At first glance, the atmosphere of Russia's relations with the U.S., and the West in general, has seriously deteriorated.
Moscow blames America for this, although its own contribution to the worsening of bilateral ties is quite substantial. The media, including state-run outlets, are all but openly encouraging anti-American attitudes. They have blown out of all proportion a modest criticism made by Vice President Cheney in his famous speech, ignoring a number of constructive remarks in the paragraph on Russia.
Obviously, U.S. policy evokes little sympathy. We are rivals in the South Caucasus, and, to a lesser extent, in Central Asia. We have different attitudes towards Belarus. The possibility that Ukraine will join NATO is casting a gloomy shadow on the prospects of bilateral contacts. Russia has been involved in a pre-emptive attempt to set up more alliances in Asia with a growing anti-American or anti-Western bias. Their extension threatens to crush all cooperation.
Some leading circles in Russia have started playing the anti-American card willy-nilly. The Cold War hawks, who lost their feathers in the last decades, have begun squawking again.
We are even rejecting some profitable avenues of military and political cooperation. Instead, we are giving ardent support to America's foes, such as Venezuela and Syria. The former is at least going to pay us for arms, but the latter is highly unlikely to do so. In other words, we are simply challenging Washington without any hope of getting benefits for ourselves.
After Cheney's speech, Russia has ostentatiously refused to buy Boeings and decided to go for Airbuses alone, although politically, strategically, and commercially it is never sensible to rely on one supplier. Regrettably, we will not be able to re-equip our civil aviation industry single-handedly in the foreseeable future.
All these actions are taking place against the background of a program for Russian-American cooperation which has repeatedly been outlined by the Russian and American presidents, the last time during the Bratislava summit in February 2005. The bureaucracies of both countries are undermining this positive program.
In principle, Russia could continue rocking the boat and criticizing the West and the U.S., if such a course of action paid any dividends. But for the time being it is nothing but a source of moral satisfaction for people obsessed with anti-American attitudes. We do not need to turn the West into our enemy and boost our war budget. There is no goal that would justify military mobilization.
Russia should resist the attempts of the U.S. and EU to restrict its influence in the former Soviet sphere, but it would achieve more if it acted in a constructive spirit.
The hope that America has grown weaker because of Iraq and can be ignored or exploited for this reason is most likely a dangerous illusion. The Soviet Union tried to use U.S. weakness after Vietnam in the first half of the 1970s, and we know the result. By the end of the 1970s the U.S. launched a strategic counteroffensive, which played no small role in the subsequent collapse of the U.S.S.R.
The U.S. will remain the world's number one power in the foreseeable future. Good relations with it, even if they are merely virtual, instantly enhance the position of any nation.
On the other hand, bad relations with the world's leaders decrease the influence of a country in the international arena and reduce its ability to maneuver with respect to key players. Here's a good example: in the 1960s and 70s the U.S.S.R.'s interests were badly compromised because of poor relations with China. It goes without saying that a nation should not sacrifice its vital interests to maintain good relations with other countries, but such a goal is not difficult to achieve through well-orchestrated diplomatic efforts.
This is why it is important to try and improve at least the atmosphere of Russia-U.S. relations. One of the best opportunities for this is the upcoming G8 summit, where high-level U.S. and Russian leaders will meet. (Afterwards, the U.S. Administration will be under increasing pressure due to the upcoming election race.)
If negative trends are not reversed, they will prevail for at least another two to four years.
The current U.S. Administration is ready for constructive discussion at the summit, and Russia should use this opportunity.
The most obvious avenue of cooperation would be to resuscitate the Bratislava program. Its contents are well known and can be viewed on the Internet.
Within the framework of this program, the two countries could also set up a series of additional channels for unofficial communication between their elites in order to bolster official dialogue. They should criticize their bureaucracies' lack of initiative. Russia could suggest creating an official mechanism for discussing problems linked to the stabilization of Central Asia, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf nations with a view to adopting a regional security mechanism to be guaranteed by external powers. It makes sense to offer the U.S. and leading European nations observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (if, of course, other SCO members accept this idea).
Russia should place special emphasis on the development of specific avenues of cooperation, which are vital in improving the atmosphere of bilateral relations. For instance, it could come up with a concrete program (with specific figures) to increase the number of exchanges between college students and professors. It could set up a joint fund for supporting such programs, to which both countries would contribute equally. It is clear that Russia should broker a beneficial deal in the energy sphere - it could, say, give a leading U.S. company access to one of its coveted deposits in exchange for bigger involvement by Russian companies in oil refinery and sales in the U.S. Clearly, Russia should expect the U.S. to lift all objections to its joining the WTO, regardless of when that would take place.
I do not mean that we should make concessions. We should think of how we can protect our interests if things go wrong. We should also have a multi-polar energy strategy, all the more so as such steps will discourage countries from renouncing constructive relations with Russia. But bad peace is always better than a good quarrel. Those who do not think so are either not well versed in history or are simply unpatriotic.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
