______________________________
US President Obama’s 7 August decision to cancel his meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin reflects the need for a pause in such summits. However, the words the American leader chose to use could provoke a tit-for-tat that’d make it hard for the two countries to cooperate, even on issues of mutual interest. You didn’t need a crystal ball to predict that Obama would cancel the summit in Moscow pencilled in for next month. My August 1 column argued that the two leaders simply lacked the deliverables that’d justify a two-day meeting, and that not even the signing of another strategic declaration on bilateral relations (similar to what Putin and George W Bush inked in Sochi in 2008) would save the putative 3-4 September summit from flopping. Therefore, I said, Obama and Putin should avoid “meetings for the sake of meetings” and instead instruct their negotiators to work on developing tangible deliverables.
Therefore, I wasn’t exactly astounded when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced on 7 August, “There isn’t enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a US-Russia Summit”. That said, I admit I was somewhat taken aback by how close my column came to predicting the American side’s arguments for cancellation, after reading the statements by Carney and by Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin J Rhodes, who said, “We weren’t going to have a summit for the sake of having a summit”. Neither was I surprised to read subsequent revelations by Russian diplomats in Kommersant, saying that they’d actually drafted five documents to be unveiled at the summit, including a comprehensive “statement on the development of bilateral cooperation”, which made me remember that grand declaration inked by Putin and Bush in Sochi.
However, what rather astonished and disappointed me were Obama’s own comments on his relations with Putin, delivered at a news conference as the Russian defence and foreign ministers departed for Andrews Air Force Base after meeting their American counterparts on 9 August. The first three questions Obama took during the press conference that day were on Russia and NSA leaker Edward Snowden, to whom Russia granted temporary asylum. Obama’s initial remarks were reserved and shrewd, as he said, “It’s probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that Russia’s going, what our core interests are, and calibrate the relationship so that we’re doing things that are good for the USA, and, hopefully, good for Russia as well”. Obama also noted that he and Medvedev “made a lot of progress” during Medvedev’s presidency and that he later “encouraged Mr Putin to think forward, as opposed to backwards, on those issues… with mixed success”.
However, rather than stop after delivering what was undoubtedly an anti-Putin diatribe, albeit one couched in diplomatic terms, Obama went further… offering his assessment of Putin, not just as a state leader, but as a person, saying, “He’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom”. My immediate reaction to Obama’s newly-unveiled view of Putin “the man” was, “Now it’s personal”. My second thought was that Putin almost never misses a chance to reciprocate, especially if offended. After all, this was a man who in 2000 reportedly quipped, “Whoever offends us won’t last three days”. Yet, there’s still a chance that Putin won’t take it personally, or, at least, will refrain from returning fire. After all, three days have passed since Obama’s 9 August remarks, and Putin has… so far… managed to hold his tongue.
Putin’s silence makes me hopeful that the Kremlin would prefer to avoid a confrontation. I also took heart from the conciliatory tone that Russia’s foreign and defence chiefs struck after meeting their American counterparts last week, asserting that the current chill in the bilateral relationship won’t lead to even a mini-Cold War. I hope that both leaders realise that a vicious circle of rhetorical tit-for-tat would harm both sides. Obama may be genuinely disappointed that the reset, which he made a central pillar of his foreign policy, fizzled out after Putin’s return to the Kremlin. Although any Russia-watcher worth his salt would say that, without painful compromises from both sides, the reset was destined to stall after Obama and Medvedev picked all the low-hanging fruit.
However, leaders’ personal grievances shouldn’t antagonise the relationship between the two countries, which need each other’s assistance to advance their vital interests in such spheres as counter-terrorism and preventing failed states. Such cooperation falls short of the deep strategic partnership proponents of US-Russian rapprochement so hoped for. Selective partnership on particular issues is better than the comprehensive confrontation that hawks on each side hope for, especially given the two countries’ spoiler potential vis-à-vis each other. As the Russian saying goes, “Better a bad peace than a good quarrel”.
14 August 2013
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/columnists/20130814/182767054/View-From-the-Global-Tank-Obama-Putin-Now-Its-Personal.html
Voices from Russia 
Obama-Putin: Now It’s Personal?
