Negotiations, Putin Style

Putin renegotiates the START Treaty with new demands.

According to the New York Times, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is pushing back on the U.S. to make concessions on missile defense as part of negotiations surrounding a successor to the START Treaty:

“If we don’t develop a missile defense system, a danger arises for us that with an umbrella protecting our partners from offensive weapons, they will feel completely safe,” Mr. Putin told journalists during a working visit to Vladivostok. “The balance will be disrupted and then they will do whatever they want, and aggressiveness will immediately arise both in real politics and economics.”

To restore that balance, he said, Russia must develop new offensive weapons to counter the missile shield. Another solution, he said, would be for the United States to provide Russia with data on its missile defense plans in exchange for data on Russian weapons development.

Having already reversed course on missile defense, I'd be hard pressed to see why the U.S. would have to make another concession on this front in order to achieve something both the U.S. and Russia ultimately need (i.e. fewer nukes washing around).

Robert Coalson speculates:

The rhetoric Moscow is using in recent days is also similar to what it deployed when Medvedev was pushing his draft treaty on European security – namely, the idea that it was necessary to radically overhaul existing agreements which Russia argues are outdated and even counterproductive. Medvedev’s proposal seems to be part of a broader Russian strategy of undermining the post-Cold War institutions that it sees as propping up the unipolar world.

It will be interesting to see if the nuclear-arms talks break down because Moscow insists on a “radical” proposal that is as much of a nonstarter as Medvedev’s draft treaty. It would also be interesting if Moscow would spell out what the problems are with START-1 and why a “radical and unprecedented” departure is needed.

The Times quotes Sergei A. Markov, a political scientist and deputy with the ruling United Russia party, on the subtext of the negotiations:

“It’s not just about the START agreement, but about the status of the Russian Federation – whether Russia is a great power or not,” he said. “We have heard a lot from Washington that Russian interests should be limited to Russia’s borders. That means Russia is not recognized as a great power. And that’s why this negotiation is so difficult – because no one knows what Russia’s status is.”

This is the basic tension in dealing with Russia. We do not want to grant legitimacy to their dealings in the region, particularly if that involves exercising a veto (real or perceived) over the sovereign decisions of neighboring states. Fair enough. But yet we insist that we can exercise similar power in the Middle East in the name of defending our interests.

Ultimately, I think at least some of the post Cold War deterioration in U.S.-Russian relations can be chalked up to the fact that the U.S. insisted on treating Russia like the loser it admittedly was after the six decade confrontation. Such was our prerogative, but as we learned with Germany after the second World War, sometimes its better to try to reintegrate the losing party rather than lock in advantages at their expense.

(AP Photos)