"Nobody wants a failure of Russia"
The expert suggested Vladimir Putin should answer the secret letter of Barack Obama
 | April 17, 2013, 8:41 Photo: ITAR-TASS Text: Andrew Rezchikov |
"The two presidents also will meet until September. By the mood in Washington felt that the American elite want Russia to be a successful chairman of Big Twenty. Now nobody wants a failure of Russia ", - told the newspaper VIEW analyst Nikolai Zlobin. He believes that, in response to a letter from Barack Obama Kremlin has to offer Washington its agenda.
An anonymous senior US official told "Kommersant" that the letter, which was sent on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin adviser to US President Barack Obama Tom Donilon, said that the two countries should focus on 27 major common problems and not be distracted by minor stimuli . These items relate to the economy and security.
"Russia can not be reduced to relations with America purely political, because it makes it very vulnerable to situations such as Syria, Libya. From any revolution somewhere "
"In the letter there are proposals in the coming months (before the meeting of the presidents in June and September) and years (until the end of Barack Obama). We see it as a kind of work plan, "- said the source. Anonymous said the United States, the Russian side has indicated that it will respond to Obama's message. Presidential aide Yury Ushakov, who met with Tom Donilon, assured that Moscow appreciated the "positive signals" from the United States.
One of the main steps in the "unfreezing" of relations will be the resumption of meetings in the "2 + 2" - ministers of defense and foreign affairs. Recent talks in this format were held in 2007 - 2008 years. They became the basis for the signing in 2010 of the new START Treaty-3.
About how Moscow would react to a letter to Obama, told the newspaper VIEW head of the Washington-based Center for Global interests Nikolai Zlobin.
VIEW: Nikolai, the letter contains 27 items, collaborate on who is responsible, according to Washington, to the needs of both countries. According to the newspaper "Kommersant", the letter addresses issues such as missile defense, nuclear arms reduction, non-proliferation, nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, the situation in Afghanistan, Syria, increasing mutual investment and trade. What are theoretically possible compromise Moscow and Washington on these items?
Nikolai Zlobin: Russia to offer its agenda, and it does not have to agree to the US and build bilateral relations in the framework of the agenda, which is offered by the White House. It is important to understand how by offering this agenda, the White House has support within the country, mainly in Congress. If the proposals are speculative and have no chance of support in Congress, including funding and political support, it is not the most productive way to work.
All initiatives will sooner or later will be in Congress. There they have to approve, fund, held committees and commissions. All it would be nice to find out before included in the dialogue.
Is important for Russia, it is clear economic side of the relationship. She obviously does not grasp. With this it is necessary to understand.
While there is no major economic base of these relations that exists in
America and China, the relationship will greatly depend on the
political volatility of what is happening on a daily basis. And this is not the most favorable conditions for the relationship.
We need a serious financial cushion to the relationship brings the
country income, create jobs, investment and new technologies.
Russia can not be reduced to relations with America purely political, because it makes it very vulnerable to situations such as Syria, Libya. From any revolution somewhere, differences of any law that will in one way or another Parliament. You need to have Russian in America were powerful groups interested in improving relations. Today it is not there or there.
I often encounter in America with a question that occasionally rises establishment occupied by foreign policy. The question like this: "Here we have worsened relations with Russia. America is losing? "And the answer is no. Loses nothing in principle. Something will be harder to do something more, but it is not a crisis of foreign policy, security crisis, not a crisis of the economy.
Here it is in fact favorable for Russia. Need for America to lose from a worsening of relations with Russia. This factor must be borne in mind in Russia, when it will produce its agenda. And America could lose if the relationship will be filled with serious content, not just political rhetoric and a good relationship between the president, who will be photogenic pose amidst beautiful scenery.
American agenda is developed based on the fact on what you can hurt Russia, judging from the letters of the items. And Russia has to understand where it is important to America to have good relations with Russia and expand this platform, then a compromise will be much easier to achieve.