Tags: Barack Obama, diplomacy, diplomatic relations, George W. Bush, Jay Carney, Obama, political commentary, politics, Putin, Russia, Russian, Russian diplomacy, United States, USA, Vladimir Putin
______________________________
US President Obama’s 7 August decision to cancel his meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin reflects the need for a pause in such summits. However, the words the American leader chose to use could provoke a tit-for-tat that’d make it hard for the two countries to cooperate, even on issues of mutual interest. You didn’t need a crystal ball to predict that Obama would cancel the summit in Moscow pencilled in for next month. My August 1 column argued that the two leaders simply lacked the deliverables that’d justify a two-day meeting, and that not even the signing of another strategic declaration on bilateral relations (similar to what Putin and George W Bush inked in Sochi in 2008) would save the putative 3-4 September summit from flopping. Therefore, I said, Obama and Putin should avoid “meetings for the sake of meetings” and instead instruct their negotiators to work on developing tangible deliverables.
Therefore, I wasn’t exactly astounded when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced on 7 August, “There isn’t enough recent progress in our bilateral agenda with Russia to hold a US-Russia Summit”. That said, I admit I was somewhat taken aback by how close my column came to predicting the American side’s arguments for cancellation, after reading the statements by Carney and by Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser Benjamin J Rhodes, who said, “We weren’t going to have a summit for the sake of having a summit”. Neither was I surprised to read subsequent revelations by Russian diplomats in Kommersant, saying that they’d actually drafted five documents to be unveiled at the summit, including a comprehensive “statement on the development of bilateral cooperation”, which made me remember that grand declaration inked by Putin and Bush in Sochi.
However, what rather astonished and disappointed me were Obama’s own comments on his relations with Putin, delivered at a news conference as the Russian defence and foreign ministers departed for Andrews Air Force Base after meeting their American counterparts on 9 August. The first three questions Obama took during the press conference that day were on Russia and NSA leaker Edward Snowden, to whom Russia granted temporary asylum. Obama’s initial remarks were reserved and shrewd, as he said, “It’s probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that Russia’s going, what our core interests are, and calibrate the relationship so that we’re doing things that are good for the USA, and, hopefully, good for Russia as well”. Obama also noted that he and Medvedev “made a lot of progress” during Medvedev’s presidency and that he later “encouraged Mr Putin to think forward, as opposed to backwards, on those issues… with mixed success”.
However, rather than stop after delivering what was undoubtedly an anti-Putin diatribe, albeit one couched in diplomatic terms, Obama went further… offering his assessment of Putin, not just as a state leader, but as a person, saying, “He’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom”. My immediate reaction to Obama’s newly-unveiled view of Putin “the man” was, “Now it’s personal”. My second thought was that Putin almost never misses a chance to reciprocate, especially if offended. After all, this was a man who in 2000 reportedly quipped, “Whoever offends us won’t last three days”. Yet, there’s still a chance that Putin won’t take it personally, or, at least, will refrain from returning fire. After all, three days have passed since Obama’s 9 August remarks, and Putin has… so far… managed to hold his tongue.
Putin’s silence makes me hopeful that the Kremlin would prefer to avoid a confrontation. I also took heart from the conciliatory tone that Russia’s foreign and defence chiefs struck after meeting their American counterparts last week, asserting that the current chill in the bilateral relationship won’t lead to even a mini-Cold War. I hope that both leaders realise that a vicious circle of rhetorical tit-for-tat would harm both sides. Obama may be genuinely disappointed that the reset, which he made a central pillar of his foreign policy, fizzled out after Putin’s return to the Kremlin. Although any Russia-watcher worth his salt would say that, without painful compromises from both sides, the reset was destined to stall after Obama and Medvedev picked all the low-hanging fruit.
However, leaders’ personal grievances shouldn’t antagonise the relationship between the two countries, which need each other’s assistance to advance their vital interests in such spheres as counter-terrorism and preventing failed states. Such cooperation falls short of the deep strategic partnership proponents of US-Russian rapprochement so hoped for. Selective partnership on particular issues is better than the comprehensive confrontation that hawks on each side hope for, especially given the two countries’ spoiler potential vis-à-vis each other. As the Russian saying goes, “Better a bad peace than a good quarrel”.
14 August 2013
Simon Saradzhyan
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/columnists/20130814/182767054/View-From-the-Global-Tank-Obama-Putin-Now-Its-Personal.html