Translated material
“Russia and the USA are restless partners”
One of the Russian proposals in this area can be considered yesterday's initiative of the head of the international treaty department of the Ministry of Defense, Lieutenant General Yevgeny Buzhinsky. He called on the United States to prepare a lighter version of the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty: “The treaty expires on December 5, 2009. In our opinion, we should not allow a vacuum in such an area as control over strategic offensive arms.” According to him, “the new treaty must fix the levels of carriers and warheads, it must provide for restrictions on the deployment of strategic offensive forces only on its national territory.” As for NATO’s proposal to convene an emergency international conference on the CFE Treaty, Mr. Buzhinsky considers Russia’s participation in it inappropriate: “I don’t see much point in holding such a conference, since NATO’s position on the CFE Treaty has not changed yet.”
Moscow's decision to suspend participation in the CFE Treaty could not but affect relations between Russia and the West. President of the Nixon Center in Washington, political scientist Dmitry SIMES, spoke to Vremya Novostey about the current state and prospects of Russian-American relations.
--What is the current state of Russian-American relations? Is this already a new “Cold War” or is it still a “Cold Peace”?
-- The term “cold war” is clearly inapplicable to the current state of Russian-American relations. Russia is not a superpower, does not try to play an ambitious global role, and does not profess a messianic ideology hostile to the United States. But it increasingly appears that in a number of areas the Russian and American approaches are competing. This is especially evident in Russia’s attempts to establish the multipolarity of the modern world, which rejects the special leading role of the United States in world affairs and, of course, in the post-Soviet space, where Russia itself is already trying to play a leading role.
As for the term “cold peace,” I personally contributed to its emergence by using it in an article in the Washington Post 20 years ago. But in those days, the “cold peace” was a stage on the way to partnership. If the two states are not careful now, the “cold peace” could become a milestone on the path to renewed confrontation. I think the current state of Russian-American relations can best be characterized as a “troubled partnership.”
— The other day, Vladimir Putin suspended the CFE Treaty. Was this a response to US plans to deploy elements of a national missile defense system in Eastern Europe?
-- President Putin's decision will not entail immediate consequences in the military-operational field. I admit that disagreements on missile defense influenced the actions of the Russian president. Another factor may have been the general deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States. But I will still refer to the statement of President Putin himself, who noted that the main reason for the suspension of the CFE Treaty was the reluctance of other countries to ratify the treaty. I believe that after Russia’s statement, prompt and serious discussions will begin between Moscow and Western capitals on how to find a way out of the current impasse. Russia is not interested in a new arms race in Europe and does not seek to isolate itself from the West. But Western countries should also pay close attention to Russia’s concerns and try to find an amicable solution.
-- Why did US President George W. Bush reject the Russian proposal to jointly use radars in Azerbaijan and southern Russia instead of creating new systems in Poland and the Czech Republic?
-- The US military explained to President Bush that radars in Azerbaijan and southern Russia could provide valuable intelligence on Iran's missile program, but they were too close to Iran's borders to be useful in combat. The ten interceptor missiles the US wants to deploy in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic are not aimed at Russia, but I can also understand Moscow's concerns about the radar covering European Russia. In addition, the Polish government does not hide the fact that it views the deployment of American interceptor missiles not so much as protection against potential Iranian missiles, but as a means of expanding military cooperation with the United States and increasing pressure on Russia. It is important that both sides do not attribute the worst intentions to each other, but understand mutual legitimate concerns and try to find a solution that would prevent further deepening of differences.
-- Russia opposes the independence of Kosovo, as it believes that this will create a dangerous precedent. Do you share this approach?
— As far as I understand the Russian position, Moscow does not oppose Kosovo’s independence as such, but insists that it cannot be recognized without the consent of Serbia. The Serbs are categorically against Kosovo's independence, but do not offer a realistic alternative. They do not seek to reoccupy Kosovo, and Kosovo Albanians, who today make up 90% of the region's population, refuse to accept any hint of maintaining Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. NATO and the European Union do not want to continue to bear responsibility for the uncertain situation in Kosovo. I would like Moscow and Washington to work together to try to build bridges between the Serbs and Albanians, and the only way to do this is to partition Kosovo. It would help most of the province gain full independence, but would also allow a number of areas in northern Kosovo, currently controlled by local Serbs, to reunite with Serbia. This solution is not ideal, since some Serbs will still have to either stay in an independent Kosovo or move to Serbia. Albanians are hostile to the idea of partition. But if the United States and Russia jointly propose the division of Kosovo, there is a good chance that the rest will agree, albeit reluctantly.