Marin Forum

Earlier this week Russian President Medvedev gave a speech that many interpreted as a rebuke of the Putin the years. Medvedev stressed the need for economic reform, a pragmatic foreign policy, and the importance of tackling corruption. He specifically stated that the effectiveness of Russian foreign policy “should be judged by a single criterion: Does it contribute to improving living standards in our country?” This is in sharp contrast to Putin’s post-2004 foreign policy that has sought to reassert Russian authority through various blusters. But was this actually an attack on the man who is essentially President Medvedev’s patron?

It is no secret that Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin do not get along. In fact they are rarely seen together in public. The Financial Times likes to point out every assertive statement made by Medevdev while the US press has been far more reserved in suggesting that Medvedev is able to act independently of Mr. Putin.

It just seems improbable that Medvedev would so openly challenge is “patron.” Putin brought Medvedev into government from the private sector. Then in 2005 Putin appointed Medvedev to the post of First Deputy Prime Minister. From there he was chosen to succeed Putin for the presidency. Putin would not have named a successor that couldn’t count on to be a “yes man.” Medvedev may be the face of the Russian state, but Putin is the one with all the power. Furthermore, challenging Putin’s power would seem to be ludicrous since Putin has firmly established the loyalty of the Russian political and economic elite (often by “appointing” former KGB buddies to the major industrial corporations).

Under this this reasoning Medvedev and Putin are playing a good cop-bad cop act. When the Russian state needs to take a softer and more conciliatory stance Mr. Medvedev is on the forefront, and when a tough approach is necessary Mr. Putin is not far away. A much more mild US example would be the Eisenhower-Nixon administration.

But could a split be genuine? Medvedev seemed to have taken a much too independent stance on WTO accession before Putin pulled Russia’s membership bid (humiliating Medvedev in the process). A few months ago Medvedev announced that he would consider running for the presidency again in 2012 stressing that he had his own popularity. Then on Thursday he gave a 140 minute “state of the nation” speech that seeks a new trajectory for Russia. And so the United States and Europe are perplexed.

Yet it was only slightly over twenty years ago that another Russian politician sought a bold trajectory. At first Western leaders were unsure what to make of the loyal Communist Gorbachev. Quickly, Gorbachev made good on his word. Could the loyal Putinist (perhaps formerly) be heading in the same direction?

Actions need to speak for these words before any pronouncement can be made, but US policy towards Russia needs to recognize this possibility. The US would much rather see Mr. Medvedev in office come 2012 than Mr. Putin. For starters the Obama administration needs to make efforts to engage with Medvedev. President Reagan helped end the Cold War when he reached out to Gorbachev. In response, Gorbachev found legitimacy in the international community. Western enthusiasm and support proved critical to Gorbachev. Likewise, Medvedev may not have the support of parts of the Russian oligarchy, international support may provide the necessary legitimacy to keep him afloat.

How does Obama reach out to Medvedev? On this issue Obama should take a lesson from Reagan. In fact Obama is already in the process of doing so through nuclear non-proliferation. Reagan’s strong commitment to preventing nuclear war by reducing nuclear armaments greatly impressed Gorbachev. Through arms limitation talks the two leaders were able to develop a rapport that was extremely influential in bringing about the end of the Cold War. Like Reagan, Obama is committed to a nuclear free world. The centerpiece of restarting relations with Russia has been a new nuclear weapons treaty. The administration certainly hopes that Obama and Medvedev can establish a rapport through nuclear disamament talks.  Furthermore, if Medvedev is truly a moderate liberal pragmatic then there should be elements of Obama’s world vision based on international law and cooperation that appeal to him. If the two trained lawyers can develop a relationship then Mr. Medvedev may find the international legitimacy to sustain a more independent course of action.

There is still reason to engage with Mr. Medvedev even if he does turn out to be completely loyal to Putin. Medvedev and Putin represent two faces of Russian foreign policy. If concrete results can be achieved through the Medvedev approach (cooperation) then Putin and the Russian state will turn towards that path. The hardline approach in Russian policy in part has been a reaction to the unilateral policies of the Bush years. Cooperation and openness with the Russian state in turn encourages the Russian state to cooperate with the international community.

Regardless if there is a split between the two Russian leaders or not, US policy toward Russia needs to focus on engagement and cooperation. The key is trust. Mr. Putin embodies the sense of distrust many Russians feel toward the United States and Western Europe. Likewise, Mr. Medvedev needs to know that he can trust the international community. The international community in turn needs to give him the opportunities and space to operate independently. This means no interference in Russian internal affairs or overt support for any candidate. Medvedev is not going to act independently if the international community just throws him under bus.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS