The relationship evolved this week as the two countries agreed to deeper cuts in their nuclear arsenals and as President Obama met with his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, and with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara.

One of President Obama’s goals of his travels to Russia and the G-8 meeting in Italy this week was indirectly to undo damage done long ago by Robert Strange McNamara, whose errors in judgment colored world history for more than half of the 20th Century.

Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladmir Putin; the two governments announced they would work toward cutting back nuclear stockpiles. At the G-8 meeting, Obama went further — calling for a major non-proliferation summit next year in Washington in which as many as 30 countries would participate.

How does this relate to McNamara, who died July 6? As Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson years, he earned the dubious distinction of being father of the MIRV — multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles — which revolutionized nuclear brinksmanship and made the world a great deal more dangerous.

McNamara’s role had world-changing results, and well-noted in this Washington Post obituary by Thomas Lippman, published the same day of Obama’s trip. McNamara, late in life recognized his mistakes – and came close to acknowledging them.

McNamara sponsored development of missiles that could carry up to 14 nuclear warheads each, giving the United States the ability to strike more Soviet targets without adding missiles and the capability of launching more warheads than the Soviets could fend off. This, McNamara later acknowledged, was substantially responsible for the nuclear arms race.

“I have no question,” he said in a 1982 interview, “but that the Soviets thought we were trying to achieve a first-strike capability. We were not. We did not have it. We could not attain it. We didn’t have any thought of attaining it. But they probably thought we did.” Their response, he said, provoked a counter-response by the United States, and the cycle became self-perpetuating.

This new president wants to undo that self-perpetuating cycle, although he faces suspicion from some quarters, in part a result of a long-lasting hangover from eight years of the Bush presidency.

Obama calls his presidency a “reset.” After his meeting with Medevedev, Obama said, “The President and I agreed that the relationship between Russia and the United States has suffered from a sense of drift.”

“We resolved to reset U.S.-Russian relations so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest,” he added.

Obama did get some good reviews for his incipient effort. The British newspaper The Independent said:

The U.S.-led initiative could pave the way for the world to warn Iran and North Korea that they would be treated as “pariah states” unless they stop developing nuclear weapons. The burden of proof would be on countries that are not yet members of the nuclear club to show they had not breached the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, raising the prospect of attempts to send weapons inspectors in if they refused to comply.

This all has to do with international cooperation and a pragmatic approach, breaking with years of arrogance and an unwillingness to negotiate. The goal is to defuse the drive to war: If you’re talking, you’re not fighting.

War was what McNamara was about. As early as World War II, he was close by when Gen. Curtis LeMay ordered the firebombing of Tokyo — as he famously said, “He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals.” Late in life, he also saw his own errors in Vietnam and beyond. During the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, we came closer than ever to what became known as MAD — mutually assured destruction.

McNamara was on the front line, facing down the Soviet Union. Again, quoting the Washington Post obit:

McNamara wrote in a Newsweek essay about the crisis that “as I left President Kennedy’s office to return to the Pentagon, I thought I might never live to see another Saturday night” — so great was the threat of nuclear war.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Wesley Fryer under a Creative Commons license.

Overall, I have given the Bush administration higher marks on emerging power relations than on most other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Relations with China were broadened, the U.S.-Japan alliance deepened, the friendship with India solidified.

But on Russia, we saw a more classic Bush administration national security model, where divisions within the administration resulted in a roller-coaster ride of policy, from the highs of President Bush’s soul-gazing to official rhetoric that recalled the Cold War. (Secretary of Defense Bob Gates’ moments of sobriety on these issues were always welcome).

So it is good to see the Obama administration, in its rational, systematic way, putting the relationship to rights again. (I would expect no less of the excellent National Security Council types who are in charge — Mike McFaul and Gary Samore). Morality has nothing to do with this — a stable, working relationship with Russia will best further U.S. interests, period. What are those interests? My colleague Sam Charap from the Center for American Progress outlines them well in a new report. But in my mind, there is one that trumps the rest, and that is non-proliferation.

Russia is key to this issue in three ways. First, it has the largest stockpile of poorly-guarded fissile material in the world. If we want to prevent it from falling into terrorists’ hands, we need to work with Moscow on locking it down.

Second, Moscow has shown useful leadership on non-proliferation. George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin introduced the “Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism” at the 2006 G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg. Among other things, the countries that have signed up to this pledged to “take a number of actions to fight nuclear terrorism by committing to improve accounting and security of radioactive and nuclear materials, enhance security at civilian nuclear facilities, and to improve detection of nuclear and radioactive materials to prevent illicit trafficking.”

More recently, in a joint statement they released on April 1, 2009, Presidents Obama and Medvedev said that their two countries “will seek to further promote the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which now unites 75 countries.” The partner countries have now met 5 times, most recently at the Hague in early June.

The Initiative appears to be high on the Obama administration’s agenda. In his speech in Prague in April 2009, President Obama said that he wished to turn non-proliferation initiatives like the Global Initiative to Combat Terrorism “into durable international institutions.”

Finally, Moscow is key to rolling back nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, first because it has relationships with those countries, and second because Russia and the U.S., as the gorillas of the nuclear world, have to show leadership in order to have leverage in the non-proliferation framework. The bargain in the non-proliferation treaty — which, despite its flaws, has succeeded in limiting the number of nuclear countries in the world — is that nuclear countries will gradually reduce and eventually eliminate their weapons and that, in return, non-nuclear countries will stay that way. But the U.S. will not disarm unilaterally.

It’s not going to be an easy or smooth road with Moscow. We aren’t going to be chummy, let’s face it — and we disagree on some key questions, like the importance of a free press and the status of Georgia. But the agreement Presidents Obama and Medvedev reached yesterday to reduce their arsenals is a commitment we didn’t have the day before.

- Nina Hachigian

But despite an agreement to reduce their nuclear arsenals with a new treaty, the president admitted that on issues that divide the countries there won’t be “a meeting of the minds anytime soon.” One of those issues is the American plan to deploy a missile defense system near Russia, in eastern Europe. Russia’s foreign minister warned that such a system could jeopardize progress on arms control.

Angela Stent, the director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what was accomplished in the summit and what lies ahead.

Read analysis from Worldfocus blogger Nina Hachigian: From Russia — not with love, but with results.

The deal represents a big step forward in relations between the two countries, which had been set back by the Russian invasion of Georgia last summer.

Nina Kruscheva, granddaughter of former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev and professor at the New School, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the current and future state of American-Russian relations.

Barack Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

On Wednesday in London, U.S. President Barack Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to discuss nuclear disarmament.

At the end of the get-together, the two sides issued a statement saying “the era when our countries viewed each other as enemies is long over.” They also agreed to reduce nuclear arsenals and to meet again in Moscow this summer.

Steve LeVine covers foreign affairs for BusinessWeek and is a former correspondent with The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He writes at “The Oil and the Glory” to discuss the broader implications of “resetting” relations with Russia.

Reset: Russia, yes; Iran, Kinda

Rose Gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance and implementation, will be the chief U.S. negotiator for nuclear arms reductions with Russia. The goal is to sign a completed deal by Dec. 15, when Start I expires.

That’s not a surprise — Gottemoeller negotiated one of Washington’s single most-important successes in the post-Soviet era, which was the removal during the Clinton administration of 4,000 nuclear warheads from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus.

It’s also not a surprise that presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev today made the re-negotiation of Start I the core of a reset of U.S.-Russia relations. Arms reduction, highly favored in Russia, “is the most productive vehicle to start with,” Angela Stent, director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University, told me by phone. “It doesn’t mean we will be finished by December, but the statement provides which systems will be included” in the talks.

Yet in a post-mortem with reporters, two senior U.S. officials seemed downright giddy after today’s meeting between Obama and Medvedev in London, where the Group of 20 summit will be held tomorrow. One reason was that the two leaders were even able to agree on a final agenda going forward; and second was a stronger agreement on how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.

All of this has an economic component — energy. Geopolitics in the region are highly inter-connected: Better relations with Russia can help fertilize the ground toward a thaw of U.S. relations with Iran, which could then significantly improve global natural gas supplies, particularly to Europe, which is highly dependent on — who else? — Russia. It’s all fairly circular.

Read more about U.S. relations with Iran at the original post.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user World Economic Forum under a Creative Commons license.

Russian flexed its military muscles with Georgia in 2008. Photo: Onnik Krikorian under a Creative Commons license.

Russia announced a broad plan to rearm and modernize its army and navy on Tuesday.

While Russia and the U.S. have been taking some first steps toward improving relations under President Obama, the prospects of an expanding NATO and a possible U.S. missile defense system have the Russians on edge.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said his country would improve the combat readiness of its forces beginning two years from now — first and foremost its long-range nuclear weapons — adding that despite the economic crisis, Russia has the resources to modernize its military.

The “Proliferation Press” blog points to several varying media reactions to the announcment, concluding that the meaning of Russia’s decision will become more clear but that the U.S. should tread carefully:

The NYTimes portrays it as a mix of diplomatic posturing for Medvedev’s meeting with Obama and the response to Russian military weaknesses shown in the recent Georgia-Russian war. The Guardian heralds the new arms race, putting blame squarely on America’s maximalist foreign policy. And Canda.com views the announcement as geared more towards the Russian public.

In short, the move is not welcome news—but it’s not entirely unexpected. And its meaning will take form over this year. Medvedev has drawn various lines in the sand: moves towards having airbases in Cuba, setting up bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, helping rid of an American base in Kyrgyzstan, and now a rearmament announcement. Keep in mind, Russia has for years protested expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe–and drew a bloodly red line in Georgia.

And let’s not ignore another possible cause of this announcement: the economic crisis. Russia may be signaling that current economic woes will not change their strategic objectives.

But one thing is clear: The US-Russian relationship is entering a critical phase, and the Obama administration must tread carefully.

Welsh blogger Alan Davies argues that the move will provoke a response from the West and lead to further conflict:

This is in response to what is seen as NATO expansionism and also to a poor ground force performance in Georgia. Whatever the reason, it is potentially destabilising as there will no doubt be a counter response from the West. Then instead of focusing the power of East and West on addressing fundamentalism we will face a new arms race which will fail to address the greatest threat to the globe at the moment.

The “Totalitarianism Today” blog downplays the level of threat, giving several reasons why Russia might have made the decision to rearm:

Russian rearmament needn’t be perceived solely with the Cold War interpretive lens. In fact, there are many possible reasons for Russian rearmament which should be entertained in the current multipolar world, as Russia’s perception of security threats has expanded to include more than “capitalist encirclement”. A few considerations which might also have played into the decision to rearm:

> Rearmament has been traditionally used to deal with economic slumps by governments who subscribe to supply-side theories of economics. The US under Reagan and Bush is a classic example.

> A generalized declaration of rearmament provides Russia with leverage vis-a-vis the United States and other allies on smaller matters, like the question of Viktor Bout’s extradition and the issue of the Nabucco oil plans which challenge Russia’s own South Steam plans.

> Russia is working on establishing a career military which will make national service appealing and honorable to its citizens. Increasing military spending could be associated with such an endeavor, especially given the Russian forthrightness about modernizing its military.

> The Russian government seems to be attempting to forge a more cohesive, powerful national history narrative which minimizes the negative effects of historically powerful leaders like Stalin. Such an attempt is consistent with an effort to increase national identity and solidarity in a multipolar world.

> The EU’s recent actions undermine a Russian bid for great power status, so the Russian government feels the need to continuously reassert its relevance vis-a-vis European states and its neighbors.

> The Russian government is aware of American desire to build a stronger relationship, so it can afford to rearm without immediate economic or military consequences. The fear of a “slide into hostility” animates the Obama administration’s Russia policy.

The next few weeks will provide a richer context in which to understand the Russian decisions to rearm. In the meantime, everyone should sit back, take a few deep breaths.

As Russia’s ruble has gone down, protests have shot up.

As Russia experiences its worst financial crisis in a decade, Prime Minister Vladmir Putin has warned the government’s opposition against using the economy to incite protest. 

“We won’t allow events to happen like in some other countries, to which I will not point a finger now,” Putin said. “At the same time, we won’t limit lawful forms of protest.”

Indeed, Russia has seen a number of protests spark across the country in recent months — the largest in Vladivostock, where thousands voiced criticism of the government’s handling of the economy. The Kremlin flew in special forces from Moscow to help quell the protests. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Brian Whitmore writes at “The Power Vertical” blog about growing public dissent, arguing that managing the protests is increasingly difficult for the Russian government.

Dissent Goes Mainstream In Russia

Forty-one percent understand their concerns. Nineteen percent respect their actions. Twenty-six percent are indifferent to them. And seven percent are interested in them.

