American -Russian relations since the end of the Cold War

Introduction

The ending of the Cold War put the dynamics and alignments associated with the

geopolitics of major powers into a flux. The reasoning is that realists, policy intellectuals,

internationalists, as well as other theorists have seen the changes that the post-Cold War period

has brought. The U.S-Russian relations have improved significantly since the ending of the

famous Cold War. However, substantial uncertainties remain regarding the stand that each

country takes when considering the other. For example, no one could tell whether the United

States regarded Russia as a great-power rival, a friend, or even as an adversary during the

immediate years that followed the end of the Cold War. Presently, it is worth noting that the

strained relations between the two countries point to a situation where each country regards the

other as an adversary. For these reasons, our paper aims at studying the American-Russian

relations since the end of the Cold War.

Contemporary Events

Since the 1991 collapse of the prestigious USSR, the relations between Russia and the

United States can only be said to follow a cyclical pattern. The start of a new presidency in the

Russian Republic, or conversely in the United States of America comes alongside high

expectations regarding strong relations between the countries. However, it is worth highlighting

that these expectations vanish before the end of the presidential tenures in each of the two

countries. In particular, we all know that the relations between the two often deteriorate to a

point of insolvency by the end of the respective presidential terms. The above trend has been

followed by all presidents who have risen to power in both countries in the post-Cold War era.
For instance the Clinton and Yeltsin era started on nearly perfect positive footing. Bill Clinton

was actively advancing the trajectory of relations after declaring that the country would form an

alliance with the Russian reforms.

However, the above coalition ended in the year 1999 after NATO intervened in the

Yugoslavian crisis. NATO was headed by the United States despite lacking authorization from

the United Nations Security Council. As a result, Russia took issue with this mishap. At the turn

of the Millennium, things took a turn for the best when George Bush and Vladimir Putin

assumed office in their respective countries. For example, most people may remember how the

two leaders united their efforts during the Ljubljana Summit meeting held in 2001 as well as

after the September 11 calamity where both engaged in counterterrorism efforts. Nonetheless, all

these efforts were later overshadowed by the worsening of relations after the United States

decided to invade Iraq in the year 2003. A similar case that worsened the relations between the

two countries involved 2008 Russian invasion of the republic of Georgia1. Tensions were high

from there onwards.

The year 2009 brought a change in presidencies in both Russia and the United States of

America. In particular, the presidential change in Russia had come in 2008. During that time,

most people termed the change using the phrase the fourth reset because it was the fourth time

that the countries were having new governments devoted to strengthening cooperation with each

other. In this instance, Dmitri Medvedev had just assumed control of the presidential office in

Russia while Barack Obama had won his first term in the White House. The first step to

inaugurate the fourth reset occurred in April of 2009 slightly before the two countries

1
Suslov, D. US-Russia relations in the early and late 1990s. Lecture, Faculty of World Economy and International
Affairs, Higher School of Economics, Moscow. 2015.
participated in the G-20 summit meeting of that year2. The above efforts are accredited with

creating a favorable atmosphere that could form the foundation for subsequent cooperation. The

two countries seemed to acknowledge the divergent views from each other concerning the

unsolved Georgian crisis.

The two countries also seemed to do the same when it came to the unresolved issue

regarding the development of missile defense systems in the European continent as shown by the

subsequent meeting that followed the 2009 G-20 meeting in Moscow3. The fourth reset

contrasted the third reset that had been initiated by the Russian president (Dmitri Putin) in his

relation with George Bush. On this occasion, the fourth reset was entire an American foreign

policy initiative initiated by the Barack Obama administration. It was part of President Obamas

new U.S global strategy that aimed at discontinuing the foreign policy overseen by George W.

Bush. The Obama administration argued that continuing following the foreign policy initiated by

the Bush administration would ultimately be harmful to the national security of the United

States. Remember that the tenure of George W. Bush was characterized by refusal to constrain

the operations of the U.S to the actions that were approved by multilateral institutions including

the United Nations.

The country was being run arrogantly as evidenced by the fact that the U.S was only

concerned with protecting what was beneficial to them regardless of whatever adverse effects

that would befall all other countries concerned. The administration found it easy to defy the

interests and rights of other countries in multiple occasions. For instance, the 2003 invasion of

the republic of Iraq was termed as an infringement on the sovereignty of the people of Iraq.

