MSU Law Home

MSU Law Faculty in the News

Is Obama Wading Into Russian Politics?
Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel
July 10th edition
Contributor: Professor Bruce Bean

Just before he left for his visit to Moscow last week, U.S. President Barack Obama stirred controversy in the Russian press by describing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin as a man with one foot in the past. For many that seemed to be statement of America's preference for dealing with President Medvedev. For others, it was an unforgivable intrusion into Russia's internal politics. Was if plain-talking, or a political gaffe? Is Obama following in the footsteps of the George Bush Senior and Clinton administrations with their personalized bets on Gorbachev and Yeltsin as Russian leaders America was rooting for? Is he about to commit the cardinal sin of U.S. Russia policy by picking sides in Russia's internal debate? How effective could such a policy be? Is it correct to read Russian internal politics as a struggle between Medvedev's team of modernizers and Putin's team of Cold War warriors?

U.S. President Barack Obama on the eve of his visit to Moscow this week sent unsubtle signals to Russian society that the United States is prepared to weigh in on the Russian internal debate on democracy and political governance and is picking sides in favor of Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev and his team of modernizers.

In a free-wheeling interview with the Associated Press, Obama made wide ranging and politically charged comments about his planned meetings with president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin which elicited an immediate and angry response from Vladimir Putin.

Obama clearly signaled that Washington is betting on Medvedev and wants him and his team to succeed in making Russia into a more open, democratic state that is more cooperative with the West. Obama spoke highly of Medvedev, describing him as "thoughtful and progressive," and someone who "successfully leads Russia into the twenty-first century."

There are signs that Obama was very favorably impressed by Medvedev during their first face-to-face meeting in London last April, and has been telling his advisors to engage Medvedev more actively as a modern Russian leader the United States can do business with. For example, Obama told his aides to explore in a serious way Medvedev's call for a new security architecture in Europe.

On Putin, Obama minced few words to show that his administration regards the Russian prime minister as a "man of the past", a Cold War warrior who is holding Russia back.

"Putin is obviously a very strong leader of the Russian people. Putin wields enormous influence," Obama said in the AP interview last Thursday.

On Tuesday, Obama had a 90-minute working breakfast with Putin to "send a clear message to Putin and to the Russian people that the United States does not want antagonism, and is seeking ways to cooperate with Russia on non-proliferation, fighting terrorism and energy security."

Obama made it quite clear that the United States views progress in relations with Russia as primarily dependent on his relationship with Medvedev while he wants Putin not to interfere. "As we make progress with president Medvedev," Obama said in the AP interview, "it is important that Prime Minister Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to relations with the United States are outdated and it is time to try a new approach." "I think Medvedev understands that, while Putin still has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new," Obama added.

To rub this point in, Obama will spend a lot of informal time with Medvedev in Moscow, including a private dinner at his house, and joint appearances at the meetings with business and civil society leaders. He will also give an exclusive interview to Novaya Gazeta, a news outlet that earlier published Medvedev's first interview to a Russian newspaper.

Is Obama following in the footsteps of the George Bush Senior and Clinton administrations with their personalized bets on Gorbachev and Yeltsin as Russian leaders America was rooting for? Is he about to commit the cardinal sin of U.S. Russia policy by picking sides in Russia's internal debate? How effective could such a policy be? Is it correct to read Russian internal politics as a struggle between Medvedev's team of modernizers and Putin's team of Cold War warriors? Or is it a major blunder by Obama's advisors, particularly that of Michael McFaul, who misread the Russian internal dynamics? Will this approach work to strengthen Medvedev vis-à-vis Putin, as obviously intended, or will it weaken Medvedev by prompting Putin to undermine the president's authority in a bid to deny Washington a channel for influence in Russia? Will this approach yield positive results in U.S.-Russian relations? Was it worth it for Obama to wade into Russia's internal matters?

Sergei Roy, Editor, guardian-psj.ru, Moscow:

A collector of howlers from schoolchildren's essays once found this priceless gem, about a certain literary hero: "He stood with one foot in the past while with the other he greeted the future."

