Translated material
Waiting for Obama
The American establishment liked Dmitry Medvedev
“Of course, we did not expect that we would find ourselves in Washington so quickly,” a high-ranking Kremlin official noted in a conversation with a Vremya Novostey correspondent, meaning that if it were not for the G20 anti-crisis summit , preparations for Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to It would take the US a long time. Not to mention that it is unlikely that such a visit would have taken place under the current President Bush, but even after Barack Obama took office, a meeting between the two leaders would have required time and political will. However, during his 24-hour stay in Washington, the Russian president did not have a meeting with either Mr. Bush (scheduled for late November as part of the APEC summit in Peru) or Mr. Obama.But he took the chance of dialogue with his largest political partner extremely effectively - perhaps even more effectively than could have been expected in the case of a personal meeting with Barack Obama. On Saturday, after the G20 summit, Mr. Medvedev took part in a discussion organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential nongovernmental organization that also publishes the renowned Foreign Affairs magazine. The meeting was moderated by former US Secretary of State and member of Mr Obama's team, Madeleine Albright. A fan of wearing different, often “talking” brooches, the excellent-looking Ms. Albright this time wore jewelry in the shape of a bouquet of flowers, which was probably supposed to indicate a friendly attitude.
Dmitry Medvedev not only did not hide the fact that he was counting on improved relations with the United States due to the arrival of a new president ; on the contrary, he clearly declared that he was disappointed with the results of cooperation with the outgoing administration and was counting heavily on Mr. Obama. In contrast to Mr. Bush, the Russian leader seemed to see enormous opportunity in restoring cooperation once a new occupant took over the White House. Moreover, Mr. Medvedev was very frank.
“I believe that in Russian-American relations now there is no trust that these relations need. That is why we pin such hopes on the arrival of the new administration. Of course, the current administration has done a lot to create the foundation of modern Russian-American relations I will only mention the so-called Sochi Declaration (a document thatPresidents Bush and Putin signed in Sochi in April - Ed. ), which reflected everything that has happened in Russian-American relations over the past eight years. But, unfortunately, this is not the case. , not enough. On many positions we could not find a common language. It’s sad, but it’s true,” said Mr. Medvedev.
The questions that Mrs. Albright and the meeting participants asked the Russian President could hardly have surprised Mr. Medvedev - the Russian response to the deployment of elements of the American missile defense system in Eastern Europe, the circumstances of the conflict with Georgia, the expansion of NATO. From the answers it followed that there are serious problems everywhere and everywhere, if the new American administration wishes, these problems can be solved. It is noteworthy that Mr. Medvedev’s descriptions of the situations with missile defense and with Georgia resembled each other: in both cases, Moscow was initially ready for a constructive dialogue, but then Washington (in the case of missile defense) and Tbilisi (in the case of the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), and the further scenario depended precisely on this fact of the loss of negotiations as such.
Speaking about the deployment of missiles in Kaliningrad , Medvedev emphasized that “he was still forced to formulate our response” to the US plans in the Czech Republic and Poland: “But we will not do anything until America takes the first step. If this step will be as unsuccessful as it is expected today, we will have to act. But it seems to me that we now have very good opportunities to resolve this problem or to agree on a global system of protection, including from “rogue countries.” those states that raise some suspicions, or at least find some solutions to those programs that already exist that will suit the Russian Federation. This issue is not closed, I am personally ready to discuss it and I hope that the new president and. the new administration will have a desire to discuss this issue. In any case, the first signals that we have received indicate that our new partners are thinking about this problem, and are not just going to “rubber stamp” it.
Dmitry Medvedev’s discussions about the potential of security cooperation and the need to build a unified European security system made such a favorable impression on the audience that one of the participants even asked a question that, to put it mildly, sounds unexpected in 2008: “You talked about flexibility in relation to development in the future of relations between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. But the new security architecture in Europe may include Russia as a member of the alliance. How open will you be to Russia's possible membership in a structure such as NATO?
The President, in response, pointed to the lost time: “The North Atlantic Alliance had the opportunity to invite Russia at a certain period. They did not do this, and now the situation, of course, is a little different. But we, naturally, would like to develop normal, full-fledged, friendly relations with the North Atlantic Alliance We are ready to develop partnerships with NATO. This is not a problem. Moreover, if our colleagues... see additional opportunities for developing these relations, we are ready to consider them, too, if this is appropriate. interests of peace on the planet. I don’t know how easy it is now to analyze the possibility of Russia joining NATO, I think that the situation is not yet entirely conducive to this, but there is a well-known expression “never say never.” - Ed. ).
Perhaps the only unconvincing thing during the almost one-and-a-half-hour meeting was Dmitry Medvedev's answer to Mrs. Albright's question about the decision to extend the president's term in office. Medvedev pointed out the complexity of the country, the scale of the challenges facing it and, in connection with this, the need for political stability. But then he brought up a new argument, saying that he considered increasing the term of office a temporary measure. " The meaning of these changes (to the Constitution. - Ed. ) is connected with creating stability for a certain transition period. I believe that in the coming years - I don’t know how long it could be - 30, 40, 50 years, “Russia needs a stable political system, which includes a stable, strong parliament and a strong presidential power. At the same time, it is desirable that they be separated in time in their formation,” said Mr. Medvedev. “The world is changing. existed in France during the time of de Gaulle. There was a seven-year presidential term. And, in my opinion, it played a good role in helping France develop as a strong state. But at some point, legislators decided that this term was no longer relevant. and reduced it by two years. I don’t know, maybe 30-40 years will pass, and the tasks that the state faces today will be solved, and then we can return to some other time frame.” And he joked: “But this will no longer be my problem, in any case.”