The situation around the American anti-missile system in Europe is strikingly reminiscent of that with Reagan’s “Zero Option”, when in 1981 the plan for deploying missiles itself became a subject for bargaining between the two superpowers. At that time the USSR was offered to remove the SS-20 missiles from its European part in exchange for nothing – the USA scrapping plans to install Pershing II missiles. In this light the current American initiative doesn’t seem so positive. If you also take into account the statement immediately made by the American administration regarding its alternative plans for European missile defense, which over the last couple of weeks has taken a shape rather unpleasant to Russia (it involves both the remaining intention to install missiles in Europe and talks with Ukraine regarding the possible use of its radars), Obama’s concession won’t look like one at all.

But that’s just one aspect of the issue. The other is that with his gesture, the US President has actually invited Russia to dialogue and, possibly, cooperation. And when he does that, it can’t be just his personal friendly intent. Barack Obama may seem somewhat idealistic, but above all he’s a leader of a nation, and leaders of nations do not normally act in contradiction with the state interest. The President of the US wouldn’t have made this step without knowing for sure what the possible gain is. And since his statement is too controversial to be regarded as a straightforward concession, theoretically he couldn’t be sure of the Kremlin’s response. Which apparently means that Barack Obama and Dmitriy Medvedev have negotiated a certain deal, in advance. All we have left to do is wait for the Russian side of this agreement, which is already known to Obama, to go public.

We also shouldn’t disregard the PR aspect of this situation. Consider the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis: although the agreement Kennedy and Khrushchev had reached was mutual, the general public was informed only of the Soviet concession, while the American Jupiter missiles were removed from Turkey as a part of “planned arms modernization”. In our case, however, the situation is quite the opposite: the United States has taken the first step, while Russia hasn’t given an immediate symmetrical answer. Now aren’t you wondering which “pill” Obama sugared for Medvedev?

Naturally, the first thing that comes to mind is Iran’s nuclear program. The United States has been striving for many years to harden Russia’s position on the problem. Will Dmitriy Medvedev agree to support sanctions on Iran in exchange for scrapping the plans for European missile defense? We can’t be sure since the Russian response so far means nothing but “we will consider this”.
The second principal item on the American-Russian agenda is the expiring START treaty. It could be that Obama’s concession has to do with certain terms of the potential new agreement. Yet the absence of any visible momentum in the corresponding talks renders this suggestion improbable.

Finally we shouldn’t ignore Russia’s recent denunciation of plans for stationing SS-26 “Iskander” missiles in the Kaliningrad region. Does this mean that the dialogue between the two states regarding missile defense has already reached its logical conclusion? Quite possibly, and in this case the only result of this “air trading” is a demonstration of both sides’ good intentions. Surely this is something, but not even close to the general public’s great expectations. However, rushing ahead is not the best option when world peace is at stake. It seems that the leaders of the two countries who had been balancing on the brink of nuclear war for more than 60 years perfectly understand that.