President Obama's latest diplomatic gaffe about premier Putin having "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new" is clearly in the same class, except that (a) it is not even remotely funny and (b) it is a graphic example of Barack Obama himself standing with both feet in the old American way of doing things - crass, crude, and insolent.

I honestly tried to recall a recent instance of a country's president making this kind of very public, personal remark about another country's senior dignitary; the only example I could think of was Hugo Chavez's memorable references to George W. Bush at the UN General Assembly.

Chavez, however, was not going on a visit to America to improve bilateral relations. Barack Obama was talking on the eve of an official visit to Russia with the ostensible mission of "resetting" U.S.-Russian relations. He would naturally be expected to try to get off on the right foot. Instead, he put his foot right in it.

If Obama wished to sour his relations with Putin - Russia's premier politician, not just the premier - he succeeded marvelously, as is clear from Putin's angry retort, in pretty folksy language, to Obama's criticism. If he thought to improve on his already fine relationship with Medvedev, he has another think coming.

Dmitry Medvedev is hardly likely ever to forget what Obama said about the election that brought Medvedev to his present position: "Medvedev won easily in part because a very popular Putin selected him..." And then again: "the entire state apparatus was mobilized to produce votes for Putin's candidate."

Barack Obama would do well to remember his own words about whose candidate Medvedev was. He would do even better to grasp the simple truth about the power structure in Russia: both Putin and Medvedev are members of the same team in which the title of national leader, however vague the term, fits only one person, and this nation knows perfectly well who that person is. Any attempt to drive a wedge between the two leaders will be taken for what it is, blatant interference in a sovereign country's affairs, and Dmitry Medvedev as that country's highest executive must be the first to resent it.

Obama and his McFaul-type advisors may theorize all they want about backing modernizer Medvedev vs. stick-in-the-mud Putin. That's something for the commentariat to wag their tongues about, in the media and in classrooms. Just wait till the real issues - like U.S. missile defense, NATO expansion with special reference to Georgia and Ukraine, U.S. backing of the aggressor Saakashvili, Russia's right to do business with Iran and whoever else it wishes, Russia protecting its interests over gas supplies to Europe, future world currency, Russia's so-called human rights record, and a host of others - rear their ugly heads. Try then to apply the split-Russian-leadership theories to that leadership's stance on these issues; try and find the split so devoutly wished for - if you don't mind looking foolish, that is.

In an earlier article, titled "A Bad Case of Humbagama," I quoted a passage from a 1904 novel by John Galsworthy: "Why should we, a small portion of the world's population, assume that our standards are the proper ones for every kind of race? If it's not humbug, it's sheer stupidity."

Well, when a person in high office sets himself up as a judge on who is a progressive modernizer and who a man of the past in so delicate an area as international relations, and brashly pronounces his judgment urbi et orbi, the diagnosis is even starker: the subject is obviously shifting from humbug via stupidity to aggressiveness.

In this context, "resetting" figures as some PR consultant's brightest idea ever - doomed, alas, to remain just an idea.

Professor Bruce W. Bean, Lecturer in Global Corporate Law, Co-Director, LL M Program, Michigan State University College of Law, Past Chairman - ABA Russian-Eurasian Law Committee:

To the question "Is Obama meddling in Russia's internal politics?" my response is "No, not a chance. To think this is even possible is to severely underestimate the man."

Candidate Obama campaigned for more than a year with two slogans: "Change" and "Hope." To bolster his lack of any record in foreign affairs, Obama selected Senator Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential running mate. Of all the things which might be said about Biden, he did have decades of foreign affairs experience. Given the Obama-Biden victory, that move may have helped. The issue with Biden (aside from his well-documented foibles, which are hardly germane to the question presented) is that he is not of the new Obama generation. Biden is a former Cold Warrior. Part of his experience involved dealing with the likes of General Secretary Brezhnev at the height of the Cold War. With this background, if Biden were guiding U.S. foreign policy toward Russia, there might be precious little hope for change in U.S. policy toward Russia. But Biden is not Obama's Cheney, who reportedly had major policy responsibility for foreign affairs in the previous administration, particularly after the 9/11 attacks.