They are anti-government demonstrators protesting falling living standards in Russia. And a surprising new poll by the Moscow-based Levada Center shows the Russian public warming up to them considerably. Of the 1,600 respondents polled across Russia between February 20-23, a shocking 60 percent say they sympathize with anti-government protests and 23 percent say they are ready to join them.

And check this out as a point of contrast: Asked their attitudes toward pro-government demonstrations organized by the Kremlin, 41 percent said they were indifferent, just 31 percent expressed support, and 11 percent said they were opposed.

The Levada Center has a stellar reputation as an independent polling outfit — and these numbers must be causing some lost sleep in the Kremlin. Speaking to the daily “Vedomosti,” Levada-Center Assistant Director Aleksei Grazhdankin suggested the results show that the public appears to be souring on the authorities:

“I would say that the results of the opinion poll indicate the general mood of society and its attitude toward the government’s anti-crisis policy and the actions supporting it.”

This, of course, means the Kremlin will have  a much harder time marginalizing and discrediting the protesters, as they were effectively able to do in the past. 

It is also becoming increasingly clear that the protests in Vladivostok over a controversial increase in auto-import tariffs were a watershed of sorts in that they attracted a wider cross section of the population, drawing in people who were otherwise not inclined to take to the streets.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user suburbanslice under a Creative Commons license.

Vladimir Lensky, the New York bureau chief for Russia’s Channel One television, discusses how NATO’s decision will be received in Russia, the possibility of a deal between President Obama and Russian President Medvedev and how economic conditions are affecting Russia’s foreign policy. 

Con Coughlin of “The Telegraph” argues in his blog that Russia must take further steps to show its willingness to restore relations:

Russia’s decision to renew cooperation with Nato is a welcome development, but Moscow needs to demonstrate it is genuine about having a proper dialogue with its European partners.

Until the collapse of the Russian economy, Moscow had been taking an increasingly belligerent attitude towards its European neighbours, resuming nuclear bomber flights over the North Sea and threatening to site ballistic missiles along the borders of its East European neighbours.

[...]But the collapse of the Russian economy has clearly made the Kremlin think again, and after Nato initially cut all cooperation with Moscow in retaliation for Russia’s military offensive against Georgia last summer, it is good to see the Russians taking the first, faltering steps towards restoring relations with the West.[...]Nato needs Russia to be a key ally at a time when it faces so many other, more alarming, security threats throughout the rest of the world.

A blogger at “Defense of the Republic” argues that NATO’s decision reflects weakness in the face of Russian aggression:

Would you have guessed that NATO would cave and resume relations with Russia? Well, it’s coming, just a few months after the Georgia invasion by Russia, the Europeans are playing nice again. Do you feel comforted by the fact that no one in the world now seems willing to confront aggression?

Katrina Vanden Heuvel of “The Nation” argues that a true “fresh start” will not occur without a fundamental change in American mindset about Russia:

But resetting the relationship with Russia — as both President Obama and Vice President Biden have indicated a desire to do — [...]demands an end to the triumphalist thinking that has defined the U.S. mindset and strut since the end of the Cold War. President Obama and some on his team seem to be on the road to understanding how vital this shift is.

[...]There will not be a fundamental change or reset of US-Russian relations — no real partnership — until there is new American thinking about Russia.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Brian Whitmore writes at “The Power Vertical” blog about the public relations efforts of the Russian government as unemployment spirals and the ruble falters.

Uncle Volodya Meets Cinderella

He promised to help a school start a knitting club. He invited two little girls and their grandmother to the Kremlin for New Year’s Eve celebrations. And he reiterated his desire to see Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili “strung up by his balls.”

Live from Moscow! It’s the Vladimir Putin Show!

Meet Putin, the wise and kindly father figure. Gaze in admiration as the Good Tsar Vladimir soothes the nerves of a jittery nation. Watch in awe as the tough-guy strongman describes how he will take care of his foreign enemies who would do his people harm.

It has become an annual ritual of political theater, this virtual-town-hall extravaganza. It doesn’t even matter that Putin is no longer president — he’s still the “national leader” after all. And sitting on a round electric-blue stage surrounded by an adoring studio audience and sycophantic television anchors, he’s the star, fielding three hours’ worth of carefully choreographed questions from meticulously prescreened ordinary citizens.

