Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s decision to return to the Kremlin will strain the nation’s fragile relations with the US, threatening to undermine improvements he helped engineer by steering Dmitry Medvedev into the presidency in 2008.
Putin’s plan to reclaim the top office from his protege in the presidential election in March will remove Medvedev, who has played a vital role in a “reset” of long-strained ties, from center stage in the relationship with Moscow’s former Cold War foe.
Putin, who is virtually certain to win a six-year presidential term and could run again in 2018, would take his place as chief interlocutor for US President Barack Obama.
“That changes the atmospherics overnight,” said Samuel Charap, director for Russia and Eurasia at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. “You could not have Putin and Obama, jackets slung over shoulders, walking together from the White House to the US Chamber of Commerce.”
A tech-savvy product of the generation that grew up as cracks opened the Soviet Union to Western influence, Medvedev, 46, toured Silicon Valley and chatted with Obama over cheeseburgers during a US visit last year.
Putin, 58, is a former KGB officer who has carried the baggage of that background into relations with the Soviet Union’s old enemy, often accusing the US of seeking to undermine Russia.
Ties soured badly during Putin’s eight-year presidency and hit a post-Soviet low when Russian tanks rolled into NATO aspirant Georgia three months after Medvedev took office.
Relations have marched mostly uphill from there — Medvedev has warmly embraced Obama’s push to improve ties, forged a friendly rapport with the US president and signed a landmark nuclear arms control deal with him last year.
Medvedev has also brought the Kremlin closer to Washington on Iran, supporting new UN sanctions and banning the delivery of air-defense missiles to Tehran. During his term, Russia has stepped up logistical support for the US war in Afghanistan.
Russian and US officials have said Putin’s return will not throw the “reset” off track.
On Monday, US Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said: “Putin in his current role has been a part of those discussions and cooperation.”
Putin has remained Russia’s paramount leader and courting the US seems to have been part his brief to Medvedev, so Charap said there was “no reason to believe there will be a radical shift in Russian policy” toward the US.
“There will not be a rollback of the major accomplishments of the reset,” said Matthew Rojansky, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
However, in a relationship where signals and symbolism have spoken loudly since the propaganda-filled era of the Cold War, analysts say the Russian leadership change could make it much harder to agree on further cooperation.
“They may hold the same position, but Putin’s style is very different from Medvedev’s — it’s more confrontational, more combative and aggressive,” said Fiona Hill, a Russia expert and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
If Putin sets the tone in the top-down system he has labored to maintain, “it becomes a different diplomatic game,” she said.
The road toward agreement on the divisive issue of missile defense may get even rougher, said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, and the chances of forging further nuclear arms cuts may also diminish.
It was Obama who launched the “reset,” early in his term, but Medvedev has embraced it avidly. By many accounts, Putin’s wariness toward Washington is steeped in feelings of betrayal — expecting a breakthrough in ties after he reached out to support the US following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he watched instead as Washington scrapped an anti-missile treaty and NATO expanded eastward.
“I think those wounds haven’t fully healed,” Charap said.
In his term as president and prime minister, Putin has made his frustration with the US amply clear with words and body language — and sometimes both.
At a conference in Munich, Germany, in 2007, Putin unleashed a barrage of long-festering complaints about US behavior that he warned was undermining global security.
Ties have improved since then, but sometimes it seems like Putin’s sense of diplomacy has not.
Meeting US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at his residence outside Moscow one evening in March last year, Putin lounged in a chair and launched a tirade on the state of commercial ties with the US.
In July, Putin said the US was “acting like hooligans” in the global economy. Last month, he told a pro-Kremlin youth group at a lakeside summer camp that the US was living beyond its means “like a parasite.”
Putin’s concerns about the US are far from a one-way street.
His decision to return to the Kremlin and make Medvedev prime minister, a job swap the pair announced on Saturday, will deepen US doubts about Russian democracy and give Obama’s Republican opponents fodder for criticism of the “reset.”
“In US domestic politics, Putin is toxic,” Charap said.
“Because he is seen as the embodiment of everything that’s wrong with Russia, especially on Capitol Hill, and that will make things difficult” in cases when Congress has a say on Russia policy, he said.
That could muddy the waters at the confirmation hearing for Obama’s choice as the next ambassador to Moscow — his top Russia adviser, Michael McFaul — and in discussions related to Russia’s bid to join the WTO, he said.
If criticism of the Kremlin grows louder in Washington as the US presidential campaign heats up, that will raise hackles back in Moscow and further cloud chances for progress on issues such as Russia’s WTO bid.
The biggest visible rift in Russia’s ruling tandem opened up after Medvedev let NATO intervene in Libya by abstaining in a vote on a UN Security Council resolution in March.
Putin likened the resolution to “medieval calls for crusades,” drawing a rare public rebuke from Medvedev and suggesting that Russia might have vetoed it had he been president.
Putin and Medvedev have since closed ranks on the unrest in the Arab world, with Medvedev and the foreign ministry thwarting Western efforts to adopt a resolution condemning Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his crackdown on protesters.
Several analysts said they did not expect Putin to halt support on Afghanistan or lower the current level of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program.
Putin is unlikely to step up cooperation with Iran unless the US moves to flex its muscles more in Russia’s neighborhood or otherwise angers the Kremlin, Lukyanov said.
“On the whole, I don’t think there will be serious changes in foreign policy, for the simple reason that Medvedev’s position has been the position of the tandem,” he said.
Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Andrew Quinn and Matt Spetalnick in Washington
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath