Skeptics question whether America and Russia can truly ‘reset’ relations.
U.S. President Barack Obama visits Moscow next week for talks that are set to focus on arms control but also touch on Ukraine.
There is concern in Kyiv that the frequently mentioned “reset” of U.S.-Russia relations could prompt Washington to sideline Ukraine for the sake of better relations with Moscow. White House advisers and analysts said that Obama was likely to take a tough line with Russian leaders and wouldn’t make any concessions.
But neither side is revealing all of their cards, and it remains unclear what influence the Obama administration is willing to use to keep Russia in check during such geopolitical duels, and how hard the U.S. would stand up for Ukraine.
“We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense,” said Michael McFaul, special assistant to the president and senior White House director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs, in a conference call with journalists on July 1.
“The idea is to try to reset relations, not to reset policy,” said Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow of the Atlantic Council of the United States.
Obama flies to Moscow on July 6 for a two-day visit. Talks are expected to be long and tough, taking in a number of themes, including arms control, the United States’ proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe and Iran.
Despite both sides expressing a willingness to set relations on a new footing, a number of analysts in both countries suggested that the talks are unlikely to yield much fruit.
“The omens are pretty bad,” said Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute in Washington. He said that recent negative comments from leading Russian officials suggested that an agreement on arms control would be difficult to accomplish. Russia’s proposed accession to the World Trade Organization, which would have been another point for discussion, was even taken off the table by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin last month.
Russia has been sending out mixed signals.
President Dmitry Medvedev said in a video blog posted on his web site on July 2, “I hope that the genuine desire to turn over a new leaf in Russian-U.S. cooperation will be brought to life.” But Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Council for Russia’s Foreign and Defense Policy, expressed skepticism at the U.S. approach. “Russia does not see real changes in U.S. policies and believes they are more of a cosmetic nature,” he said on June 30, RIA-Novosti reported.
Analysts said that the conflicting statements coming from Moscow were part of a battle for primacy between more liberal elements, grouped around Medvedev, and the siloviki, hard-line former security service officers seen as close to Putin.
“The ‘reset’ is doomed to failure, not because the U.S. is unwilling to be open-minded, but elements of the Russian leadership, such as the siloviki, are not capable of making the leap,” Karatnycky said.
But while the continuation of U.S. support for Ukraine may be music to the ears of Ukraine’s leaders, skepticism over the possibility of the talks’ success shouldn’t be viewed with schadenfreude.
“Improved relations would signal that a set of leaders was moving Russia in a calmer and less aggressive direction. It would be a signal of a change in the balance of power in the Russian leadership,” said Karatnycky.
But for now, Moscow is sticking to its frequently professed desire for primacy and influence on what it views as sphere of influence, foremost over Ukraine and Georgia, another former Soviet country aspiring to join NATO. In May, Putin referred to Ukraine as “Little Russia,” quoting from the diaries of White Army commander Anton Denikin. “He says that no one should be allowed to interfere in relations between us; they have always been the business of Russia itself.”
Such rhetoric is unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing from the U.S. delegation.
Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said this was a point not up for negotiation. “[The Obama administration has] made clear that, while Washington wants to improve relations with Russia, the U.S. government is not ready to accept a Russian sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space and will support the right of countries such as Ukraine, as sovereign states, to choose their own foreign policy course.”
Ukraine received a further diplomatic boost this week as Sweden, traditionally a strong supporter of Kyiv, took over the six-month, rotating presidency of the European Union. Sweden has long promoted closer ties between Ukraine and the EU and, along with Poland, initiated the Eastern Partnership, which aims to foster closer relations between the bloc and six post-Soviet states.
“We will continue supporting the Eastern Partnership, and we hope to make progress at talks with Ukraine regarding an association agreement, which, we hope, will bring an agreement on the creation of a free trade area that will be of a huge importance in the future,” said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt at a press conference in Brussels on July 1, Interfax-Ukraine reported.
But Ukraine’s attempts to build foreign relations continue to be undermined by the incessant squabbling between President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Analysts said that political instability and the impending presidential elections were the main reasons why Obama didn’t include a visit to Kyiv in his plans. “Obama wants to build a relationship that lasts for more than three or four months. He’d be much better making the visit after the presidential elections when it will be clear who will be running Ukraine for the next few years,” said Karatnycky.
Vice President Joe Biden is, however, set to visit at the end of July in what Pifer called “a strong signal of U.S. interest in and support for Ukraine.”
