.jpg "Moscow and Washington back to “normal course”")
By Vestnik Kavkaza
The adoption of the "Magnitsky Act" in the U. S., the expulsion of American foundations which were the sponsors of the activities of some Russian NGOs from Russia, the ban on citizens of the United States from adopting Russian orphans, including those with disabilities, finally, the ban on imports of U.S. meat products - this is just the tip of the iceberg grown from the "frozen" Russian-American projects
According to press reports, at a recent meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden, the U.S. side suggested the Russians to try to return to the "normal course" of relations, which sharply deteriorated in 2012. Moscow will probably sign a new treaty on non-proliferation of mass destruction armament, which would replace the program of Nunn-Lugar. It is very acute because Russian experts can’t see major reasons for Russian-American disputes.
Pavel Zolotarev, deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada
The Cold War ended, the ideological confrontation ended, and the confrontation between the cultures, let's say, the mentalities of both countries started. And these are the contradictions that now show up - these are contradictions of completely different quality. The problem with the Americans is that we do not have a solid foundation for economic cooperation, that we want to have and that they have with China. The only area where we have a very clear common interest is nuclear weapons, and the more we reduce them, the more we destroy the foundation that we have. We return to the problem of non-proliferation, but not the reduction of nuclear weapons, because, really, the problem of nuclear disarmament is not the key to our countries, because we have no need to rely on nuclear weapons. But we are forced to deal with nuclear arms reduction with the need to address non-proliferation objectives, because we are moving, albeit slowly, but still moving in the direction of reducing nuclear weapons, we respect the non-proliferation treaty, and we are entitled to impose our requirements on other states. And the problem is really very important, because the real threat of nuclear weapons exists…
As for the Nunn-Lugar program, at a time when the United States itself is trying to cut its budget, and we can somehow find financial means, perhaps, it would be logical to say that we can solve these problems. But on the other hand, the Nunn-Lugar program to date has other aspects. It's a certain degree of transparency in matters related to nuclear weapons, to the storage of nuclear weapons, to nuclear safety. And there was a certain asymmetry.
Rose Gottemoeller has long been suggesting that the U.S. should provide something, some kind of agreement so that our experts come, if not inspect, though there is nothing to inspect, but at least learn and be symmetrically informed on such issues on the U.S. side... I think we can rather expect that we will talk in the first place on the issue of missile defense, and only later - on the issue of further reductions of nuclear weapons.
Anton Khlopkov, director of the Center for Energy and Security
We need to remember that the main challenges in the field of non-proliferation remain the same as they were 5-7 years ago. These are the same regional issues, problems of securing nuclear materials, in other words, preventing unauthorized access to nuclear materials and technology. In general, the problems have not changed. Do the U.S. and Russia have the same interests in the region? Certainly. Another question is that often, such as in the case of Iran, we have a different vision of the mechanisms and tools that can be used to achieve the main goal - namely, preventing the emergence of new countries with nuclear weapons.
With regard to Russian-American cooperation in the nuclear field, non-proliferation, in my opinion, Russia has no intention of stopping cooperation. In Russia, there is an obvious message to replace the legal basis, the format of interaction on this subject, because, whether we like it or not, the basic legal framework, the formats of interaction on many issues, non-proliferation and nuclear security, were laid in the early 1990s and asymmetrically. This should be removed. In addition, Russia is different in terms of financial capacity. Therefore, returning to the Nunn-Lugar program, I do not see the drama, which is described today in the Russian and in the first place - the Western media about the ability not to prolong this agreement, because it must be recognized in Russia, including in Moscow, that the first agreement played an extremely important role in addressing the challenges of non-proliferation put before the Russian Federation, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And assistance was given to Russia, and it was extremely useful.
However, without an economic foundation the relationship can hardly be seen in the long term as stable. And one of the areas that have recently gained, in my opinion, a good momentum has prospects for further development - this is civil nuclear power. In January 2011, the intergovernmental agreement on Russian-American cooperation in the field of nuclear energy entered into force. This agreement could be a framework for a range of areas of cooperation on nuclear issues, including nuclear safety.
If we talk about the nuclear area in general, civil nuclear energy, there are a number of other areas, primarily related to research work, where I think there is mutual interest to cooperate on a commercial basis, as Russian plans in the field of civil nuclear energy are rather ambitious. The Americans are the leaders in the number of operating nuclear power plants, and there are a number of common issues that remain unresolved, which lie in the technological plane, such as what to do with waste and irradiated nuclear fuel. This is also a problem of funding, but primarily it is a matter of technology. Technology does not exist, and joint efforts in this field, of course, could benefit both parties.