2
Cooper, Helene. "Promises of Fresh Start for U.S.-Russia Relations." The New York Times 1 April 2009.
3
Stent, A. The limits of partnership. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2014. P. 220
Therefore, the Obama administration felt that the United States could only empower itself as

well as regain its leadership role in global affairs by switching to a humble operation mode

characterized by the consideration of the rights and interests of other countries in all foreign

issues. The Obama administration also felt that a better-quality U.S-Russian relationship would

be vital if the U.S was to succeed in fulfilling its foreign policy mandates such as stabilizing

Afghanistan or the promotion of nuclear non-proliferation.

Consequently, the fourth reset was based on the premises that improved U.S-Russian

relations would prevent Russia from spoiling the operations associated with vital American

interests. Comparatively, the Russians felt that the move undertaken by the Obama

administration was a necessary course of action aimed at correcting the failed foreign policy

spearheaded by George W. Bush for the previous two terms. The fourth reset struck the Russians

as a joint project that served the interests of both countries. Either way, the key point is that

Russia welcomed the policy change spearheaded by President Obama. Economists argue that the

Russians had spotted the necessity of cooperating with the U.S given that they were open to any

course of action that could alleviate their economy from the adverse effects of the global

financial crisis seen in 2008. Therefore, Russia was in a dire need for the injection of Western

capital so that the country could revolutionize and diversify the Russian economy. Diversifying

and modernizing the economy was arguably the primary objective of Medvedevs presidential

regime4.

The fourth reset is accredited with overseeing much progress as seen in the dialogue

between the two countries regarding the Iranian nuclear program, Afghanistan, as well as nuclear

4
Medvedev, D. Russia-U.S. Relations and Russias Vision for International Affairs. Speech, The Brookings Institution.
2010.
non-proliferation. Russian leaders have acknowledged the views of the Americans in the above

issues and the same case applies to the American leaders. Nonetheless, the return of Putin to the

Russian presidency in 2012 cut short the positive momentum that the U.S-Russian relations was

enjoying. The reasons for the deterioration of relations after the return of Vladimir Putin lies in

two critical difficulties. Firstly, there are numerous practical-oriented difficulties specifically in

the core spheres of cooperation. Secondly, the same types of discord between Russia and the

United States keep on resurfacing every year. Therefore, it is worth highlighting that the

contemporary events surrounding the U.S-Russian relations point to a lengthy discord that will

not seize to characterize the relationship soon.

Political and Military relations

More recently, the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty in the year 2010

may be viewed as the primary material success to emerge from the fourth reset. In particular, the

signing of the New START is viewed as a key progressive step because it served as a symbolic

value underlining the commitment of both countries to revive the U.S-Russia relationship. Be

informed that the New Start is highly praised given that Putin and Bush were unable to negotiate

a deal that could have replaced the START 1 treaty5. The Obama administration pledged to push

the world to operate at an ultimate zero nuclear level using its foreign policy initiatives 6. The

New START provided substantial security benefits for the United States given that both

countries agreed to reduce their strategic warheads to approximately 1,500. Meanwhile, it

5
Nation, R. "Reset or rerun? Sources of discord in RussianAmerican relations." Communist And Post-Communist
Studies 45.3/4 (2012): 379-387. P. 381

6
Wittner, Lawrence. "Are the U.S. and Russian Governments Once Again on the Nuclear Warpath?" The Huffington
Post 27 January 2015.
streamlined the verification procedure by incorporating greater transparency as a requirement for

the relationship to grow.

Meanwhile, Moscow benefited heavily because the New START allowed the

administration to free more economic resources to other developmental needs. The New START

also pushed Russia to the echelons of global superpowers by boosting its prestige at the

international level. The agreement on equal reduction of strategically deployed nuclear warheads

allowed Russia to equality when it came to power status with the United States. For once, Russia

could claim to be an equal to the United States in one of the most crucial fields since the end of

the Cold War. Resultantly, the interests of each country pushed the leaders to jointly ratify the

New START treaty as it entered into force in the year 2011. However, the return of Putin in 2012

meant that Russia began opposing the Obama-led discussions regarding further reductions of

nuclear warheads. Russia claimed that the current level of nuclear warheads was necessary to

counterbalance its shortcomings in conventional armies compared to those of the NATO bloc

parties7.