Obama has noted that his generation was too young to have been a part of our terribly divisive Vietnam era policy debate. A good portion of the policy advisers in his administration are of this post-Vietnam generation.

For president Obama, the economy, health care reform, Iraq, Guantanamo, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan must have a higher priority than relations with Russia. Yet, as his speeches have shown, he has not missed the abysmal state of current Russian-American relations. Given the tradition of painstakingly slow, deliberate steps which for centuries has marked the world of international diplomacy, Obama has wasted no time in making a major trip to Russia.

There is, therefore, real reason to hope for favorable changes in U.S.-Russian relations. From Russia's vantage point, however, the problems are monumental. In light of promises Russia believes were made and assurances it thought had been given, for the past 20 years the United States has only been hostile to the new Russia. Russia's issues include these and more:

No helpful aid was provided to facilitate Russia's transition from a command economy to a market based economy.

The "aid" given was "advice," which led directly to (i) the rise of the so-called "oligarchs" who gained controlled of the greater part of Russia's natural resources and (ii) the disastrous August 1998 financial crisis when Russia defaulted on its domestic debt and local banks failed, leaving depositors empty handed.

NATO, created to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe, has not been disbanded. Even worse, NATO has advanced the very borders of Russia. And currently NATO threatens to bring Ukraine and Georgia into its avowedly military alliance.

The United States has supported the "color" revolutions in several former Soviet Republics.

Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for Russian anti-Kremlin NGOs under the guise of "support for democracy."

But Obama has recognized the need for a new approach to Russia. He understands Russia's need for respect. He will reject all backward-looking advice, from Joe Biden, the National Security Council, the State Department, the CIA, or elsewhere, which would disrespect Russia. Any suggestion that Obama is insensitive enough to inject himself into Russian politics is a complete non-starter.

While there are many who believe the media has largely fawned over Obama, no one has ever accused me of being an Obama "fan." But having spent the past 14 years (eight of them in Moscow) following U.S.-Russian affairs on a daily basis, it is simply not possible to conclude that Obama would become involved in Russian domestic affairs. America's relations Russia have been "reset" by Barack Obama.

Eugene Kolesnikov, Private Consultant, the Netherlands:

Barack Obama's meeting with Putin confirms the fact that Russia is ruled by the Medvedev-Putin tandem. This meeting would not have happened if either side had a different understanding. Existence of the tandem has now been formalized on the highest possible international level.

Obama's remark on Putin's Cold War footing that was set against the praise of Dmitry Medvedev clearly shows that America is not happy about such an arrangement. This is by no means a surprise. It is fully in line with the U.S. desire to have a subordinate Russia, which American leadership understands is not possible while Putin is in power. For the United States the opportunity to sway Russia in the 'right' direction resides with president Medvedev, or so its leaders seem to believe.

Obama's public statement was apparently an attempt to drive a wedge between the two leaders and play on the ambitions of Medvedev and his entourage. In my view it was an ill-advised strategy. Russian public will interpret this attempt as a blatant interference into internal Russian affairs, yet again demonstrating arrogant and imperial nature of American politics. Such obvious interference is an affront to Russia who sees itself in the great power league. Obama's remark has certainly irked Putin and publicly humiliated Medvedev. Whether these psychological effects are going to precipitate a divorce between the two Russian leaders is very much doubtful.

I think that Obama's move was a blunder that the inexperienced American president was nudged into by his Russia advisors. What matters, however, is not the awkward American interference - there have been many attempts before - but the real stability of the tandem that is dependent on Russia's internal politics and not on the wishful thinking of presidential advisors or even the American president himself. The summit moved on the U.S.-Russian cooperation just a bit and Obama will have to deal with the tandem to move it further, whether he likes it or not.

