The United States has markedly reduced its interest in Russia as a major actor on the international stage, shifting its attention instead to rapidly developing China. Washington now portrays Russia’s contribution to the global economy in an unfavorable light, comparing it with the contributions of many other post-industrial countries. Naturally, the Russian Federation cannot be compared with the Soviet Union, which played a much more significant role in world politics.

There is also a psychological factor: still alive and active are generations of people, whose global outlook took shape under the impact of the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The present suspicions toward Russia – often groundless – are coupled with relics of the Cold War. Today, the subjective factor also plays a part in building Russian public opinion.

Today, the United States is the most influential and strongest state in all respects. Only shortsighted politicians can ignore this fact. At the same time, however, there are other shortsighted politicians who have excluded Russia from the list of great powers and underestimate the dynamics and prospects of its development. Even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation remains the world’s largest country, boasting half of the world’s extractable natural resources. Russia has a high intellectual potential, while its nuclear missile arsenal remains comparable with that of the U.S.

POTENTIAL FOR PARTNERSHIP

It is possible for Russia and the U.S. to develop a partner relationship in specific areas where their interests overlap. The shortage of energy resources in the United States, for example, together with the instability in the Middle East, make Russia a major potential source of oil and gas supplies to the U.S. Meanwhile, Russia’s Gazprom is completing negotiations with several foreign companies for the joint development of the giant Stockman gas-condensate field. There are plans for the supply of Stockman gas to the American market. Another plan taking shape is the construction of an oil pipeline to the coast of the Arctic Ocean, which will enable Russia to step up its oil supplies to America.

The threat of international terrorism leaves no alternative but for Moscow and Washington to cooperate in the security sphere. Russia, for example, played an important role in the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan by supplying armaments to the Northern Alliance. For a long time, this group opposed the Taliban movement – al-Qaeda’s only ally in the world; this helped liberate Kabul, thus ensuring the overthrow of the Taliban regime. Also, Russia encouraged the Central Asian states to provide intermediate military bases to the U.S. for the duration of military actions in Afghanistan.

Despite its disagreement with the U.S. unilateral operation in Iraq, Russia is making efforts to prevent manifestations of anti-Americanism in its own policy, as well as in the policies of other European countries. At the same time, Moscow resolutely and effectively opposes Islamic extremism, which is now targeted against the United States. During the Cold War years, Washington supported the struggle of Islamic extremists against the Soviet military in Afghanistan, and it was at this time that Osama bin Laden emerged in the foreground of that struggle. When the Soviet Union saw that its military actions were senseless and ineffective, it withdrew from Afghanistan, while the al-Qaeda phenomenon has become a burden to the world. Soviet policy was not developed by white gloves, of course; yet, aware of the very real danger posed by Islamic extremism, Moscow never used it as a factor of force against the U.S., even in the Cold War years.

Political cooperation must be aimed at encouraging those countries with Moslem populations to lead the antiterrorist struggle and to change the sentiments of the average Moslem man on the street. This goal can be achieved by settling the Arab-Israeli conflict, which has become an incubator of terrorism. In the military and political planes, the intelligence communities of Russia and the U.S. should not only exchange information (as they do now), but also provide a joint analysis of this data in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. It would be very useful to involve in these efforts the special services of other states as well, most importantly, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Israel and Egypt. A retrospective analysis of events that preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 shows that international cooperation among various special services could have helped prevent that tragedy.

The United States, Russia and China are among the major international actors that are capable of checking the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Not long ago, they achieved some success in a years-long negotiation process with North Korea for the termination of its military nuclear program. This semi-breakthrough became possible thanks to two circumstances. First, North Korea was actually offered guarantees that, like other states, it would have the right to develop peaceful nuclear programs – naturally under the strict control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Second, the U.S. pledged not to undertake military actions against Pyongyang. A similar model should be applied to Iran as well. It is necessary to set up a group for organizing negotiations involving Iran, Russia, the U.S., the European Union and, possibly, China and India, which would propose to Teheran the same terms that were given to North Korea.

So, there is every reason to believe that Russian-U.S. ties can evolve into relations of partners as regards their content.

THE FUTURE WORLD ORDER: WHO WILL BE IN THE CENTER?

Despite the bright spots, several factors obviously undermine the relations between Russia and the United States.
Most importantly, these include different visions of the world order that must replace the confrontational bipolar system. Russia believes that since the end of the Cold War an objective process toward the formation of a multipolar world has been unfolding. First, one should not underestimate such a pole as China, with its nearly 10-percent economic growth and constantly increasing share in the world’s GDP.

Second, one should also not ignore such a center of economic strength as the European Union. Despite the uncertainty of the EU’s military and political prospects, which have worsened after the failure of referendums on the European Constitution, it is obvious that the economic integration process in the European Union has become irreversible. One way or another, the development of the European Union as one of the world’s poles will continue.

