Common interests? Things have changed

Clifford Levy and Peter Baker have a column in The New York Times about Russia and the United States:

President Obama said on Tuesday that America and Russia “share common interests” in building a secure, free and flourishing world, but rejected complaints about American support for missile defense and expansion of the NATO alliance into Eastern Europe. Mr. Obama reached out to national sensibilities here by assuring that “American wants a strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia” and declaring that “it is not for me to define Russia’s national interests.”
Yet he made the case that Russia should join America in curbing emerging nuclear powers like Iran and in promoting greater liberties at home. “By no means is America perfect,” the president said in a speech at the New Economic School, a graduate school in Moscow formed after the fall of the Soviet Union to introduce modern market economics to Russia. “But it is our commitment to certain universal values which allows us to correct our imperfections and to grow stronger over time.” He added: “If our democracy did not advance those rights, as a person of African ancestry I wouldn’t be able to address you as an American citizen, much less as president.”
Mr. Obama’s speech came one day after he signed an agreement in principle with President Dmitri Medvedev to cut Russian and American strategic nuclear arsenals by at least one-quarter. As he began his second day in Moscow, Mr. Obama had breakfast with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, widely viewed as Russia’s paramount leader, in a meeting that ran long over its scheduled time. Speaking to reporters beforehand, Mr. Putin noted that there have been periods of “grayish mood between our two countries”, an allusion to the tension of recent years that culminated with last year’s war between Russia and its small neighbor, Georgia.
“With you,” Mr. Putin told Mr. Obama, “we link all our hopes for the furtherance of relations between our two countries.”
Neither man made any public mention of Mr. Obama’s comment in an interview last week that Mr. Putin still has “one foot in the old ways of doing business.” Instead, Mr. Obama lavished praise on Mr. Putin, while stumbling for the second time in as many days over his titles. “I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people in your previous role as prime minister— as president, but in your current role as prime minister.”
Mr. Obama came here in hopes of rebuilding relations with Russia after they frayed under his predecessor, President George W. Bush. In addition to the nuclear arms agreement, he and Mr. Medvedev sealed a deal allowing the American military to send thousands of flights of troops and weapons to Afghanistan through Russian airspace each year and they renewed military contacts suspended after last year’s Georgia war.
The two did not reach a trade deal the Obama administration once hoped for, and made no progress in bridging the divide over American plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But Mr. Medvedev was pleased that Mr. Obama agreed that they should talk about both offensive and defensive weapons and the American president was pleased that his Russian counterpart agreed to conduct a joint review of any Iranian nuclear threat.
Mr. Obama mapped out his second day in part to demonstrate continuing American support for democracy and rule of law in Russia. He met Tuesday morning with Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet president who ushered in glasnost and the changes that ultimately unraveled the Soviet Union. Mr. Obama also planned to meet later in the day with business leaders and opposition leaders and attend a conference on civil society. Mr. Medvedev was also invited to the civil society event but declined.
Mr. Obama’s speech at the New Economic School was calculated to address longstanding Russian grievances against America, which many here suspect still seeks to hold Russia down, interfere in its internal affairs and extend its influence into its backyard. But the speech was not carried on any of the major Russian television networks, all of which are controlled by the state.
Mr. Obama did not paper over major policy differences and instead argued that Russia should not fear American intentions. “Whether America or Russia, neither of us would benefit from a nuclear arms race in East Asia or the Middle East,” he said. “That’s why we should be united in opposing North Korea’s efforts to become a nuclear power, and opposing Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon.”
Mr. Obama said he supports the right of countries like Georgia and the Ukraine to join NATO despite Russian opposition. “America will never impose a security arrangement on another country,” he said. “For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the alliance’s mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.”
He also argued that American support for democracy was rooted in principle, not self interest, noting that he favors the restoration of the president of Honduras who was ousted in a coup, even though the Honduran president opposes United States policies. “We do so not because we agree with him,” Mr. Obama said. “We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.”
The agreement between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev set the parameters for negotiations on a treaty to be signed by the end of the year replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in December. Under Monday’s agreement, the new treaty would reduce the ceiling on strategic warheads to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675 warheads within seven years, down from the current limit of 2,200 warheads by 2012. The limit on delivery vehicles— land-based intercontinental missiles, submarine-based missiles, and bombers— would be somewhere from 500 to 1,100, down from the 1,600 currently allowed. The Russians are pushing for deeper cuts in delivery vehicles because their missiles generally fit more warheads than American missiles. American officials said this treaty would not address warheads stored in reserve, an issue the Russians have wanted to include in the past. Russian officials at first resisted putting any target numbers in Monday’s agreement, but Mr. Obama pressed Mr. Medvedev in a telephone call last week for specific commitments, aides said. Negotiators now have until December to narrow the range further and define counting rules and verification measures.
The United States reported in January that it had 1,198 delivery vehicles, and the Arms Control Association estimates that it deploys 2,200 warheads. Russia reported 816 delivery vehicles, and the association estimates that it deploys 2,000 to 3,000 warheads.