makes some difference. Now it is President Putin and President Obama who have to interact and they will interact, they have met. They both understand that it is a necessary way of doing it. There was probably an ease of interacting between Obama and Medvedev that is not there any more. But it remains to be seen whether Medvedev is still given some role in the US-Russian relationship. It could be so.
