LONDON "RESETTING"

In the first days of April, London was the centre, not only of big-time economics, but also of big-time politics. It was in London that Moscow-Washington relations were expected to be "reset" - at the first meeting of the Russian and US presidents, Dmitriy Medvedev and Barack Obama.

Commenting on the results of the talks at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Dmitriy Medvedev called Barack Obama his "new friend", while numerous Russian officials maintained that the approach and the "language" of the new administration had changed and that Washington was no longer acting on the principle that "everything has been decided and nothing will be reviewed". Moreover, the meeting also yielded specific results. This was not just an agreement to hold the next negotiations in Moscow. Diplomatic sources say that the Russian and US presidents decided to begin talks on a new document governing offensive arms (START) and to report on the results by July.

The joint communiqu? of the two presidents also gives cause for optimism: "We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to go beyond Cold War thinking and to give a new start to relations between our countries," the statement said.

However, it did not all go so smoothly. "Admitting that we still have disagreements over missile defence elements in Europe, we discussed new opportunities for equal international interaction in the sphere of missile defence, which take account of joint assessments of the challenges and threats presented by missiles and which are aimed at strengthening the security of our countries and our allies and partners," as journalists quoted the joint communiqu? issued by the two presidents. Experts point out that this means that Moscow failed in its bid to exchange the European missile defence system for access to the Qabala radar station. It had been quite clear that this initiative would be "voiced" during the London talks. But it was also clear that this prospect did not impress the USA, which is quite logical. The point is that in offering the Qabala radar station in return for a halt to the missile defence system in Europe, Moscow is trying to force the USA to accept a form of dialogue in which Washington would have to agree the level of its presence in Poland, Lithuania and other countries with Moscow. The new White House administration let it be known how Russia can "close the issue" of the US missile defence system: by using its influence on Iran and forcing Tehran to give up its nuclear and missile programme. But the Russians did not respond to this advice. Besides, the closure of the missile defence system in Europe in return for access to the Qabala radar station does not appear to be an equal exchange. The media has repeatedly reported that it is not clear what "degree of presence" at Qabala Russia has determined for the USA. And the very fact that Moscow will be regulating the "width of the door" through which the Americans will (or will not) be allowed to enter the Qabala radar station could not but give the USA food for thought.

The American journalist Thomas Goltz believes that Moscow is offering the USA "a rusty radar installation" which also irritates the civilian population. Finally, if you track the launch of an Iranian missile from the Qabala radar station, it is necessary to find out whether it is just a test or the launch of a live missile and, if it is a live missile, where it is heading and what can be done to intercept it without the several underground installations necessary along the possible trajectory of the missile.

Moreover, Moscow admits that there are still disagreements over Georgia. Currently, Russia presents the fact that Ukraine and Georgia were not invited to join the alliance at NATO's anniversary summit as a significant victory. But, on the other hand, the NATO summit did demand that Russia honour all its obligations with regard to Georgia and it spoke out in favour of granting UN, OSCE and EU observers free access to the whole territory of Georgia, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

One way or another, following the results of the "week of big-time diplomacy", the Georgian Foreign Ministry said that the country's authorities were quite pleased with the results of the NATO summit in Strasbourg and, mainly, with its position on the Caucasus conflict.

"The results of the NATO summit show that the member states of the alliance clearly support Georgia's Euro-Atlantic choice, its sovereignty and territorial integrity," the information and press department of the Georgian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Of course, strictly speaking, these are the results of the NATO summit, not of the London talks, but what happened in Strasbourg gives plenty of food for thought on how discussions on Georgia ended in London.

Analysts and commentators offer different assessments of the results of the London talks. The Financial Times focuses on the agreement reached between Obama and Medvedev to step up talks on the significant reduction of strategic nuclear arms. The newspaper says that Obama sees a complete ban on nuclear weapons as the final goal of the dialogue. "Such a ban is the only thing that will persuade Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear ambitions."

