Fyodor Lukyanov - about the results of the election of the 45th President of the United States

America has elected its 45th president. He ended up 44th

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine "Russia in Global Affairs" - especially for Ogonyok

Barack Obama proved that his victory in 2008 was not solely the result of the financial crisis and widespread euphoria over the possible first black president of the United States. The second term was won in a bitter struggle and not without losses - more than 10 million Americans who voted 4 years ago refused to support the then favorite. As American commentators note, he received a new mandate based on an unusual coalition - minorities, women, youth, and intelligentsia. As Sergei Karaganov correctly noted, speaking in Russian realities, the “creative class” voted for Obama, and traditional America, dreaming of former “stability,” voted for Romney.

In the world, sympathies have not changed in 4 years - in most countries, despite disappointment in the real achievements of Barack Obama, a significant majority of those surveyed by various sociological services preferred the democrat. Obama is perceived as a man who at least understands how much the modern world has changed and that America cannot govern it the way it used to. From this, however, it does not at all follow that he knows how to do this. Rather, on the contrary, Obama's international course is increasingly inclined towards a spontaneous response to constantly occurring changes rather than attempts to build some kind of strategy. He is criticized a lot for this, although it is doubtful that anyone else would have been able to pursue a different line - one that was more meaningful and predetermined. It is not surprising that the heated debate on some (very few) foreign policy topics during the debates was conducted mainly at the level of emotions and rhetoric. In fact, both candidates did not find any fundamental differences.

In Russia, during the campaign, the voices of those who said that the direct and frank Romney, who honestly says that our country is America’s geopolitical enemy number one, were especially loud, were better, simpler and more understandable than the hypocrite Obama, who knows how to weave cunning words and rub in confidence. The impression was created that this was the official attitude towards the American elections, and the Western media mainly expressed the point of view that, they say, a Republican would be more profitable for the Russians, since he is an ideal bogeyman for domestic political needs.

However, the swift - on the same day - congratulations on the victory from both Russian leaders (they, as is known, have long adopted the habit of not rushing) and the relief that officials felt in connection with Romney's loss indicate otherwise. It’s not a matter of any sympathy for Obama, although in human terms he is more pleasant to many, but of Vladimir Putin’s obsession with the idea of maintaining stability. Fears that Mitt Romney, if he became president, would begin to reproduce, even to a small extent, the dashing attacks of the previous Republican administration, which shook the whole world (and, in fact, continues to do so in many ways), inspired fear for the controllability of all processes - global and domestic . All this year, Vladimir Putin has been constantly drawing attention to their interconnection, so that chaos and turbulence outside, which is only aggravated by ill-considered actions, inevitably flows inside with unpredictable consequences.

Obama, at least, is careful, he is not a man of war and will not deliberately provoke crises, get into a fight, “but we’ll see.” And this is enough to prefer it, no matter what happens around the Magnitsky law, the Syrian conflict or boring reminders from the White House about the illegality of repression against the opposition.

This preference, however, does not mean that new prospects are opening up in Russian-American relations. They have not yet been able to break out of the usual cycle, which has virtually not changed since the end of the Cold War.

Twenty years ago, on November 6, 1992, newly elected US President Bill Clinton called Russian President Boris Yeltsin. When asked by the press what they talked about for 20 minutes, Clinton responded evasively: “We discussed what he was doing, and I said that I support democratic and market reforms in Russia. We did not have a meaningful conversation.” A little more was said on the Russian side; the Kremlin press service reported Yeltsin’s words: I think, Mr. Clinton, that my good, warm relations with George Bush will not become an obstacle to our relations now even improving. “Decision in politics and a firm rejection of old dogmas and stereotypes, which you advocate, are fully consistent with the principles of our relations.”

Regarding warm relations with Bush, Yeltsin was probably being a little disingenuous. Clinton's predecessor, whose presidency was marked by intense rivalry between the future Russian leader and USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, took the latter's side for a long time. The White House turned toward Yeltsin only when Gorbachev's loss of power became obvious. Moscow had high hopes for Clinton - during the election campaign, he criticized Bush for his reluctance to provide large-scale assistance to Russia and promised to approach the issue in a completely different way. It is not surprising that soon after the elections, one of Clinton’s closest associates, who came to Russia informally, was given almost an ultimatum: help us immediately, or we will have a revenge and it will be worse for you.

Difficulties with communication began almost immediately. Already in December 1992, when Clinton was forming his administration, Yeltsin “surrendered” Yegor Gaidar, without insisting on his appointment as prime minister. In the American press, this was perceived as a sign of a rollback, and some did not fail to sneer at the internal American topic - one of the conservative-minded commentators suggested that Clinton should rather take Gaidar into his office: “Let there be at least someone there who understands what a market economy is.” economy". (It's funny that Republican accusations that Democrats don't know anything about economics were also a core part of Romney's campaign.)

Clinton, nevertheless, made a serious bet on Russia, trying to make its democratic transformation one of the “pearls” of his presidency. It didn't work out. In the end, he was terribly disappointed in “friend Boris,” and at the end of his presidential term he had to work with Vladimir Putin, who for Clinton was a symbol of the fact that Russia was heading somewhere completely wrong. But Putin has developed quite positive personal relations with Bush Jr., reinforced by the initial desire to open a new chapter in Russian-American history. But at the interstate level everything has reached a real dead end. Obama returned the dialogue to a working state, but the limited reset agenda was quickly implemented, and a qualitative shift never happened.

In 20 years, relations between the two countries have completed a full cycle. You shouldn’t take Mitt Romney’s statements about Russia seriously—it’s nothing more than a campaign. Hardly any serious politician can believe that Russia is the main challenge for America. However, symptomatically, this stereotype has surfaced - simply because there is nothing else on the surface. Meanwhile, Moscow is getting rid of the legacy of the 1990s, parting with USAID, the Nunn-Lugar program and other relics of the Clinton era, when the parties understood assistance to Russian democracy. Russia does not want to retain any reminders of the period when it had to recognize itself as a junior partner. And the United States, even today, in conditions of weakening positions and increasing various difficulties, is not ready to recognize anyone as an equal.

The main Russian-American problem is the lack of modern content in the agenda, which, no matter what the participants say, is still determined not even by instincts, but by the intellectual preparations of the Cold War. New content will appear only when negotiations are conducted on a different range of issues - the situation in Asia, prospects for the commercial development of the Arctic, reform of the nuclear non-proliferation system, which is obviously falling apart, economic interaction, etc. All these topics require a deep discussion, which no one is going to have yet. To quote Yeltsin from a conversation with Clinton 20 years ago, what is needed is a “firm rejection of old dogmas and stereotypes.” The previous set guarantees one thing - relations will continue to go through a vicious circle of cold spells and détente/reboot under any US president. Even someone as pleasant in every way as Barack Obama.

Barack Obama. Circle two