VZCZCXRO7787
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHMO #0850/01 0921443
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021443Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2713
INFO RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 000850 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL KNNP MNUC PARM ENRG NPT RS
 
SUBJECT: MOSCOW REACTS POSITIVELY TO OBAMA-MEDVEDEV MEETING 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  Moscow reacted positively to the first meeting of 
President Obama and President Medvedev in London on April 1.  While 
cautioning that issues such as missile defense and NATO enlargement 
remained divisive, most officials and press commentators noted a 
new, "positive spirit," and expressed the hope that the new tone in 
bilateral relations and the prospects of reaching agreement on a 
post-START accord would open the way to working on the more 
difficult issues.  They stressed the pragmatic approach of the two 
Presidents and highlighted the importance of the Joint Statement on 
a post-START Agreement.  A few commentators were less optimistic, 
emphasizing that the U.S. had not withdrawn its plans to deploy 
missile defense elements in eastern Europe and stressing the need to 
link missile defense and a new treaty on strategic offensive arms. 
End summary. 
 
A New Spirit, A New Pragmatism 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) Following the London meeting, Duma International Relations 
Committee Chair Konstantin Kosachev (who participated in the 
meeting) told the press that the main outcome of the summit was that 
it "broke the inertia of negative thinking" in the bilateral 
relationship.  Characterizing the meeting as "very substantive and 
pragmatic," Kosachev said both sides "demonstrated a readiness to 
find common ground in personal relations and in bilateral 
relations."  Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman 
Mikhail Margelov said that while one meeting could not "restore 
partnership and friendship," the spirit of the Presidents' 
discussion and the results of the dialogue showed that "both sides 
have begun moving toward each other."  He noted the most important 
result was that "contradictions over Iran have been smoothed out." 
 
¶3. (SBU) Noting that the London meeting would help "revive the 
positive elements on the bilateral agenda, former Deputy Foreign 
Minister Andrey Fedorov said that the "debut was good because it was 
a working meeting, not a political show.  As Russian-American 
relations become more pragmatic, they will become more effective," 
he stressed.  He also said the positive nature of the event gave 
hope that a new arms reduction treaty could be reached.  Aleksey 
Malashenko of the Moscow Carnegie Center predicted that the level of 
"ideological anti-Americanism" in Russia would decrease. 
¶4. (SBU) Several newspapers confirmed mid-level MFA comments to us 
that Russian officials were pleased with the results of the meeting. 
 Official Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported that "the debut was successful 
enough.  Medvedev and Obama confirmed the 'resetting' of relations 
between the two countries," and noted that "Moscow was rather 
optimistic about Washington's policy..."  Daily Vremya Novostey 
commented that "one could see that members of the Russian 
delegation, outwardly reserved in their comments on the outcome of 
the meeting, were very pleased with it." 
A New START Treaty, An Open Door to Other Issues 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶5. (U) Many commentators said the most important result of the 
Presidents' summit was the agreement to start negotiations on a new 
strategic arms reduction treaty.  Independent journal Nezavisimaya 
Gazeta commented that the green light to start disarmament talks was 
"the main practical result, and that success in that area would give 
a serious impulse to cooperation elsewhere."  Moscow and Washington 
appeared "ready to compromise." 
¶6. (SBU) Sergey Rogov, Director of the U.S. and Canada Institute, 
said the prospect of reaching agreement on a new accord by the end 
of the year had "become real."  Noting that such a treaty would 
likely not be ready by July, he posited that the two Presidents 
could sign a framework agreement at that time, which could then be 
finalized by December.  Such a treaty could allow the two sides to 
"find solutions to other issues, including missile defense (MD), the 
Iranian nuclear problem, and the joint fight against the Taliban and 
al-Qaeda," Rogov suggested. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Arms control experts, retired Generals Viktor Yesin and 
Vladimir Dvorkin, agreed that the decision to pursue negotiations on 
a new treaty to reduce the number of strategic offensive arms was 
positive, but cautioned that there were still many difficult issues 
to be resolved between the two sides.  Noting that Russia and the 
U.S. would be "quite able" to reach agreement to reduce the number 
of warheads to 1300-1500 each, Dvorkin nonetheless emphasized the 
problem of resolving issues related to warheads in storage and 
"upload potential," as well as whether and how to count conventional 
warheads on strategic missiles.  Yesin more conservatively cited 
1700 warheads as a realistic number at which to aim, but emphasized 
that the number needed to be linked to a potential MD deployment in 
Europe.  If the U.S. did not deploy MD, Russia could reduce the 
number of warheads to 1000, he argued, but added that in such a 
 
MOSCOW 00000850  002 OF 002 
 
 
case, France and the UK should be brought into the process. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Fedor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Global Affairs magazine, 
also cautioned that after such a long period of confrontation 
between the two sides, especially the disagreement over MD, it was 
not to be expected that any breakthroughs would have occurred.  But, 
he hailed the focus of the London talks on non-irritant issues, and 
agreed that the "gradual warming" in bilateral relations would allow 
both sides to start working on "more complicated issues, such as 
Georgia and MD." 
 
A Few Naysayers 
--------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) A few commentators were more pessimistic, contending that 
the meeting had not resulted in changes in the U.S. position on MD 
and other difficult issues.  Vladimir Anokhin, VP of the Academy of 
Geopolitical Sciences argued the U.S. would not change its position 
on MD, and its recent statements were "just to make Moscow's 
position more flexible and gain more economic results at the G20 
summit."  Duma IR Committee Member Semen Bogdasarov also noted that 
despite U.S. willingness to begin a dialogue with Iran, the U.S. was 
not prepared to give up its MD plans.  Former head of the MOD 
International Relations Directorate, retired General Leonid Ivashov, 
also warned against moving too fast to reach a post-START agreement, 
insisting it needed to be linked to U.S. MD plans and should be part 
of a "comprehensive analysis of strategic military relations between 
Russia and the U.S."  He added, however, that START should not be 
extended as it was outdated and had been "ruined by the Americans" 
by U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) The meeting between the Presidents is seen as continuing 
the positive tone set by the Vice-President's call to push the 
"reset" button on the relationship and carried on by the exchange of 
letters and the meetings between the Secretary and FM Lavrov. 
Comparatively less attention has been given to the announcement that 
the President will come to Moscow in July, perhaps because this 
possibility has already been in the Russian press for a few weeks. 
Moscow analysts will be looking for evidence that the "new tone and 
spirit" are being translated into concrete action and results. 
 
BEYRLE