Ethan S. Burger, Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C:

Russian politics do not operate in a vacuum, and international developments have a real impact on the Russian state and people. It is important to the United States that Russia is led by enlightened leaders. Thus, president Obama's recent remarks about prime minister Putin should not be seen as part of a sinister "plot" to undermine Russian sovereignty. Obama is merely being candid and pragmatic as he articulates what should be obvious to all who follow international relations. His willingness to meet with Putin demonstrates his realism.

The situation is analogous to the situation with Iran. After some initial hesitation, president Obama is now telling the Iranian people that it is unacceptable for governments to ignore the wishes of the Iranian electorate and use force to suppress domestic opposition. There can be little doubt that if the results of a fraudulent election are allowed to stand and the rule of law fails to take hold, then Iran's status as a repressive, pariah country will continue to worsen - which apparently a majority of the Iranian people oppose.

The Obama administration, unlike that of its predecessor, knows that favoring one faction over another in foreign elections can be counterproductive. Instead, Obama expresses principles the American people and much of the world community support: that governments should have the consent of the governed and that the use of violence and the manipulation of the media are not acceptable means of holding on to power.

I doubt that Obama would choose Mir-Hossein Mousavi as "his" candidate to lead Iran, but of the candidates allowed by the Iranian political system to seek the presidency, he is the one whose supporters have goals that would make possible better U.S.-Iranian relations. A Mousavi government would likely modernize Iran, be more tolerant of dissent, and less likely to pursue a foreign policy at odds with U.S. goals.

The Russian ruling elite and its principal supporters need to understand that unless the country takes a new direction in both foreign and domestic policy, the areas for bilateral U.S.-Russian cooperation will remain limited. So long as the Russian government remains unaccountable to the population -- it can work with the United States only when it is clear that the two states have common goals (e.g. strategic arms control). Without shared values, there is no possibility of genuine state-to-state friendship.

The U.S. foreign policy community has dealt with Putin for many years. As Michael McFaul and Hillary Clinton understand, the United States cannot be viewed as selling out Poland or the Czech Republic to Russian pressure. The United States needs to stand by its "friends" and cannot abandon policies that have domestic support. I can't help but thinking that Russia raises the European limited anti-missile defensive shield as a meaningless bargaining chip with which to obtain concessions it does not deserve.

Obama is demonstrating to both the Russian elite and the population as a whole that he nurtures the hope that President Dmitry Medvedev's understanding of the world and the nature of the role of a government with the people in whose name it purports to rule are more consistent with U.S. beliefs than those held by Putin.

President Medvedev may not be the individual whom the United States would want to be exercising power if it had the power to determine who should occupy the Kremlin. Nonetheless, under the circumstances he seems to be a person with whom the U.S. can do business. If president Obama did not make this clear, he would not be doing his job effectively.

Countries that are genuine friends can articulate their disagreements. There has not been any apparent long-term damage to U.S. relations with France or Germany because they rejected George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I doubt that the economic or human contacts the United States had with either country suffered as a result of the policy divergence over Iraq. The French and German governments need not fear the consequences of not following the U.S. lead with Iraq, since in most respects all three countries share common values and on the litmus test of Afghanistan and al Qaeda, Washington received the backing of Paris and Berlin. While the three countries' Iranian policies are not identical, there is a shared concern about Iran developing nuclear weapons and repugnance at the Iranian leadership's choice to use repression to hold onto power.

There is a reasonable possibility that president Medvedev can implement the policies he articulates in light of the ramifications of Russia's economic crisis. Mr. Putin has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept dissent or place the interest of ordinary Russians ahead of the Russian political elite.

The book on Medvedev remains to be written by him. So far, he has either been following the script written by others, or is not [yet] strong enough to challenge those who have exercised power in Moscow in since 2004.

Vladimir Belaeff, President, Global Society Institute, Inc. (USA), San Francisco, CA:

It has been observed that for over a decade now American leadership, pundits and media in general have been constantly admonishing Russia and the Russians about their politics and society with levels of intensity and impertinence that would be unthinkable regarding other countries (like China, for example.)

