The Bulletin Online
By Pavel Podvig | 15 August 2007
Russia has been in the news often lately, with most of it having an odd Cold War flavor. Even the widely publicized (but otherwise harmless) expedition that planted a Russian flag under the North Pole generated stories about a potential arms race in icebreakers and reports of U.S. submarines shadowing Russian scientific underwater capsules.
On the surface, Russia provided plenty of reasons to wonder what it's up to. In July, President Vladimir Putin suspended the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and the new ballistic missile tests that Russia recently conducted set the stage for a minor buildup of land-based and sea-based strategic forces. At the beginning of August, the Russian Air Force conducted what appears to be the largest series of exercises since the Soviet era, which involved strategic bomber flights around Western Europe and the U.S. military installations in Guam. Given that all of this follows the unresolved dispute about U.S. plans to deploy missile interceptors in Eastern Europe, the future of U.S.-Russian relations and the prospect of nuclear disarmament doesn't seem particularly bright.
Fortunately, the reality is not so grim. Even though the Kremlin's rhetoric shouldn't be taken lightly, there are plenty of indicators that Russia is more than willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of strategic issues. The problem is that the Bush administration approaches Russia with a strange mix of fatalism and indifference. The administration seems to think that it's impossible to reach a meaningful agreement with Russia on anything and that such agreements are unnecessary anyway.
This is deeply flawed logic. I have said it before and will do so again: Even post-Cold War, U.S.-Russian arms control agreements are important, because they provide the framework that prevents misunderstanding and confrontation.
As for the possibility of meaningful agreements, lets look at what's on the table:
First, the Russian offer to let the United States use its early warning radars in a future missile defense system is still on the table. Not only would Russia give the United States access to the old radar in northeastern Azerbaijan, but it's also willing to make the new radar in southern Russia available. A technical analysis conducted by Ted Postol at MIT shows that the U.S. missile defense system would benefit greatly from the data provided by Russian radars. The United States, however, quickly dismissed this offer as a ploy to prevent the deployment of a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic. That was true to a certain extent, but it doesn't mean that the opening created by the Russian proposal shouldn't be seriously explored.
Another Russian proposal is to revive and expand the idea of establishing a joint data exchange center that facilitates sharing information provided by early warning systems. In addition to the already agreed upon (but nonexistent) center in Moscow, Russia suggested opening a similar center in Brussels. This could create an opportunity for Russia to more closely integrate with NATO. And who would object to that? Unfortunately, there isn't any U.S. interest in this proposal.
Finally, as the deadline for extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty draws near, more and more people in Russia are advocating for keeping the treaty alive. Although a simple extension of the treaty is hardly possible today, preserving most of its transparency and verification measures is certainly something that Russia would welcome. Instead, the Bush administration decided not to extend the treaty, and the only commitment that it's willing to make is a three-paragraph statement that doesn't commit either side to anything.
The saddest part is that it isn't clear if the Bush administration has either the necessary political will or skill to take advantage of the current (admittedly small) opening and bring U.S.-Russian relations back to a reasonably normal state. It should try to give serious consideration to the Russian proposals. Otherwise, we'll see more Cold War-flavored news items.
The book
Comments
Any proposal that puts the defense of the US at the whim of a Russian politician is DOA. The saddest part is that many fail to understand that (though I suspect the Russian politicians know full well such an offer would never be accepted and they wouldn't accept it either if the shoe were on the other foot.) Everybody seems to conveniently leave out the part where Russia will let the US use the radar- as long as the US doesn't have any ABMs in Poland. What kind of deal is that? Kinda like saying "I'll buy gas for your car as long as you don't own a car." No, if Russia were honestly interested in a joint effort with the US the dialogue would be more like "okay US, go ahead and deploy the 10 ABMs and radar and let's see how we can get some integration with our systems and help each other out." That's not at all what they're saying. For a lesson in how it's done they only need to look to Japan.
Scott seems to live in the Yeltsin era. That era is long gone. Now, if the west try to grow at expenses of Russia it will have to pay the price. That's the thing work today. If the west want its ABMs in Poland, OK, go ahead. Then, off course, this will be exploited by Russia to expand its (military, economic, politics...) interets around the world. After all, Russia is behaving much more dinamically than the today "almost frozen" west.
We can live more confortably whitout Cold War era treaties.
Pavel:
Let me phrase a simple question to you that puts the entire political relationship today between the United States and Russia in context. Have you ever noticed how the United States treats Russia as if she had no nuclear weapons? President Putin wanted an arms control agreement between Russia and the United States and got the Moscow Treaty (SORT) which is hardly a treaty and more of a gentleman’s agreement on American’s nuclear intentions than anything else. Russia has political issues in Europe and ends compliance in the Conventional Forces Agreement. The decision wasn’t big news in Europe much less in America. Russia wants to set aside the INF Treaty because it is no longer relevant to Russian security needs and the US hardly notices. Russia tests a new land-based multiple warhead mobile missile and American is willing to stretch the START agreement and not complain. I would argue the relationship today between Russia and the United States is not only meaningful but it fact has never been closer. Russia is a world power whose interest stretch from Europe across the Near and Far East. It is inevitable that Russia and the United States will have political differences and an adversarial relationship on some issues and agreements on others. This is the way serious nations act. I suspect the inspections and military-to-military contacts between Russia and the United States will continue post-2009 when START expires regardless of any formal protocols to that effect. It just makes good business sense. The United States doesn’t fear Russia any more than we fear France; Russia in just not an enemy. I think the Bush Administration has treated Russia as an equal partner and it is that equality that has been so uncomfortable to Moscow. These are changing times in Russo-American relations and time will be required for each to find their equilibrium.
