Russian-American negotiations in the “2 x 2” format are always notable. That is
understandable, since it's not every day that ministers responsible for the military and political strategies of two nuclear superpowers meet. Realization of the significance of the event gives rise to heightened expectations, which then turn into disappointment. So it's better to define the limits of the possibilities from the beginning.
Can Russia and the United States make a breakthrough in settling their differences? No, they can't, mainly because of the political situations in both countries. The Bush administration is one of the biggest lame ducks in history. Even if it wanted a historical achievement to end its term with, it does not have the political resources. The whole world is openly getting ready for the change of administrations in Washington. The ability of the U.S. to participate in the stabilization of world currencies and financial markets is also under suspicion.
In Moscow, there has been a de facto change of authority, and now the complex construction of new mechanisms must begin. Actions will be cautious in foreign policy, since an especially balance is necessary to maintain between succession and innovation. Both Russian leaders will act keeping the other in view, as well many domestic and external factors. That will not encourage revolutionary steps, but it will increase suspicion toward current partners. The maximum task for the coming months is to avoid open conflict, especially since the situation is unfolding so unluckily. The situation in Kosovo and around it, the NATO agenda in Bucharest, advances in the missile defense system, events in the former Soviet countries and to some extent in China, with the increasing tensions in Tibet – that all could cause the atmosphere to deteriorate. As a result, the new leaders will be fatally tied to their inheritance from the pervious period.
There are many disagreements between Moscow and Washington. But the main problem is not that. On the level of generalities, no one argues with the fact that we live in a global world and all countries are dependent on each other. But as
soon as it becomes a matter of bilateral relations, they forget about globalization and behave themselves as though the reality around them does not exist and mutual accusation is a goal per se.
Looking through the prism of globalism, affairs in both America and Russia look different. The question before Washington is how to maintain its leadership in a changing world with new economic and political centers of power. And the
ideological attractiveness of the U.S. is weaker than it once was, and the institutions of international cooperation through joint effort have been undermined. Moscow has a similar problem, that is, strengthening its international position in the same changing world, where the success of a country with a shortage of inhabitants and an economy based on raw materials
is in no way guaranteed. So far, there are no signs that the sight angle will change. The bilateral agenda based on mutual resistance is more accustomed. But it has less and less to do with the real development of events in the world.
