home > by publication type > daily analysis > Soul-Searching in Kennebunkport
Email
| Prepared by: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
Bush and Putin face challenges in restoring their previously cordial relations. (AP Images/Doug Mills)
Two days of talks got underway amid low expectations for any real meeting of the minds of Presidents Bush and Putin in Kennebunkport, Maine. It’s been a rough ride for the two leaders, both of whom came to power as unknown entities unversed in diplomatic formalities. Though plenty of serious issues beckon, the informal talks - including the requisite speedboat ride with Bush and his father - showed as little more than a summer get together at first glance (BBC). Early reports speak of low expectations and little of diplomatic substance beyond polite dinner conversation (NYTimes).
Not long after Bush took office in 2001, he gazed into his Russian counterpart’s soul and famously liked what he saw. But relations deteriorated rapidly after Russia opposed the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. Since then, what Moscow viewed as Washington’s meddling in elections in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004 irked the Kremlin. The latest sore spot to emerge is the U.S. plan to stage a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Given the litany of grievances, experts are not optimistic anything of substance will emerge out of the Kennebunkport meeting. Putin’s counteroffer to stage a missile system in Azerbaijan as opposed to Poland and the Czech Republic drew a lukewarm reaction from U.S. defense officials. Bush will also try to enlist Putin’s support for stricter sanctions against Iran, but Steven Pifer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies is doubtful (PDF) because “the Russians have a very different set of geopolitical and economic interests in Iran.” Finally, on Kosovo the two sides have also grown further apart, as the Kremlin digs in its heels in opposition to a UN Security Council resolution (AP) that offers phased-in independence for the Serbian province. “Domestically [Putin] cannot make a concession on Kosovo for fear of appearing weak and inconsistent,” (RussiaProfile.org) writes analyst Vladimir Frolov.
With all this in mind, some experts say the Kennebunkport summit is meant primarily to cement the outgoing presidents’ legacies. “I really don’t think that either of them want, as part of their legacy, a trashed U.S.-Russian relationship,” (PDF) Andrew C. Kuchins of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told reporters.
If this is the goal, an ongoing series of sharp comments by the Russian president won’t help. Putin recently took swipes at the United States for dropping atomic bombs on Japanese civilian populations in World War II (an earlier speech in May appeared to liken the United States to the Third Reich). Meanwhile, Putin has downplayed the extent of Stalin’s purges and accused Western academics of hyping Soviet-era atrocities to distort Russian history (GulfNews.com). Yevgeny Kiselyov, a political analyst, writes in the Moscow Times that Putin sounded “like a caricature of the Soviet polemicists.” This new Backgrounder examines Russia’s uneasy attempts to come to grips with its Stalinist past and how they continue to shape relations with the West and its “near abroad.”
Some experts, like Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center, suggest that Russian foreign policy is “adrift” and “lacking in strategic priorities.” Others, including Joshua Kurlantzick, suggest an alternative world order, with China and Russia at center, may be in the offing. Similarly, Azar Gat of Tel Aviv University, writing in Foreign Affairs, warns of a rise in authoritarian capitalist regimes that would pose a challenge to the liberal democratic global order. Or as Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation writes in the Washington Times, “The current elites define Russian strategic goals in a de-facto alliance with the Muslim world, particularly Iran and Syria, as well as with China [and] anti-status quo players such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.”
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.