Frank Shuler
USA
> For a lesson in how it's done they only need to look to Japan.
- Really, Scott, I think that Japan is negative example. Modern Japan practically lost it's national identity; really, Japan is just 'a branch of US on the Far East' now.
- I wonder why this metamorphosis took place with Japan in the second part of XX century, - even despite of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; but I do believe that metamorphosis of such kind, will never happen with Russia.
Scott:
I know this mantra of U.S. administrations - "we cannot allow Russia to dictate what we do for our defense" and so on. I can see how this position may be popular in the U.S., but it's an illusion to think that Russia does not have a say in U.S. decisions. It certainly does - if only by making all kinds of trouble. So, the question is really whether the U.S. wants to see it done in a some kind of civilized dialogue or it prefers an unregulated process that occasionally turns ugly and confrontational.
Russian: You should really stop reading all that Surkov's "sovereign democracy" stuff. "Japan lost its national identity"? Anyone who knows anything about Japan would be surprised to learn that.
Frank:
The only thing I disagree is the "inevitability" of adversarial relationships (even if only on some issues). It's possible, but not inevitable.
Pavel:
"I know this mantra of U.S. administrations - "we cannot allow Russia to dictate what we do for our defense" and so on. I can see how this position may be popular in the U.S., but it's an illusion to think that Russia does not have a say in U.S. decisions. "
Do you seriously believe that if the US told Russia to scrap their air defense network because the US would defend them they'd agree to it? No? So why should the US put it's defense in Russia's hands? It has nothing to do with being a "mantra". Depending on a third part (who has never really ever been considered a friend or considered you a friend) makes no sense whatsoever.
Pavel: (sorry, didn't get it in one shot :-) )
"So, the question is really whether the U.S. wants to see it done in a some kind of civilized dialogue or it prefers an unregulated process that occasionally turns ugly and confrontational."
I'm sure the US would love to have a geniune joint effort re the missile defense effort but so far all we're hearing from Russia is "my way or the highway". We'll take the highway thanks.
Dear Mr. Podvig,
I believe that you ignore the fudamental issues which make meaningful agreements with the Russian government impossible.
First of all, such agreements are of necessity based on trust. In a situation where Russia is completely controlled by a KGB lieutenant-colonel and his close associates, there is no basis for trusting her government. Furthermore, the intentions of Russia's current government are so opaque that they leave room for doubt as to whether Russia is seeking peace, rather than confrontation. The actions of an unfree government brought on by a sense of its own weakness should not be mistaken for genuine coooperation.
Therefore, the US government must be open to the suspicion that Russia will seek to both undermine missile defence efforts and use the personnel of the dtata exchange centre for subversive activities, such as espionage. In conditions when there is a basis for such suspicions, mutual cooperation on these issues is impossible.
You do recognise some of these constraints and so hinge your argument on the fact that Russia can "make trouble," which is best avoided. I would argue that Russia's history shows conclusively that whenever it is ruled by an agressive government it will make trouble whenever it can, so agreements can not change this. Instead, the threat and, if necessary, the implementation of political and economic punitive measures will be far more effective in restraining Putin and his henchmen.
I for one applaud the civil manner that Frank has suggested is taking place USA w/Russia, but I think it has less to do with the courtesy extended by Bush and more to do with our preoccupation with Iraq. They will talk again in September over the old Azeri radar and the new ones coming online soon in Southern Russia. The Czechs and the Russians are talking delay also post-Bush - I see no reason why NATO, the US and Russia would not work out a `new data exchange deal' for 2009 and new radar and ABM interceptor sites. And I'll bet anyone here some serious coin that if the domestic political situation in Poland does not calm down ... then they will not be in Poland! It already exerts too much power relative to its own GDP within the EU/OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council. They are a minor player in Europe and are being treated like Germany and France ... that whole thing is `the sounds like affinity’ for Russophobia via the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia propaganda machine!
`First of all, such agreements are of necessity based on trust.' `In a situation where Russia is completely controlled by a KGB lieutenant-colonel and his close associates, there is no basis for trusting her government.' I can't help but address this ... is a native Russian KGB lieutenant-colonel better or is a Georgian thief and one of the World's Greatest `mass murderer' better to rule the Russian Empire or perhaps a semi-nationalistic Ukranian transplant of Russian descent who almost brought the world to nuclear conflict in 1962 better or perhaps the chief executor of the Great Purge ... Senor Beria (another semi-Georgian) ... who was then executed by his former friend ... the semi-nationalistic Ukranian transplant of Russian descent. I ask who is better ... everyone for the most part portrays the Soviet system as cruel - which I say yes ... but it works both ways my friends ... the US slaughtered 10-15 million native Americans during its `manifest destiny' and enslaved another 3-5 million African-Americans over 100 years. The Soviets did it in less than 50. The past is not proud on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific and especially not `proud at all for the Central European area' ... where in fact the start of two WWars were started ... `I would argue that Russia's history shows conclusively that whenever it is ruled by an agressive government it will make trouble whenever it can, so agreements can not change this.' Someone hasn't or will not argue on behalf of `the confused Austrian boy' ... I wonder why?