Experts argue that Russia also used the above explanation to avoid participating in further

negotiations regarding potential reductions of the tactical nuclear arms8. Currently, U.S-Russia

military and political relations are strained because of the U.S decision to build missile defense

systems in Europe as well as the Euro-Atlantic Architecture. The U.S argues that the European-

based Missile Defense system targets the rogue states like Iran and North Korea. The Americans

do not oppose strategic innovation although they are ignoring the traditional concept associated

7
Cimbala, S. "Missile Defense Malpractice: U.S.-Russian Relations and Nuclear Fallacy." The Journal Of Slavic
Military Studies 25.3 (2012): p. 273-274
8
Pifer, S. The Next Round: The United States and Nuclear Arms Reductions after New START. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 2010. P. 15-16
with jointly assured destruction. Contrariwise, Russia upholds the traditional concept called the

centrality of strategic deterrence. As such, the country depends on the use of tactical nuclear

arms as the rock of its defense system. Therefore, Russia sees the act of U.S building missile

defense capacity in Europe as a strategy with potential destabilizing effects on its nuclear

deterrence capacity.

The European Phased Adaptive Approach was formulated aiming at bringing the

Russians into a cooperative missile protection mission. However, the move failed primarily

because the Russian government felt that it only tried to address the temporary capabilities of the

Americans. The EPAA did not address the intentions of the Americans when deploying missile

defense systems near Russian borders. Russia demanded that the U.S provide Congressionally-

binding lawful guarantees while the missile defense system was not to be a threat to the security

of Russia. However, the U.S failed to provide that by directing the blame to the presence of

many Republicans in its Congress9. The establishment of a steady Euro-Atlantic Security

architecture in the European continent was opposed by Russia as Medvedev requested for the

drafting a new European security agreement in 2009. In both cases, experts believe that the

United States was afraid of new drafts that could tilt the balance of power towards Russia while

also weakening the authority of NATO in Europe10.

Recently, the happenings in the Arab World have also strained the relations between

Russia and the United States. In particular, the events witnessed in Syria and Libya are of

concern when it comes to the worsening of ties between these two countries. Firstly, Russia

9
Deyermond, R. "The Republican Challenge to Obamas Russia Policy." Survival 54.5 (2012): 67-92. P. 77-80
10
Dogovor, Bratersky M. o Evropeiskoi bezopasnosti: impuls k razvitiyu otnoshenii Rossii i Evropi. 1st. Moscow:
MGUP, 2011.p. 61-63
declined to veto the United Nations Security Council when it came to dealing with Libya despite

having close economic ties with Libya. However, Russia did not ignore the overstepping of

mandate by NATO allies when they tried to murder Muammar Gaddafi rather than concentrate

on humanitarian concerns. The Syrian case was different given that Syria ranks amongst the

leading trade partners of Russia when it comes to trading Russian military gears. More so, Russia

owns and operates the Tartus-based Russian naval base thereby making it hard for Russia to

ignore NATO indulgence11. Consequently, Russia opted to veto the UNSC draft that demand for

the resignation of Assad from the presidency.

However, it would be unwise to claim that Russia and the U.S have not cooperated when

it comes to use of their respective militaries in similar missions. For example, both countries are

devoted to fighting terrorism12. Similarly, the United States of America engaged Russia more

fruitfully after Obama decided to stabilize Afghanistan. Obama had promised to withdrawal

American troops from Afghanistan during the 2008 presidential campaigns. As such, the U.S

was aware of the fact that they needed Russian support because the former transit route used for

transporting weapons via Pakistan was already unreliable, reports claimed that the Pakistan

government or authorities were pro-Taliban thereby exposing all American weapons in transit to

frequent attacks. The relations between the U.S and Pakistan were deteriorating with time.