“Greetings Uncle Volodya!” Dasha Varfolomeyeva, a little girl from the Buryat Republic in Siberia, said over a crackling phone line, using the diminutive form of Putin’s name usually reserved for close friends and family members.

“Soon it will be New Year’s. We live on grandmother’s pension and there is no work in our village. My sister and I dream about having new dresses, like Cinderella, and would like to ask you to buy them for us.”

“Dashenka,” Putin answered with a bemused smile, also using the diminutive. “I think that you and other children should be able to celebrate New Year’s in a dignified manner and adults must see to it that this wish is fulfilled. As far as gifts are concerned, I would like to invite you, your sister, and your grandmother to Moscow for New Year’s Eve, and then we will decide about gifts.” [...]

Putin mainly tried to sooth fears over the global financial crisis that is hitting Russia’s economy hard.

“We have every opportunity to get through this difficult period with minimal problems,” Putin said, despite rising inflation, increased unemployment, plummeting growth. True to form, he blamed the crisis on the United States, which Putin said has “contaminated all leading economies of the world.”

One has to wonder how much longer Russia’s ruling elite can keep blowing smoke into the eyes of their citizens. As Putin was performing for an adoring nation today, oil prices plummeted to a four-year low. And despite protestations to the contrary, Russia’s rulers have made little to no progress in diversifying the economy to make it less dependent on energy and commodities prices.

If current economic trends continue, it will take more than New Year’s invitations, Cinderella dresses, and references to the Georgian president’s private parts to pacify an increasingly panicky public.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Nikolas Kozloff, the author of “Revolution, South America and the Rise of the New Left,” speaks with Martin Savidge about the importance of Medvedev’s visit and how it affects the U.S. and other countries in the western hemisphere.

Shannon O’Neil, a specialist on Latin America at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Chávez’s position, joint naval exercises between Russia and Venezuela and Obama’s approach to Venezuela going forward.

A banner for presidential elections shows Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, proclaiming “Together, we will be victorious!”

On Friday, Russian lawmakers voted to extend the presidential term from four to six years. The bill, proposed by President Dmitry Medvedev, faces one more reading before becoming law, and has led to suspicions that Prime Minister Vladmir Putin will reclaim the presidency.

In compliance with constitutional requirements, Putin stepped down as president earlier this year. He appointed Medvedev, who has been called his “puppet.” If Putin returns to the presidential seat, he could serve a total of 20 years in the position.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Brian Whitmore writes at “The Power Vertical” blog about another possible job title for Putin — speaker of the State Duma — and explores the politician’s consolidation of power under various job titles.

Prime Minister. President. Speaker. Does It Really Matter?

Another day, another round of speculation about a new job for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

When President Dmitry Medvedev submitted legislation to the State Duma last week proposing extending the presidential term from four years to six, it sent the Moscow punditocracy abuzz with anticipation that Putin was gearing up for a return to the Kremlin.

This week, however, the talk is all about Putin getting himself named speaker of the State Duma.

Prime Minister. President. Speaker. But does it really matter?

A brief story in today’s “The Moscow Times” by Nabi Abdullaev had an interesting little nugget suggesting that it doesn’t. Putin is planning to continue his tradition of holding a televised question-and-answer session with ordinary citizens via video link early next year. It will be Putin’s seventh such session, and his first since leaving the presidency.

Abdullaev quoted an unidentified senior official from the ruling Unified Russia party as saying that with the broadcast, Putin “will act more in the role of party leader than prime minister.”

It has become abundantly clear that Putin will continue to be Russia’s true ruler. But the true source of his power will not be a state post like president, speaker, or prime minister. This is mere window-dressing.

Putin’s real power will stem from Unified Russia and its sprawling system of nomenklatura that encompasses not just the federal parliament and government, but also regional legislatures, local governments, and the commercial elite. The road to success in business, politics or academia in Russia today runs through the party’s Byzantine labyrinth.

This is how pre-perestroika Soviet leaders ruled from Stalin to Chernenko. And it is how we can expect Putin to rule as well.

It is probably just a matter of time before the party’s general-secretary formally moves his office to the Kremlin.

See the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Neeka under a Creative Commons license.

Timothy Frye, a professor of political science at Columbia University, speaks with Martin Savidge about the severity of the plan, the effect of the Russia-Georgia conflict and ways in which dropping oil prices will affect Russia’s assertive stance.