Wall Street Journal - 03.04.2003

Wall Street Journal

Putin Tests Limits of U.S. Partnership

Refusal to Back Bush on Iraq Shows Influence of Advisers Tired of Accomodation

By ALAN CULLISON

MOSCOW – After a series of retreats from long-cherished foreign-policy positions, Russian President Vladimir Putin is digging in his heels over Iraq. His refusal so far to back U.S. military action shows the growing influence of advisers who say Russia has gotten little in return for cozying up to the Bush administration.

Since taking office in 2000, Mr. Putin has made partnership with the U.S. a priority, frequently bucking a foreign-policy and military establishment still infused with Cold War wariness of American intentions. He has endorsed a U.S. military presence in former Soviet republics in Central Asia, accepted Washington's decision to pull out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, acquiesced in NATO's proposed expansion into former Soviet territory in the Baltics and given strong support to Washington's global campaign against terrorism.

On Iraq, though, Mr. Putin has resisted American pressure. After talks in the Kremlin last week with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Mr. Putin said any United Nations resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq was unacceptable.

Analysts say Mr. Putin is now feeling the heat from those who say Russia isn't getting concessions from Washington. For example, the U.S. has yet to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, Cold War-era legislation that imposed trade restrictions on Moscow as punishment for its restrictions on emigration. Washington agrees the amendment is now outdated, and has promised to repeal it -- as it has promised for several years. The legislation has little practical impact on trade but is widely seen by Russia as a galling symbol of Washington's failure to take Russian demands seriously.

"Putin has been under enormous pressure from his entourage" to resist a U.S. attack on Iraq, said Andrei Piontkovsky, an independent analyst in Moscow. "Most of the foreign-policy staff has been against any cooperation with Americans from the beginning. And now they see this as a golden opportunity to modify the situation." 

Most influential have been Russia's Soviet-era diplomats and military advisers, who continue to hold government posts. Evgeny Primakov, former head of the Soviet spy service and now a special envoy for the Kremlin, flew to Baghdad last week where he reportedly tried to persuade Mr. Hussein to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The trip mirrored a 1990 flight by Mr. Primakov to Baghdad, in which he met with Mr. Hussein and tried to stave off a U.S. attack on Iraq the following year. Neither diplomatic gambit was much appreciated by the U.S.: Last week a top Bush administration official called Mr. Primakov a "pain in the neck."

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has also grown more vocal. Over the weekend he lobbied via telephone foreign ministers from seven temporary members of the U.N. Security Council. Mr. Ivanov "confirmed Russia's immutable position in favor of achieving an Iraqi settlement through exclusively peaceful, political and diplomatic means," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

But the Bush administration is betting that Moscow will, in the end, cave in over Iraq when it understands that war is inevitable. As a permanent Security Council member, Russia could veto the U.S.-backed resolution authorizing force if it comes to a vote. While Russia says it is prepared to do so if needed for "international stability," the U.S. says Moscow doesn't want to risk a break in ties over Iraq. Bush administration officials believe Russia won't cast a veto, especially not alone.

Analysts say Mr. Putin is above all a realist and will take sides based on a cold calculation of what he stands to gain financially and diplomatically. The White House, without offering crass quid pro quos, says it has tried to point to the advantages of being part of a coalition backing an invasion of Iraq: Russia could help in the country's reconstruction and lobby more effectively for companies that have contracts in its oil fields. Russia would also be in a better position to collect its Soviet-era debts that totaled $8 billion when Iraq stopped paying in the early 1990s.

Last week, the U.S. designated three rebel groups in Chechnya as "terrorist organizations" linked to al Qaeda and imposed a freeze on their U.S. assets. While the U.S. said the move wasn't related to the standoff over Iraq, it is certain to please Mr. Putin, who rose to power on the back of promises to subdue the breakaway republic. 

While Messrs. Ivanov and Primakov were in China and Iraq last week, Moscow dispatched to Washington Kremlin chief of staff Alexander Voloshin, who discussed the standoff over Baghdad with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Mr. Bush also "dropped by" the meeting, a high-level administration official said. In Moscow, where Mr. Voloshin is seen as a pragmatic deal maker, the visit was interpreted as a sign that the Kremlin was looking for concessions in return for its acceptance of, or noninterference with, a U.S. attack on Iraq.

Whatever he decides, analysts say Mr. Putin will try not to alienate either the U.S. or France and Germany over Iraq. "If and when France and Germany surrender to this resolution, Russia will not resist alone," said Alexander Pikayev, of the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "As long as the others oppose military action in Iraq, Russia will stay in their shadow. It is not in Putin's style to be the sole resister."