Therefore, the United States incorporated the help of Russia aiming at attaining new routes for

delivering weapons and reinforcements to Afghanistan thereby making the Afghan mission a

success. Russia also became a helpful ally to the United States when it came to logistics13.

11
Wezeman, P. SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security. SIPRI, 2013. P. 269-
271
12
Hart, Gary. "Russia and the United States in the 21st Century." The Atlantic 12 December 2011.
13
Charap, S. Assessing the Reset and the Next Steps for U.S. Russian Policy. Washington D.C.: Center for
American Progress, 2010. P. 10-11
 The above narration could encourage most people to term the U.S-Russian relations as

the start or a process of the New Cold War without remorse. However, it would be wiser for

people to view the relations between the two countries as being systematically adversarial

because the current state of affairs is inevitable. A valid support for the above assertion involves

the fact that the United States and Russia are yet to agree upon new international regulations or

rules of power. Remember that the international rules of power were drastically shifted after the

happenings associated with the Cold War14. Consequently, the Russians are continuously feeling

threatened by the U.S encroachments carried out in Eurasia. Meanwhile, the United States of

America seem not to take the Russian threats and concerns seriously. It is for this reason that the

United States of America is violating the existing international law by encroaching towards

Russian territory.

In the real sense, political analysts in Russia and the United States lack a universal

understanding of how the Cold War came to end. The same can be said about the international

community because the conclusions depend on which axis one supports. Additionally, most

Americans, Russians, and the members of the international community are yet to realize the

significance of the Cold War in the history of the world. The American nationals believe that the

outcome of the Cold War was inevitably an American triumph while the Russians purport that it

was a mutual victory shared by both sides. According to political experts, this misunderstanding

is to blame for the ever-increasing emergence of issues including who between them deserves

power, as well as the procedure for recognizing states as genuine or illegitimate. Americans have

14
Wezeman, P. SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security. SIPRI, 2013. P. 269-
271
historically believed that the Russian leaders are weak following social unrest in Russia. It is a

misconception because even the U.S experiences social unrest from time to time.

Most people are optimistic but do not expect the relations between the U.S and Russia to

improve any time soon. However, most analysts claim that the situation may change in the year

2024 given that the tenure of the next American president will come to an end by then. More so,

the year 2024 will also mark the end of Putins cycle. As a result, this means that we may

experience significant systematic changes in both the American and Russian governments

simultaneously. Of paramount importance is the fact that we are still far from the start of another

or rather New Cold War merely because the tensions are now heightened. There is a likelihood

that these two governments may work collaboratively to discuss the existing problems and

ultimately reconcile15. The international community may help in such activities in the future

given that other countries such as China and Japan are expected to rise to the echelons of global

power in future.

Economic and Trade Dealings

Economic ties have always been important to the development of the United Nations as

well as Russia over the years given that both economies ranks amongst the biggest in the world.

According to economic experts, economic ties between the U.S and Russia offer a strategy for

maintaining stability in the America, Europe, as well as in the world as a whole. Research shows

that economic ties between the two countries since the year 1991 have played an integral role in

strengthening the broader Russia-U.S bilateral relationship. In particular, experts claim that the

Russia-U.S bilateral relationship may be maintained by the economic ties in a similar fashion to

15
Charap, S. Assessing the Reset and the Next Steps for U.S. Russian Policy. Washington D.C.: Center for
American Progress, 2010. P. 10-11
that experienced between Germany and Russia. In this case, Germanys international relations

policy vis--vis Russia has been founded on the deep economic integration that the two countries

maintain committedly. It is harmless to say that the critical point of economic relations between

Russia and the U.S has been on trade and direct investment.

Since the 1991, trade dealings and investment levels between the United States and

Russia have been low although experts argue that there is room to improve the status quo.

However, one must not ignore the fact that numerous Institutional and structural factors have and

still are impeding the flourishing Russia-U.S economic relations since the end of the Cold War.

There is a general agreement that the economic relations between the two countries have

continuously been perceived as being exceptionally low. Nevertheless, a closer look at these ties

show that the economic dealings between Russia and the U.S have not been less significant

compared to what the U.S is experiencing with other leading emerging markets including

Turkey, Brazil, and India. Reports indicate that the trade between the U.S and Russia has been

growing steadily albeit still being at a low degree. For example, the American exports to Russia

during the 1990s were substantially low.

