Russian Election Aftermath: Can the Reset Recover?
Donald N. Jensen - Voice of America Russian Service - www1.voanews.com/Russian/news - 3.8.12 - JRL 2012-45

The Obama Administration's ambivalent response this week to the outcome of last Sunday's rigged Russian presidential election said much about the flickering prospects of the White House's reset of relations with Moscow. After fierce internal debate, reports the New York, Times, with some officials favoring a strong condemnation of the results, the Administration settled on a "tempered" statement. One the one hand, it endorsed the doubts of Western monitoring organizations such as the OSCE about the election's fairness and did not directly congratulate Vladimir Putin on his victory (indeed, he was not even mentioned by name). It also praised the new political activism of Russian citizens. On the other hand, Washington stated that the United States "looks forward to working with the president elect." President Obama had not called Putin as of late in the night on March 6, but at a press conference that afternoon Obama acknowledged the result, adding that the G-8 meeting at Camp David in May would give him a chance to spend time with the once and future Russian President. US officials made it clear that they also still sought Russian cooperation on difficult issues such as Iran and Syria.

Putin's fierce anti-American rhetoric during the campaign, intended to rally his political base, appeared to be shoving bilateral relations back toward their recent low point after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. While on the stump Putin warned Russians of the US and NATO threats to Russia's security. He said Secretary of State Clinton sent an approving "signal" to street demonstrators after falsified parliamentary demonstrations last December. New US ambassador Michael McFaul was vilified by state-controlled media in a vicious campaign orchestrated show he has been trying to foment revolution. This tough campaign rhetoric and the high level of electoral fraud indicates that the Kremlin was not confident of its ability to win a fair election. Indeed, a significant part of the population, and apparently a majority in Moscow, does not accept the results as legitimate. Inventing an external enemy such as the United States was a convenient tool to mobilize domestic support. When compared to the regime's insecurity at home, Russian economist Sergei Guriev reminds us, good relations with the West are a second-tier issue.

Thus, those relations will henceforth be substantially shaped by developments inside Russia. Despite his victory on Sunday, the chances of things going badly wrong for Putin during his next term are significant. The society is polarized and more politically restive. Political institutions are corrupt and ineffective. The country's economic prospects are uncertain over the medium term. The ruling elites appear unable or unwilling to adjust to changing realities. The consequences, an excellent new Chatham House study of Russia's future concludes, are likely to play out in uncontrolled and unplanned events throughout Russia that could threaten the existence of the regime.

Privately, according to media reports, Russian officials have assured the Obama Administration that there will be no change in their policy toward the United States, though US officials have predicted that it will take some time to get past the harsh rhetoric, especially in the middle of the US election season. In any event Putin never really left power during the Medvedev interregnum, suggesting substantial policy continuity, though tensions over the Middle East, missile defense and other issues were increasing even before the Russian presidential campaign. But the past three months have shown that what happens on the streets of Moscow is as much a factor in Russian foreign policy as events in Brussels, Damascus or Geneva. In its never-ending effort to balance the promotion of democratic values with the pursuit of national interest, Washington would do well to remember that there are likely difficult choices ahead.

Keywords: Russia, U.S.-Russian Relations - Russia, Government, Politics - Russia News - Russia

The Obama Administration's ambivalent response this week to the outcome of last Sunday's rigged Russian presidential election said much about the flickering prospects of the White House's reset of relations with Moscow. After fierce internal debate, reports the New York, Times, with some officials favoring a strong condemnation of the results, the Administration settled on a "tempered" statement. One the one hand, it endorsed the doubts of Western monitoring organizations such as the OSCE about the election's fairness and did not directly congratulate Vladimir Putin on his victory (indeed, he was not even mentioned by name). It also praised the new political activism of Russian citizens. On the other hand, Washington stated that the United States "looks forward to working with the president elect." President Obama had not called Putin as of late in the night on March 6, but at a press conference that afternoon Obama acknowledged the result, adding that the G-8 meeting at Camp David in May would give him a chance to spend time with the once and future Russian President. US officials made it clear that they also still sought Russian cooperation on difficult issues such as Iran and Syria.

Putin's fierce anti-American rhetoric during the campaign, intended to rally his political base, appeared to be shoving bilateral relations back toward their recent low point after the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. While on the stump Putin warned Russians of the US and NATO threats to Russia's security. He said Secretary of State Clinton sent an approving "signal" to street demonstrators after falsified parliamentary demonstrations last December. New US ambassador Michael McFaul was vilified by state-controlled media in a vicious campaign orchestrated show he has been trying to foment revolution. This tough campaign rhetoric and the high level of electoral fraud indicates that the Kremlin was not confident of its ability to win a fair election. Indeed, a significant part of the population, and apparently a majority in Moscow, does not accept the results as legitimate. Inventing an external enemy such as the United States was a convenient tool to mobilize domestic support. When compared to the regime's insecurity at home, Russian economist Sergei Guriev reminds us, good relations with the West are a second-tier issue.

Thus, those relations will henceforth be substantially shaped by developments inside Russia. Despite his victory on Sunday, the chances of things going badly wrong for Putin during his next term are significant. The society is polarized and more politically restive. Political institutions are corrupt and ineffective. The country's economic prospects are uncertain over the medium term. The ruling elites appear unable or unwilling to adjust to changing realities. The consequences, an excellent new Chatham House study of Russia's future concludes, are likely to play out in uncontrolled and unplanned events throughout Russia that could threaten the existence of the regime.

Privately, according to media reports, Russian officials have assured the Obama Administration that there will be no change in their policy toward the United States, though US officials have predicted that it will take some time to get past the harsh rhetoric, especially in the middle of the US election season. In any event Putin never really left power during the Medvedev interregnum, suggesting substantial policy continuity, though tensions over the Middle East, missile defense and other issues were increasing even before the Russian presidential campaign. But the past three months have shown that what happens on the streets of Moscow is as much a factor in Russian foreign policy as events in Brussels, Damascus or Geneva. In its never-ending effort to balance the promotion of democratic values with the pursuit of national interest, Washington would do well to remember that there are likely difficult choices ahead.