Yesterday, on the day of the 82nd anniversary of diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA, the Wall Street Journal suggested the idea of forming a coalition between the USA, Russia and France in the struggle against international terrorism under management of either NATO or the UN or one of the interested parties. “To break the situation in the long-term prospect, it is necessary to eliminate the ISIS headquarters in Syria and Iraq. In the end, we need an army to defeat another army,” the American business newspaper believes.
However, is it possible to unite efforts in the struggle against a common enemy without a settlement of bilateral disputes?
Valery Garbuzov, Deputy Director of the Institute of USA and Canada Studies, recalls the 82-year-old history: “What tied us together? And what made the United States and Roosevelt suddenly establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union 16 years later? There's a whole series of factors, both internal and economic cooperation, and some economic ties, and interests. But the key factor was international. Hitler came to power, Japan's foreign policy activity was seen by Roosevelt as a major threat. And the United States required, if not allies, in any case, that the country's neighbors could be on the side of the United States in some difficult situations.”
Clearly, today it is another story. There is no great strategic interest in uniting the two sides. According to the expert, the fight against international terrorism has not become such a strategic interest: “It became clear after the attacks on the United States. Then, too, it was said, they were looking for a common interest. An anti-terrorist coalition was formed and Russia also participated in the coordination of efforts, but the fight against terrorism was more divisive than unifying.”
Valery Garbuzov believes that there is no constructive agenda between Russia and the USA: “The prospects for the creation and formation of such an agenda are very problematic. Above all there is a problem related to geopolitical influence, with US leadership and the foreign policy behavior of Russia, which is perceived by the US as a provocation, as a challenge to American leadership. Therefore, in general, by and large, an agenda is not being formed, and I think in the next few years is unlikely to be formed.”