However, the American exports to Russia have been on the rise since the year 2000.

Meanwhile, the same can be said about the American imports from Russia when measured in

annual averages since the same year. The problem with the trade between the countries is that

Russia only accounted for a meagre fraction of the American exports in 200816. Similarly, the

American imports from Russia only accounted for an inconsequential percentage in the same

year when compared to other countries such as Britain, Germany, France, India, and Brazil.

16
Nestmann, Thorsten. Consensus Economics. 29 7 2009. 30 June 2016.
Comparatively, the share of the Russian exports to the United States are higher than the rates

stated above. Also, the Russian imports from the U.S were also higher than the American

imports from Russia. Nevertheless, both cases do not provide a substantial percentage of each

countries dealings when compared to trade with other third parties17. Distinguishing between

intra-industry trade and inter-industry trade gives a clearer picture of the weak commercial

dealings between the two countries over the years.

Note that the imported and exported commodities in the intra-industry sector are always

of the same kind while the imported and exported goods in inter-industry trade are always of

different kinds. With the above understanding, it is worth highlighting that the Russian and

American industrial resource and structure endowments differ with a profound margin. As such,

it is not surprising for everyone to know that the commercial dealings between the two countries

have and still are dominated by the inter-industry trade18. For instance, a high percentage of the

total U.S-Russian trade in the year 2008 can be said to have accounted for inter-industrial trade.

A closer look to the trade data available shows that the top three U.S exports to Russia included

nuclear equipment, meat products, as well as vehicles. Meanwhile, the three largest U.S imports

from Russia included mineral fuels, aluminum, as well as radioactive components and inorganic

chemicals.

Most people may correctly say that direct trade dealings between the U.S and Russia is

still low. However, it is recommendable for such people to engage in thorough research where

they will see the hidden truths. For example, research shows that Russia has become one of the

leading export markets for American chicken. When considering the import business, the

17
Stent, A. The limits of partnership. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2014. P. 222
18
Nestmann, Thorsten. Consensus Economics. 29 7 2009. 30 June 2016.
Americans tend to import large volumes from the Russian producers or manufacturers. For

instance, Russia has and still is providing one of the largest markets for United States fertilizer

imports for the last twenty years or so. Additionally, the Russians provide an active market for

nickel imports from America while the same is true when it comes to the importation of

American metal products. Comparatively, the United States imports sizeable Russian aluminium

exports every year since the 1990s. Also, the Americans supply large volumes of meat, aircraft,

and spacecraft Russia imports.

Considering the Foreign Direct Investment indicates lower economic relations compared

to trade figures between Russia and the United States since the early years of the 1990s. The FDI

figures between the two nations were highest between 2003 and 2007 before suffering a sharp

decline in 200819. A significant portion of the U.S Foreign Direct Investment in Russia is

concentrated in the mining sector. The second industry with a substantial level of American FDI

involves the Russian manufacturing sector. Russia occupies a noteworthy presence in two U.S

FDI stock. In particular, American investors have and still are paying close attention to the

Russian mining sector and the food manufacturing sector. Comparatively, Russian FDI in the

United States is predominantly focused on the steel sector.

The Ukraine crisis that began in 2014 heightened tensions between the two countries,

particularly after Russia went ahead and annexed Crimea using a referendum that has since been

termed as being controversial. The United States was the first member state to submit a

resolution through the UNSC proclaiming the referendum to be unlawful. Russia vetoed the

proposal although the resolution passed after thirteen members voted in favor. Only China opted

19
Nestmann, Thorsten. Consensus Economics. 29 7 2009. 30 June 2016.
to abstain. The membership of Russia in the G-8 was later suspended thereby reverting the group

back to G-7. A subsequent resolution made by the United Nations General Assembly left the

Crimea as an unrecognized Russian territory although the resolution was non-binding.

Nevertheless, economists are hoping that the future is bright when it comes to economic relations

between the two countries despite the outstanding tensions between Russia and the U.S. The U.S

has threatened to use economic sanctions to make Russia drop its claim in the region.

