By: Glen Johnson

On Friday I had the good fortune of attending a talk at the Atlantic Council entitled “Russia and the West: Moving the Reset Forward?”  The experts in attendance, ranging from academics to state officials, were top notch and the various themes covered proved very topical, such as “The State of the Reset” and “The Future of the Energy and Economic Relations.”

There seemed to be broad consensus: the reset is positive and showing real results.  The event began with Kent Logsdon of the US Department of State’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.  His speech was essentially an enumeration of the reset’s accomplishments:  a new START treaty, military operational support via the Northern Distribution Network, new visa and adoption agreements, and partial co-operation on Libya.  He also rejected the notion that co-operation with Russia entails sacrificing the interests of its neighbors.   His greatest reservation was the Russian position on Syria.

Professor Angela Stent of Georgetown University was less effusive in her praise of the reset, noting that there have essentially been two prior “resets” in the past twenty years: first after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and then another following 9/11, when a major security alliance was established.  These efforts tended to yield initial results only to founder on issues that have still not been resolved, most notably how to deal with Iran.  She holds up the Northern Distribution Network as the approach’s greatest achievement, given the unreliability of Pakistan for supplying Afghan operations.  She argued that the current reset could be strengthened by viewing Russia as an economic partner, instead of the almost exclusively security-based focus witnessed thus far.  This is unlikely, she asserted, at least partially because of the nation’s lower profile in the current political discourse three years after the Georgian war.

By far the greatest skepticism of the reset was voiced by Kadri Liik of the International Centre for Defence Studies, a newly-founded Estonian think tank.  She attributes the warming of relations not to the reset, but to opportunism:  Russia stopped misbehaving because of the fall in oil prices and the difficulty of criticizing a leader as popular as Obama was in 2008-09.  The reset offered by the US was thus the perfect “face-saving” opportunity for Russia: it could re-establish relations without admitting any fault, and in fact could depict the US as a desperate suitor begging for forgiveness.   She advises America to fully gauge Russia’s commitment to good relations to avoid “tangoing alone,” while an amused Russia merely watches on.

I think she is right in her characterization of how Russia spun the reset.  On the Russian embassy of Washington’s website, for instance, the reset is portrayed as solely stemming from an end to an un-cooperative American approach: “After coming to power in January 2009, the new U.S. democratic administration announced the necessity to reset Russia-U.S. relations and its readiness to establish constructive full-scale cooperation.”  But all countries spin.  Liik seems overly skeptical about Russia’s commitment; the Northern Distribution Network represents major co-operation by any standard.  In fact, we have yet to offer the Russians anything that comes close in strategic importance.  As Biden and others have noted, a repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment is long overdue and would be a nice reciprocal gesture on our part.  (Jackson-Vanik was a 1974 trade provision against the Soviets, who had imposed obstacles to Jewish emigration from their territory.)  The greatest obstacle to this is a lukewarm Congress, which as noted by Congressman Gregory Meeks of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in his Atlantic Council remarks, remains largely uninformed owing to a weak Russian lobbying presence on Capitol Hill.

Many in Russia remain skeptical of working with America.  President Medvedev has risked a lot politically with his embrace of the reset.  We must genuinely reciprocate to avoid alienating the most pro-Western voice in the Russian government.