|
Bush Meets Putin
U.S.-Russia Relations
With Vladimir Baranovsky
Deputy Director,
Institute of World Economy and International Relations
Thursday, June 14, 2001; 8:15 a.m. EDT
Vladimir Baranovsky, deputy director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow, was online Thursday, June 14, 2001 at 8:15 a.m. discussing U.S.-Russia relations and President Bush's first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The brief, two-hour summit is planned for Sunday, June 16, in Slovenia. Discussion will likely focus on U.S. plans for a national missile defense program. Russia opposes U.S. missile defense saying that it violates the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which has been the cornerstone of arms control initiatives for more than 25 years.
Baranovsky is also a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Institute of World Economy and International Relations is committed to applied social, economic, political and strategic research, directed at the analysis of world developments.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
To read the most recent responses, click "Get New Responses"
or select "Automatically Update Page."
|
washingtonpost.com:
Greetings Dr. Baranovsky and thank you for joining washingtonpost.com. How would you characterize the current state of U.S.-Russia relations on the eve of the first meeting between presidents Bush and Putin?
Vladimir Baranovsky: During the last several months, we have passed tgrough the period that was certainly not the best in the history of relations between the two states. However, the very fact of having Russian-American summit seems promising. We should not expect a breakthrough, but hopefully it will be possible to set agenda for future development in the spirit of constructive interaction.
Seattle, Washington:
U.S. President Bush discussed future NATO enlargement this week while in Brussels. Russia was opposed to NATO's induction of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999. Has Russia felt an increased threat from NATO since that occurred? How does Russia view future NATO enlargement?
Vladimir Baranovsky: Russia keeps having a negative attitude towards the enlargement of NATO. But I would not say that Russia has felt an increased threat from NATO. Russia's negativism is not so much about 'threats' in traditional sense of this word, but rather about political implications of the process of enlargement. Russia believes that there could be other forms of organizing the post-cold war international relations in Europe rather than turning the continent into a NATO-centred system - a system to which Russia does not have access. The next phase of NATO enlargement could be a source of new tensions - unless Russia's direct relations with NATO are significantly promoted and upgraded.
Washington, DC:
Mr. Baranovsky,
The trial of John Tobin has gained interest from prominent US politicians. Americans seem to think he's being held unlawfully and is just a casualty of the recent "spy wars" between the US and Russia. What is the general feeling in Russia towards his case?
Vladimir Baranovsky: I would not say there is much attention to this case in Russia. Indeed there are some comments in which the logic of 'spy wars' is mentioned as the main driving force of the trial. Regretably or not, but this logic is something which is used rather often, and in many countries involved in such kind of activity.
Alexandria, Virginia:
Dr. Baranovsky,
Assuming the U.S. one day has the technology to deploy an effective national missile defense shield, do you believe we are right to pursue such a goal? Or do you agree with others (e.g., our NATO allies), who view such a system as ultimately destabilizing?
Thank you.
Vladimir Baranovsky: From the technological point of view, an 'effective national missile defense' is only a theory for the time being. Whereas destabilizing concequences might be very concrete, and not in a distant future. Destroying arms control, pushing Russia to look for 'counter-measures', creating incentives for intensive nuclear re-armament of China and so on - the price seems rather high. What seems essential here is the need to look for common approaches, even when there is a temptation to carry out a radical breakthrough on the basis of the technological and financial resources that the USA possess.
wash, dc:
Assume that the technology to build a NMD has arrived. Many think that a US National Missile Defense would destabilize US/Russia relations. A US NMD would alter the balance of power, and many predict that Russia would buildup its arsenal of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles to regain this balance. My question is, would Russia consider a multi-national (US/China/Russia/UK/india/Pakistan/S.Korea?) program to build a working theatre missile defense system where the final system would be shared? What are the risks of such a joint venture?
Vladimir Baranovsky: My own recommendation would be to move in the direction of multilateral efforts, including in the area of theater missile defense. There are certainly serious questions, and one of them is to what extent the involved parties would be ready to share technology and sensitive information. This does not happen easily even among aliies (for instance, within NATO. But there could be some small steps to begin with - for instance, by considering compatibility of systems of information on missile launches. The problem is that the decision to proceed unilaterally with NMD could undermine the prospect of such joint efforts in other areas, including TMD.
washingtonpost.com:
Will recent espionage cases and concern over espionage cloud the Bush/Putin meeting? Are the two presidents likely to discuss these matters?
Vladimir Baranovsky: Espionage cases do not seem to me deserving very high place in the agenda of Bush/Putin summit. But there might be a political decision to close this 'dossier' or at least to refrain from initiating other noisy scandals.
washingtonpost.com:
What issues would Russia like to see on the Bush-Putin agenda for the future? What is the most important area of concern?
Vladimir Baranovsky: I would offer two levels of the agenda. There are concrete issues deserving discussions and at least attempts to find some common language, such as BMD, Middle East, nuclear (non)proliferation and so on. And there is a more substantial and future oriented theme: how to organize the emerging international system by joining effort of all those who would like to prevent chaos and distabilizing rivalry.
washingtonpost.com:
How have events in the military (Kursk, Chechnya) affected Russia's self-image and will they affect President Putin's standing in the meeting in Slovenia?
Vladimir Baranovsky: The catastrophe of Kursk submarine was a shocking event for Russian public conciousness. Chechnya is an extremely painful problem. Both have been and still are subjects of serious domestic debates, often with very controversial assessments and recommendations as well as with strong criticism concerning the performance of official authorities. On the international arena, domestic problems do not make the standing of any political leader stronger. But this should not affect the international agenda per se that deserves serious attention anyway whatever domestic problems for any political leader might be.
washingtonpost.com:
How will Russian media cover Saturday's summit meeting?
Vladimir Baranovsky: I believe there will be considerable attention on the part of mass media, but not excessive expectations. The very fact of the summit is broadely considered to be a positive sign.
washingtonpost.com:
Thank you Dr. Baranovsky for joining washingtonpost.com today. We appreciate your analysis and insight.
Vladimir Baranovsky: Thank you for organizing this event, and best wishes. Vladimir Baranovsky
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