Cultural and Academic Events

As relations between the two countries continue deteriorating, reconciliation efforts

requires people to refocus on the fundamentals of diplomatic ties. In particular, research shows

that effective diplomacy is always improved by mutual understanding of cultural ties between

different countries. Note that mutual cultural understanding denotes an influential intangible

asset that promotes the respect and trust between two countries while also facilitating

compromise and cooperation. In this case, the American Universitys Initiative for Russian

Culture and the American-Russian Cultural Cooperation Foundation have played an integral role

in keeping the cultural and academic relations between Russia and the United States strong. In

particular, these two institutions have fostered the exchange of cultural and academic materials

between Americans and Russians.

For instance, the two organizations try to connect the subsequent generations of

American diplomats to the resourcefulness and wealth of Russian language, history, art, film, as

well as literature since the 1990s. Cultural specialists argue that such appreciations for the life

experiences and perspectives of people from different ethnic, racial, and historic backgrounds is

vital to transcend inaccurate stereotypes while also establishing mutually favorable relationships.
Both institutions have continuously honored the priceless role that film and photojournalism has

and still is playing in promoting cultural understanding between Russia and the United States of

America. For example, Russian filmmaker known as Karen Shakhnazarov has received honors

together with the National Geography Society for helping the Russian and American nationals

appreciate each other. The aim is to guarantee a future where both countries will produce

diplomatic leaders capable of understanding each other and thereby increase the points of

cooperation.

Conclusion

The end of the Cold War provided numerous new opportunities for both the United States

of America and Russia to engage in productive cooperation. Initially, Russia took over as the

now vacant permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council as a direct replacement for the

fallen Soviet Union. Note that Russia took over everything right associated with the permanent

seat including the full veto power. The Cold War was creating a gridlock in the United Nations

Security Council. Nonetheless, the new arrangement meant that the United Nations was

guaranteed to undergo a rebirth. The Russians received an invitation to become a member of the

informal G-7 assembly that included the largest economic superpowers in the globe to make it

G-8. Subsequently, Russia and the U.S found new ways to cooperate over the years in numerous

fields. However, research shows that the relations have not been as smooth as both countries

would have wanted.

 Works Cited

Charap, S. Assessing the Reset and the Next Steps for U.S. Russian Policy. Washington D.C.:

Center for American Progress, 2010.

Cimbala, S. "Missile Defense Malpractice: U.S.-Russian Relations and Nuclear Fallacy." The

Journal Of Slavic Military Studies 25.3 (2012): 269-283.

Cooper, Helene. "Promises of Fresh Start for U.S.-Russia Relations." The New York Times 1

April 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/europe/02arms.html?_r=0>.

Deyermond, R. "The Republican Challenge to Obamas Russia Policy." Survival 54.5 (2012):

67-92.

Dogovor, Bratersky M. o Evropeiskoi bezopasnosti: impuls k razvitiyu otnoshenii Rossii i

Evropi. 1st. Moscow: MGUP, 2011.

Hart, Gary. "Russia and the United States in the 21st Century." The Atlantic 12 December 2011.

<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/russia-and-the-united-states-

in-the-21st-century/249831/>.

Medvedev, D. Russia-U.S. Relations and Russias Vision for International Affairs. Speech, The

Brookings Institution. 2010.

Nation, R. "Reset or rerun? Sources of discord in RussianAmerican relations." Communist And

Post-Communist Studies 45.3/4 (2012): 379-387.

Nestmann, Thorsten. Consensus Economics. 29 7 2009. 30 June 2016.

<http://www.consensuseconomics.com/News_and_Articles/US_Russia_Economic_Relat

ions411.htm>.
Pifer, S. The Next Round: The United States and Nuclear Arms Reductions after New START.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

Stent, A. The limits of partnership. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford, 2014.

Suslov, D. US-Russia relations in the early and late 1990s. Lecture, Faculty of World Economy

and International Affairs, Higher School of Economics, Moscow. 2015.

Wezeman, P. SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security.

SIPRI, 2013.

Wittner, Lawrence. "Are the U.S. and Russian Governments Once Again on the Nuclear

Warpath?" The Huffington Post 27 January 2015.