Celebrating 90 Years - Foreign Policy Association

with the realization that we cannot survive if
we do not talk to each other and if we do not
build bridges. It is important that our common
history has known more ups than downs.
Whatever turns our relations took, they always
highlighted the great future for both the United
States and Russia that Alexis de Tocqueville
foresaw.
Russia underwent transformations in the
1990s that removed the grounds for ideological
incompatibility and confrontation in Russian-
American relations. These transformations
opened up new and unprecedented prospects
for our cooperation. The experience of working
together over the past few years demonstrates
that given the political will, mutual respect,
and equal treatment, we can fully realize the
potential of our cooperation. The presidencies
of Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, their
mutual personal commitments—chemistry, if
you like—and commitment to developing the
partnership opened a new page in our history
and in our relations. When uncertainties of
the 1990s were left behind and we overcame
vestiges of the past, Russia had to make some
very hard decisions that became a kind of
investment in our common future.
Russia’s response to the 9/11 terrorist
attacks gave strong political momentum to
our relations, adding an emotional dimension
and prompting recollections of our alliance
during World War II. There were joint efforts to
topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, with
Russia helping with the provision of military
transit through its territory and helping to get
permission for such transit through the territory
of its allies in Central Asia. All this served as
a very powerful uniting factor. There was also
progress in trade and economic relations, which
includes the energy sector. Even our well-
known differences over the Iraq war could not
stall progress.
At the same time that Russia was
regaining its strength, it was faced with
increasing pressure from the outside to insure
free access to Russian oil and gas resources,
as well as to influence its internal political
development. I want to be very clear: I do not
support the claims that there was a deliberate
outside strategy vis-à-vis Russia, but we are
all very aware that in politics, the perception
sometimes matters more than reality itself.
Moreover, a new trend in our relations
emerged against the background of additional
important developments, including those in the
very sensitive area of strategic stability, when
the United States unilaterally started a revision
of our common achievements in the field of
development and arms control. The United
States withdrew from the ABM [Anti-Ballistic
Missile] Treaty, and the future of another
important instrument, the START [Strategic
Offense Reductions Treaty] was put into
question. In American political parlance, it was
called the Cold War legacy, and regrettably,
we now have to think how to prevent growing
alienation between us. I would like to stress
this point: there are no objective reasons for a
new confrontation, only mutual aloofness. We
will not succeed in our national interests unless
we reach a common perception of the world
we live in and of the shape of things to come.
After the end of the Cold War, Russia
could not afford the luxury of self-delusion.
We could not be mistaken regarding the new
reality and had to accept it, however difficult
the psychological adaptation may have been.
We gave up an ideology and chose pragmatism
and common sense, building our foreign policy
on sound national interests. I believe that we
have found ourselves in the mainstream of
international life.
FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION | 71
MEETINGS: PRESENTATION BY SERGEY VIKTOROVICH LAVROV