However, Russia has no intention of parting completely with its nuclear arsenal. According to the FT, the USA might meet Russia halfway in the situation surrounding the missile defence system in Eastern Europe if Medvedev begins more actively to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear programme. As for Moscow's bid to establish its own sphere of influence, this leaves Obama with a difficult task - "to persuade the Russian leadership that stability in neighbouring countries is better than an atmosphere of intimidation," the newspaper claims.

One of the most important results of the meeting was the stated intention of the USA and Russia to sign a new agreement on nuclear arms, says Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau, although the two countries' presidents failed to settle their disagreements on the American missile shield in Eastern Europe during their first meeting. "The agreements between Presidents Obama and Medvedev constitute a change in foreign policy, which has until now been a policy of confrontation," supposes Karl Grobe.

Barack Obama managed to secure a diplomatic breakthrough in relations with Russia, and the page of long-lasting tension was turned over, Le Monde writes with satisfaction. Moreover, they adopted another document on a final agreement in London for which Obama's advisers had not even hoped: this was Russia's recognition as a nuclear power with the second largest number of warheads, and the declaration of a refusal to recognize any "sphere of influence". Supporters of disarmament also welcomed this document because it sets a long-term goal - to come to peace without nuclear weapons, the newspaper says. Obama's advisers say that America and Russia must set an example in the strengthening of non-proliferation. "Obama's predecessor, George Bush, boasted that he saw Putin's soul, but this did not yield specific results." The American president did not compromise on the issue of deploying a missile defence system in Poland, reports correspondent Corine Lesnes, and the disagreements on this issue have not been settled yet, but Obama took account of Russia's concern. 

In his first appearance in the international arena, the new US president has already achieved results, The Guardian says, in an editorial on the results of the Obama-Medvedev meeting. Obama said that he had no interest in covering up the disagreements with Russia, but his policy is not just a change of tone, the newspaper says. "The real innovation is that America no longer makes the settlement of the important issues of nuclear arms, the non-proliferation of nuclear arms and supplies to troops in Afghanistan expediently dependant on secondary issues," it writes.

"Moreover, the strengthening of bilateral relations will help America to avoid looking at Russia through the distorted prism of former Soviet allies," the newspaper says, referring to the fact that instability in Ukraine and Georgia was not solely due to Moscow's manipulations. Russia is now poorer and will probably restrain its ardour, the British daily believes. 

A commentator in The Times, Tim Reed, thinks that the agreement between President Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitriy Medvedev to begin talks on the reduction of the two countries' nuclear arsenals opens a new era of cooperation. If the plans are realized, the world will be much closer to getting rid of these deadly weapons. For the first time, the issue is of reducing nuclear arsenals to 1,500, and possibly to 1,000, warheads on both sides. For the first time the prospect of a nuclear-free world is turning from fantasy towards reality. The question now concerns the actions of North Korea and the ambitions of Iran.

The commentator says that the START-1 Treaty of 1991, which reduced the US and Russian arsenals from 10,000 to 5,000, expires in December this year. Instead of extending it, it is now a matter of signing a fundamentally new treaty. This will probably be the key subject during Barack Obama's visit to Moscow, scheduled for July, the article says.

According to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, even if there is no direct link between the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea and the US and Russian arsenals, their reduction will strengthen the non-proliferation regime. Moreover, the new Ameri-can-Russian dialogue on issues of disarmament may reduce tensions in bilateral relations. In conclusion, the author warns the Russian leadership: don't think that Bush's successor will accept all Moscow's demands and adapt NATO's strategy to all the Kremlin's expectations.

This last remark requires special attention. When Medvedev threatened to deploy Iskanders in the Kaliningrad Region before learning about Obama's victory in the USA, experts warned that some people in Moscow are ready to assess Obama's victory as a sign of the USA's weakness or indecision, of which Russian "hawks" will try to take advantage. We can only hope that the meeting in London helped them get rid of such illusions without "reconnaissance in force".