VIEW: Can you compare this letter and the famous letter to Obama Medvedev in March 2009? As is known, the content of that letter press very quickly unravel even before leaks - it was a simple deal: concessions to Iran in exchange for concessions on missile defense. How likely is it that in this letter, offered some simple "swing"?
NC .: Correspondence this type of matter. In Russia, Putin's letter would be powerful enough. And in America, President - not as powerful figure, he has a lot of checks and balances. He alone can not implement policies, if only because he had not even finance its foreign policy. He should definitely seek a compromise among the elite.
Perhaps, in some areas of the joint agenda Obama on the political horizon quite lonely, and Russia can strengthen his or developing areas where Obama alone, or weaken ... A certain lever here, apparently, it is. But in any case an American president - not a document written by a person who sits in the Kremlin. This is not an order for the execution of the American establishment. It is important to understand. This position of the administration, but it is not the only political player on the American chessboard.
Position of Congress may be one, the position of the expert community - the other, the position of civil society - is also another, and the position of the US media - is quite different, as the position of the business and the more military-industrial business. It is important to understand how Obama was able to generalize these positions in a letter to offer a generic version of the name of America. I think that as long as it is not. I do not see here in America, unity in relation to Russia.
VIEW: If you believe the leak, in September during the Big Twenty leaders may announce the resumption of the "2 + 2", then there are regular meetings at the level of Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs. How important is renewed at least in this format?
NC .: The two presidents also will meet until September. By the mood in Washington felt that the American elite want Russia to be a successful chairman of Big Twenty. Now nobody wants a failure Russia as such. The world economy is in dire straits. Cyprus has added. Europe unstable. Big Twenty, for all that, not very powerful tool, but Russia has a chance to collect fruits.
Therefore, in Washington, DC will be glad if Russia successfully hold big twenty, for that matter, and the Group of Eight, which Russia will chair the following year. Russia has a unique opportunity to influence the agenda regardless of the Russian-American relations.
But on the other hand, we must bear in mind that in America there are sentiments that time Russia has such a position on all issues, then why are we with it are negotiating arms control? The more that the safety is largely not affected, because not care how much we warheads - 1000 or 1800. It is a matter of statistics, not security.
But it is part of the American elite, says that these negotiations give the impression that US-Russian relations are developing. These negotiations provide an opportunity to Moscow to hold status position. They say, "Let's take the negotiations with Russia on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." If this happens, we return to the point from which I started - then in this relationship is almost nothing left. The economy is not there, there is no social dimension, a large exchange of students, schoolchildren, cultural ...
So it's not a very good development - to Russia in the first place. We must try to save any format of negotiations in the field of security. At least from the standpoint of status.
VIEW: Are the chances that Obama and Putin will have time to sign in September some agreement?
NC .: It is not very clear what they can sign. While no agreement by and large do not. But if after their first meeting in June, there will be some signs that there is a theme, it is a good motivating factor.
If not, then imagine what will make tens of thousands of people from both parties involved in the negotiations on the arms, which are counting missiles three decades. They are nothing more they can do. They believe the rocket, they move them there, recounts endlessly occur. If it's all gone, including the "2 + 2", there will be an empty place, because Russian-US relations have been sharpened by security.
If presidents do not give signals that they want to continue the dialogue on security, it will be bad. You need to Russian-American relations were filled with economies were not about third countries such as Syria, Iraq, Eastern Europe, North Korea - it is certainly important, but about Russia and the United States. And, I repeat, very often these relationships are reduced to as Russia and the United States behave in third countries. It's not really something.
And the third - the problem of substantive content of bilateral relations, including issues of discussion of global security. If Russia will come out of this dialogue, the issues of global security will deal with someone else without her. Moscow does not need it, and the world of this will be good.
VIEW: Initiators "Magnitsky Act" - Senators McCain and Cardin, Congressman McGovern - already promised in May to hold new hearings to finally tighten "Magnitsky Act", to force Obama to expand the open part of the list. What are their chances of success?
NC .: The Congress has its own position, and the president - his own.