In an earlier note, I expressed a fear that faux pas would be committed in relation with president Obama's visit to Russia. One of these faux pas was committed even before Air Force One took off from Andrews Air Force Base. I refer to the AP interview mentioned in the Introduction to this week's panel. It is notable that in later versions of the interview the offensive remarks were excised - thus proving that the faux pas was recognized as such. There was a second faux pas by the American team, whilst in Russia, but finding it shall be "left as an exercise for the student."

The insistent contrasting of Medvedev and Putin is seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to drive a wedge between the ranks of Russian leadership. There are no visible facts that support these allegations of disunity, and in the rare cases where a basis for the rumors is even provided, this "foundation" is reduced to vague references to unnamed sources "close to the Kremlin" (an idle passer-by near the Troitsky Gate would meet the latter criterion.)

On the contrary, we have convincing evidence that the president and the prime minister of Russia are of one mind, and the presumed differences are style, but not policy nor direction. The explanation for this is not complex. Russia's policy is driven primarily by real circumstances and a generally shared commitment to national interests. As a corollary, it really does not matter even who is "in charge" - as long as decisions are based on realities and not on pure ideology, they will be remarkably independent of the deciding agent (in an unforgettable coinage "the decider.") The uniform responses of diverse national governments to the current economic crisis are a good illustration of this axiom.

Americans who have limited contact with foreign societies are sheltered from the dismal reputation American policy makers and leading media have in many important regions of the world, due to their long-standing and well-documented penchant to lecture, admonish and attempt to influence processes about which they have very fragmentary and often inaccurate information. This is particularly evident in Russia. Modern Russian society has unlimited access to American media and is very well informed about derogatory statements on Russia and Russians. A profound, paradigmatic change must occur to commence the rebuilding of American political prestige in Russia.

In this light, it would be advisable for the new American administration, from president Obama down through the entire policy apparatus, to eschew intrusion into Russian politics not only in words but also in deeds. Russian leadership has not insinuated itself into American political controversies; they have even been reticent even about the egregious misdeeds of notorious American financial criminals. Reciprocity is in order. Business and legal governance has long practiced the rules of recusal and "firewalls" - president Obama and his team should apply such practices, which they know so well, to interactions about Russia's internal matters.

Now that the visit of the U.S. president to Russia has ended on a note of general, though cautious, optimism and there is a real opportunity for a rebuilding of a failed relationship, one would hope that greater care for fairness and propriety will be exercised by the many sectors of America who are interested in Russia.

Professor Stephen Blank, the U.S. Army War College, Carlyle Barracks, PA:

I don't think that Obama is following past tradition in personalizing foreign policy, although I could be wrong. Despite the fact that I and others have repeatedly criticized this process, it is very difficult not to do so, given the intractable nature of Russian politics. But these remarks, which continued throughout the summit, show that Obama will not be pushed around by Putin. A lot of Russian media commentary suggested that Obama was weak, that Moscow thought he could be pushed and so forth. Understandably he retorted in ways that exploit the Achilles heel of the tandem, pointing out that Medvedev is a more congenial person with whom to do business and, what's more, he is the president. Furthermore such a course of action is entirely appropriate. Moscow has no compunction about intervening in U.S. politics as its large PR and influence campaign in Washington shows. It certainly should not be off limits for Washington to show that it too can play this game and use it against Moscow. The rifts between the Medvedev and Putin entourages are clear to all observers and can and should be exploited. While it is too early to tell this does offer a possibility of strengthening Medvedev against the siloviki, especially as they have no answer to the galloping and worsening economic crisis. The tough line went nowhere in the summit as the siloviki achieved nothing in missile defense and are already complaining that the agreement on nuclear arms does not cut enough U.S. weapons. Moreover they demanded 1700 offensive weapons before the summit and had to settle for less. This is not a resounding success for them. So on balance I think this interference was both necessary and desirable.