| JRL HOME | SUPPORT | SUBSCRIBE | RESEARCH & ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT | |
Old Saint Basil's Cathedral in MoscowJohnson's Russia List title and scenes of Saint Petersburg
Excerpts from the JRL E-Mail Community :: Founded and Edited by David Johnson

#14
Chicago Tribune
November 24, 2001
Editorial
Getting to `yes' with Russia

Not even during their marriage of convenience in World War II did relations between the U.S. and Russia look as promising as they do today. Having pushed aside memories of a Cold War that lasted almost half a century, the two countries are plunging ahead with a rapprochement that is remarkable in its potential. Crucial matters such as expansion of NATO, reductions in nuclear weapons and joint pursuit of international terrorists hang in the balance.

The risk, though, is that this budding wartime romance won't flourish into a deeper relationship. Yes, Russian President Vladimir Putin has chosen to tie his country's fortunes and future to the West. Putin is sharing intelligence in the war on terrorism and allowing U.S. forces to operate from former Soviet territory in Central Asia--once unthinkable cooperation. As columnist George F. Will marveled this week, "the force of the explosions at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have blown Russia into Europe."

But the success of the war in Afghanistan overshadowed a summit earlier this month in which Bush and Putin shared barbecue but apparently didn't progress on some long-term disputes. The reduction of nuclear arsenals, proliferation of nuclear material, missile defense and the fate of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty were on the table. They're still on the table.

Putin and Bush seem to have jumped one important hurdle--they have a personal bond. They also share several goals. Both want deep cuts in strategic nuclear weapons from their present levels of more than 6,000 apiece to less than 2,000. Putin favors this because Russia can't afford to maintain its arsenal. Bush wants it because fewer weapons would reduce tensions, lower the risk of accidental launches and limit chances of the proliferation of nuclear arms to international terrorists or rogue governments.

Both men want to forge closer ties between Russia and a U.S.-dominated NATO to lessen the possibility of geopolitical clashes. Bush supports Russia's growing partnership with NATO because that will likely soften Putin's strong objections to NATO expansion to the Baltic states. Putin wants to restore some of Russia's lost global clout. Europe should involve Russia more in consultations with NATO on Balkan peacekeeping, non-proliferation and the fight against terrorism--perhaps even consider Russian membership one day. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson's offer made Thursday, that Russia get a significant policy-making role in NATO, is a significant step in that direction.

Agreement on these priorities could open cooperation on a wide range of other issues. The U.S. could benefit if Russia, already the world's second largest oil exporter, expands its oil production. Russia needs to export oil. It needs the cash. Americans also could use some of that oil to lower reliance on fickle OPEC members.

Russia could also be extremely helpful diplomatically in taming Central Asia, helping solve the Mideast conflict and mediating with tough states such as Iran and Iraq.

Russia wants to be a significant player again on the world stage. After Sept. 11, there's an opportunity to do that. Bush needs Moscow's help in the war on terror. In return, the U.S. can promote Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization. It also ought to consider forgiving, or selling, some of Russia's debt that is owed to the U.S., in exchange for Moscow's commitment to stem nuclear proliferation.

Many of these priorities are more urgent than they were before Sept. 11. Which is why the summit between the two leaders was a disappointment. From the look of all those party-hearty smiles around the barbecue pit in Texas, not much got done.

Granted, the fact that Russia and the U.S. are even remotely close to resolving issues so crucial to their futures borders on the historic. We've come a long way since the 1950s, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev warned the democratic West, "History is on our side. We will bury you." But lots of things border on the historic and never get there.

Touching as the personal diplomacy has been to date, Putin and Bush need to get to `yes' before new instabilities around the world change the equation that now binds them. The agenda is clear: more tough negotiations, less Open Pit. The agenda is clear: more tough negotiations, less Open Pit.

Back to the Top    Next Issue