In principle, the Congress can do something against the wishes of the
president, but on one condition, that the president have nothing to
cover. But as a rule, the president is what Open. The White House is working on a compromise. Senators and Congressmen represent specific states, and not yourself.
Basically compromises go on like this: The White House says - you
remove your suggestions on this or mitigate them, because we will not
agree, and in return we will consider expansion of the state program for
the construction of bridges in your state. Usually, this tactic works. All American policy is based on the tactics of compromise.
And since the Russian and foreign policy away from the main problems of
America, I think the president will be able to offer different
tradeoffs senators and congressmen, when they want to strengthen the
"Magnitsky Act".
But these trade-offs are not in the field of relations with Russia, and in a purely American policy that for the same McCain is more important than the sound of the "law of Magnitsky."
An anonymous senior US official told "Kommersant" that the letter, which was sent on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin adviser to US President Barack Obama Tom Donilon, said that the two countries should focus on 27 major common problems and not be distracted by minor stimuli . These items relate to the economy and security.
"Russia can not be reduced to relations with America purely political, because it makes it very vulnerable to situations such as Syria, Libya. From any revolution somewhere "
"In the letter there are proposals in the coming months (before the meeting of the presidents in June and September) and years (until the end of Barack Obama). We see it as a kind of work plan, "- said the source. Anonymous said the United States, the Russian side has indicated that it will respond to Obama's message. Presidential aide Yury Ushakov, who met with Tom Donilon, assured that Moscow appreciated the "positive signals" from the United States.
One of the main steps in the "unfreezing" of relations will be the resumption of meetings in the "2 + 2" - ministers of defense and foreign affairs. Recent talks in this format were held in 2007 - 2008 years. They became the basis for the signing in 2010 of the new START Treaty-3.
About how Moscow would react to a letter to Obama, told the newspaper VIEW head of the Washington-based Center for Global interests Nikolai Zlobin.
VIEW: Nikolai, the letter contains 27 items, collaborate on who is responsible, according to Washington, to the needs of both countries. According to the newspaper "Kommersant", the letter addresses issues such as missile defense, nuclear arms reduction, non-proliferation, nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran, the situation in Afghanistan, Syria, increasing mutual investment and trade. What are theoretically possible compromise Moscow and Washington on these items?
Nikolai Zlobin: Russia to offer its agenda, and it does not have to agree to the US and build bilateral relations in the framework of the agenda, which is offered by the White House. It is important to understand how by offering this agenda, the White House has support within the country, mainly in Congress. If the proposals are speculative and have no chance of support in Congress, including funding and political support, it is not the most productive way to work.
All initiatives will sooner or later will be in Congress. There they have to approve, fund, held committees and commissions. All it would be nice to find out before included in the dialogue.
Nikolai Zlobin (Photo: ITAR-TASS)
|
Russia can not be reduced to relations with America purely political, because it makes it very vulnerable to situations such as Syria, Libya. From any revolution somewhere, differences of any law that will in one way or another Parliament. You need to have Russian in America were powerful groups interested in improving relations. Today it is not there or there.
I often encounter in America with a question that occasionally rises establishment occupied by foreign policy. The question like this: "Here we have worsened relations with Russia. America is losing? "And the answer is no. Loses nothing in principle. Something will be harder to do something more, but it is not a crisis of foreign policy, security crisis, not a crisis of the economy.
Here it is in fact favorable for Russia. Need for America to lose from a worsening of relations with Russia. This factor must be borne in mind in Russia, when it will produce its agenda. And America could lose if the relationship will be filled with serious content, not just political rhetoric and a good relationship between the president, who will be photogenic pose amidst beautiful scenery.
American agenda is developed based on the fact on what you can hurt Russia, judging from the letters of the items. And Russia has to understand where it is important to America to have good relations with Russia and expand this platform, then a compromise will be much easier to achieve.
VIEW: Can you compare this letter and the famous letter to Obama Medvedev in March 2009? As is known, the content of that letter press very quickly unravel even before leaks - it was a simple deal: concessions to Iran in exchange for concessions on missile defense. How likely is it that in this letter, offered some simple "swing"?
