Carnegie Moscow Center
Two potentially conflicting imperatives drive Barack Obama’s nuclear agenda. On the one hand, he has called for a world free of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, he believes that the United States needs credible nuclear deterrence.
The conditions in Russia and the state of U.S.-Russia relations today are more hopeful for positive cooperation than at any time in the recent past, particularly in the fields of technology and innovation.
By the beginning of the twenty-first century, Russia had recovered from its domestic crisis, and so had its global ambitions. While Moscow’s principal interests still lie mostly toward the West, the Middle East is back on Moscow’s radar screen and Russia’s withdrawal from the region has been reversed.
While Russian leaders support the idea of a world free of nuclear weapons in theory, the Russian security community is still committed to the principle of nuclear deterrence.
A treaty to replace the expired START agreement is an essential step not only toward global nuclear disarmament, but also toward managing the risks associated with Russia's nuclear arsenal, which still poses the single greatest existential threat to the United States.
In 1990, when the Russian economy was falling apart and Russia was suffering from acute food shortages, the first McDonald's opened in Moscow, offering a new experience of food service.
Rather than focus on preserving its status as a great power, Russia’s foreign policy should aim toward comprehensive modernization. Cooperation with Europe will be crucial to achieving that goal.
Russia’s accession to the WTO—which would benefit both Russia and the global trading system—has been stalled since June. To move forward, Russia must clarify its accession plan and prove its commitment to the WTO.
The most crucial areas for U.S.-Russia relations in 2010 include cooperation on Afghanistan and Iran, future developments in Georgia and Ukraine, and discussions of a new European security system inclusive of Russia.
Republican Scott Brown's victory in the United States is an event of both national and international significance. The Democrats have lost the qualified majority needed to pass bills and ratify international agreements without holdups.