Russia, while overcoming many difficulties, is also moving toward the strengthening of its economic potential. The Russian economy now demonstrates high growth rates, and in 2005 it is expected to reach 6 percent of the GDP, while the federal budget surplus will produce 7 percent of the GDP. At the same time, the country’s gold and hard currency reserves have been increasing fast, while Moscow has been faithfully paying off its debt to the Paris Club ahead of schedule. Russia’s credit rating has risen to an investment grade.

Considering Russia’s history, intellectual resources, size, huge natural resources and, finally, the level of development of its Armed Forces, this country will not agree to the status of a state that is “led;” it will seek to establish itself as an independent center of a multipolar world.

Some analysts view the establishment of a multipolar system as a return, albeit on a new level, to a world order that existed before World War II. That order, of course, culminated in the emergence of hostile alliances. Meanwhile, the present multipolar world is being formed in completely different conditions: amidst the globalization processes, economic interdependence of countries integrated into the global economy, and the departure from confrontation on a worldwide level. These factors prevent the establishment of coalition-type military and political alliances between different world poles, together with the reduction of the system to several competing centers.

Washington, relying on its present superiority, proceeds from the assumption that the United States will hold the central position in a future world system, while the rest of the world will have to follow the “rules of behavior” dictated by the Americans.

Washington’s vision of the world order is already introducing dangerous levels of disorganization onto the international scene. These steps include, first of all, the decision to implement unilateral force, as was the case with the military operation against Iraq. The idea of the forced propagation of democracy – one of the main elements of President Bush’s doctrine – has failed in Iraq. Yet, apart from the Middle East, the U.S. is trying to implement this concept in the post-Soviet space, as well. Various U.S. foundations and diplomats were involved, quite openly, in the so-called ‘colored revolutions’ in Ukraine and Georgia. This fact cannot but cause worry. The aftermath of the Ukrainian ‘orange revolution,’ for example, calls into question the expediency of such tactics.

The building of democracy in Iraq has proven to be a much more difficult task than simply the swift overthrow of a dictatorial regime. Few observers now fail to see the extremely negative consequences of the U.S. military operation there.

These include, first of all, the destabilization of the situation in one of the key countries of the Middle East region. The settlement of problems in Iraq is hardly possible in the foreseeable future; some believe stability can only be achieved if Iraq is turned into a federation. Yet, such a solution will do little to remove the hostility of the Sunnis – who comprise a substantial part of the Iraqi population – because Iraq’s oil resources are concentrated on the territory of the potential Shia and Kurd autonomous regions in the south and north of the country.

Second, although Washington has proclaimed the democratization of Iraq as its main goal, this state is steadily losing its secular nature. The prospect for Iraq’s Islamization is quite real, at least in the Shia part of the future federation that borders Shia-dominated Iran. Teheran, for its part, has given up the practice of exporting the Islamic revolution, and the country has seen positive, although contradictory, changes. Is it possible for the pendulum in Iran to swing in the opposite direction? Symptomatically, Iraqi Shias demanded that the draft of the new Constitution of Iraq includes the provision stating: “Iraq is part of the Islamic world.” Meanwhile, the Sunnis proposed their own wording, saying: “Iraq is part of the Arab world,” but their request was ignored.

Third, there is the danger of “internationalization” of the Kurdish problem, which may bring about one more seat of tension. Turkey has already declared that it will not remain on the sidelines if the city of Kirkuk is figured into the autonomy of Kurds, as has been demanded.

Fourth, the U.S. military operation in Iraq has made the country a major bridgehead of international terrorism. Acting according to the principle of “communicating vessels,” al-Qaeda has moved its main forces from the so-called ‘tribal zone’ on the Pakistani-Afghan border to Iraq.

The United States, meanwhile, is debating the passage of a doctrine, now widely discussed by American political scientists, that supports the preventive application of nuclear weapons; this may negatively affect the development of Russian-U.S. relations. The question arises: Who will be the target of such preventive nuclear strikes? The terrorists? Or countries like Iran? Once this doctrine is legislatively endorsed, we may not be far away from a new policy of ‘containment’ which could involve Russia in a new arms race, although on an asymmetrical level.

Under the circumstances, confidence building between the two states assumes special importance. The establishment of confidential relations is impeded, however, as the U.S. leadership receives information on the situation in Russia mainly from sources in opposition to the Russian president. The toughening of the U.S. approach is largely explained by the fact that this information (on the “universal suppression of the freedom of speech,” “the renunciation of the democratic principles,” and so on) is lop-sided and often does not correspond to reality. Confidence building presupposes the relinquishment of double standards in assessing one’s own steps, as well as the actions of the opposite side.

Russia and the U.S. should develop their mutual economic relations in every way possible; U.S. investment in the Russian economy is of much importance in this respect. Russia should increase its investment attractiveness, which requires improving Russian legislation and law enforcement practices. Finally, Russian laws must fully apply to areas of economic security and the settlement of economic disputes.

Confidence and cooperation are areas that can ensure the normal development of Russian-U.S. relations in the interests of both countries, as well as in the interests of the entire world.