NC .: Correspondence this type of matter. In Russia, Putin's letter would be powerful enough. And in America, President - not as powerful figure, he has a lot of checks and balances. He alone can not implement policies, if only because he had not even finance its foreign policy. He should definitely seek a compromise among the elite.
Perhaps, in some areas of the joint agenda Obama on the political horizon quite lonely, and Russia can strengthen his or developing areas where Obama alone, or weaken ... A certain lever here, apparently, it is. But in any case an American president - not a document written by a person who sits in the Kremlin. This is not an order for the execution of the American establishment. It is important to understand. This position of the administration, but it is not the only political player on the American chessboard.
Position of Congress may be one, the position of the expert community - the other, the position of civil society - is also another, and the position of the US media - is quite different, as the position of the business and the more military-industrial business. It is important to understand how Obama was able to generalize these positions in a letter to offer a generic version of the name of America. I think that as long as it is not. I do not see here in America, unity in relation to Russia.
VIEW: If you believe the leak, in September during the Big Twenty leaders may announce the resumption of the "2 + 2", then there are regular meetings at the level of Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs. How important is renewed at least in this format?
NC .: The two presidents also will meet until September. By the mood in Washington felt that the American elite want Russia to be a successful chairman of Big Twenty. Now nobody wants a failure Russia as such. The world economy is in dire straits. Cyprus has added. Europe unstable. Big Twenty, for all that, not very powerful tool, but Russia has a chance to collect fruits.
Therefore, in Washington, DC will be glad if Russia successfully hold big twenty, for that matter, and the Group of Eight, which Russia will chair the following year. Russia has a unique opportunity to influence the agenda regardless of the Russian-American relations.
But on the other hand, we must bear in mind that in America there are sentiments that time Russia has such a position on all issues, then why are we with it are negotiating arms control? The more that the safety is largely not affected, because not care how much we warheads - 1000 or 1800. It is a matter of statistics, not security.
But it is part of the American elite, says that these negotiations give the impression that US-Russian relations are developing. These negotiations provide an opportunity to Moscow to hold status position. They say, "Let's take the negotiations with Russia on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." If this happens, we return to the point from which I started - then in this relationship is almost nothing left. The economy is not there, there is no social dimension, a large exchange of students, schoolchildren, cultural ...
So it's not a very good development - to Russia in the first place. We must try to save any format of negotiations in the field of security. At least from the standpoint of status.
VIEW: Are the chances that Obama and Putin will have time to sign in September some agreement?
NC .: It is not very clear what they can sign. While no agreement by and large do not. But if after their first meeting in June, there will be some signs that there is a theme, it is a good motivating factor.
If not, then imagine what will make tens of thousands of people from both parties involved in the negotiations on the arms, which are counting missiles three decades. They are nothing more they can do. They believe the rocket, they move them there, recounts endlessly occur. If it's all gone, including the "2 + 2", there will be an empty place, because Russian-US relations have been sharpened by security.
If presidents do not give signals that they want to continue the dialogue on security, it will be bad. You need to Russian-American relations were filled with economies were not about third countries such as Syria, Iraq, Eastern Europe, North Korea - it is certainly important, but about Russia and the United States. And, I repeat, very often these relationships are reduced to as Russia and the United States behave in third countries. It's not really something.
And the third - the problem of substantive content of bilateral relations, including issues of discussion of global security. If Russia will come out of this dialogue, the issues of global security will deal with someone else without her. Moscow does not need it, and the world of this will be good.
VIEW: Initiators "Magnitsky Act" - Senators McCain and Cardin, Congressman McGovern - already promised in May to hold new hearings to finally tighten "Magnitsky Act", to force Obama to expand the open part of the list. What are their chances of success?
Popular materials
But these trade-offs are not in the field of relations with Russia, and in a purely American policy that for the same McCain is more important than the sound of the "law of Magnitsky."
No comments:
Post a Comment