Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Public Policy Research
I think we need to consider the Russian-American pause objectively. What is this objective approach?
Last December and this January in the Obama administration there was a strong positive.
I can say that they supported such a political step as the visit of the U.S. President's National Security Advisor Donovan in January, shortly after his appointment.
However, this positive was not carried out. As a consequence, the visit took place in April. Here's the real delay. This is the first issue.
Secondly, the United States made Russia a few serious offers. I think that Russia probably didn't consider what the U.S. offered very carefully.
In any case, the Europeans have a strong opinion that Russia does not have a constructive attitude and is overly rigid.
I will explain to you what they are talking about. The U.S. would offer to have a further reduction of nuclear weapons.
In this formulation, the question is unacceptable for Russia, but this problem can be somewhat modified.
For example, we can agree on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. I believe this is so.
However, the U.S. should be given a counter-offer.
For example, President Obama says, "Let's reduce the number of nuclear warheads and deployed strategic delivery vehicles, for example, to 1100."
Russia must say, "Yes, of course, but let's reduce the strategic delivery vehicles to 500." This is a constructive dialogue.
If Russia had done so, in this case it would be hard to blame Russia for the fact that Russia is unnecessarily rigid.
But Russia has not made such an offer to the U.S. - and Russia could do it.
However, we certainly understand both on the part of the United States and of Russia that for the United States such an approach is also unacceptable.
Why? Because they have to implement the actual reduction of carriers which may still be operating, for example, for 30 years.
This is a very serious option for the U.S. But in this case, Russia would have looked more convincing in the negotiations.
The same thing, unfortunately, is observed with regard to missile defense.
The U.S. calls for more openness in the field of missile defense.
I think that there is nothing negative here, and we can indeed follow this way.
Of course, the views of Russia on the development of the U.S. missile defense system are very different from what they say in the West.
Russia believes that establishing the U.S. global system will be shifted in time, and not because the U.S. really wants to build a partnership with Russia.
The United States does not want this. This is what we clearly understood when, in fact, Obama's visit to Moscow was cancelled as it has been said, it was "postponed".
However, I think that Russia should have here something to offer, because there was a lot of interest in the conference which was held on the missile defense system in May last year.
It was in fact noticeable even by the representation of the conference. But, you know, there was no such interest in this year in May.
Because Russia, in fact, does not offer anything to the U.S. Here's the problem of Russia.
If it proposed something, it would be possible to discuss why the U. S. cannot agree.
So I think that both sides are to blame for this pause to a different extent.
Russia has many gripes with the United States, and the U.S. has many gripes with Russia.
But if we talk about the pause, you know, we can keep this long pause for a long time.