Bush and Putin: Comrades in Arms?

Despite the personal bond that has grown between two leaders who initially viewed each other with scepticism, major differences still strain relations between Russia and the United States.

During his visit to Berlin on Thursday (photo), President George W. Bush cited one example of those tensions when he said Russian assistance in building nuclear power plants for Iran could lead to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Trade restrictions are another source of tension, frustrating Russian efforts to win a larger market for its hard-pressed export industry.

But as Bush meets with Vladimir Putin Friday, the Russian president for whom he has affectionately coined the nickname "Pootie-Poot," arms reduction and NATO will be the message of the day.

But despite the symbolic significance of the new arms treaty, some Russian commentators argue it involves greater concessions for their side, saying the much richer Americans will be able to use the treaty to simply stockpile, rather than destroy, the warheads they remove from delivery vehicles.

The earlier Strategic Arms Reduction treaties (START) focused on the dismantling of launch pads and the destruction of missiles and included onsite inspections. The new deal requires neither. Either side is allowed to store weapons for possible later use. Additionally, the new three-page document, which is being called the "Treaty of Moscow," can be called off with three months notice from Moscow or Washington.

Under the treaty, the two sides plan to reduce their arsenals by around two-thirds. The treaty is intended to reduce the number of warheads in Russia and the U.S. from an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 today to about 1,700 to 2,200 warheads within a decade.

A wolf in sheeps' clothing?

Former Russian general Leonid Ivaschov is leading Russian opposition to the new treaty. In his view, Washington is merely seeking to negotiate a free hand to build its proposed missile defence system.

"I know the opinion of a lot of specialists in this area," he says. "None of them is enthusiastic. The Americans are using this document to cement their superiority. I also think the treaty will lead to the development of new nuclear weapons."

"It's a very vague commitment, which is better than nothing under the current circumstances," says Alexei Arbatov, a deputy head of the parliament's defense affairs committee. "But it could also raise a lot of suspicions and recriminations in Russia."

"The only country that can physically destroy the U.S."

But other analysts say Russia doesn’t have the money to enter into a new arms race.

Technically, it would be possible to fit a Russian SS-18 ICBM missile with multiple warheads. And such a weapon could be capable of penetrating the planned U.S. missile defense shield. But the Russians don’t have the money in their defense budget to pay for such an expensive project. Moscow has so far built only 38 SS-27s or Topol-Ms, its most modern long-range missile. Russia is already falling behind the U.S.

"Russia is still the only country that can physically destroy the United States," says Konstantin Makienko, an arms expert at the Center for Policy Studies in Russia. "It will retain that capability for another five to ten years with weapons systems from the Soviet era."

What follows will depend on how the Russian economy develops.

A political declaration

The current arms reduction round has been driven by both economic and political factors. The former Soviet Union and the U.S. have been negotiating the reduction of their arsenals of nuclear missiles since the start of the 1970s. Initially, the West insisted on treaties, with precisely defined compliance and verification clauses.

The new disarmament treaty is little more than a political declaration. With the end of the Cold War and the arms race, analysts say the United States prefers looser treaties.

One sign of the new era is the NATO information office in Moscow. And in Rome on May 28th, NATO will establish its new NATO-Russia council, upon which Moscow will sit as an equal with the 19 alliance members.

Co-operation then and now

"It will bring Russia and NATO closer, and it will introduce a new form of co-operation, a new degree of co-operation," says Rolf Welberts, director of the Center for Transatlantic Security in Berlin. "If that's the case, then we can also see NATO's eastern enlargement being less problematic for Russia."

Despite the excellent recent track record of co-operation between NATO and Russian troops in the Balkans – like the joint operation of a checkpoint in Kosovo by Russian and French soldiers - most Russians are opposed to NATO enlargement.

At the KFOR headquarters in Pristina, Kosovo’s provincial capital, officers who were sworn enemies just over a decade ago now sit side by side enjoying entertainment provided for the soldiers.

But nationalist-minded Russians such as Leonid Ivachov are still worried by the fact that America is increasingly dictating the terms of bilateral agreements between the two countries.

"If we Europeans and Russians stood more firmly together, and if the US didn't dominate everything, then problems like the Balkans, would be easier to solve," Ivachov says. "I don't think much of the new Nato-Russia council, since I consider NATO to be a tool of Washington."

Despite the end of the Cold War, many Russians still mistrust America. But with thirty years of disarmament history drawing to a close, experts say Russia's task is to find its way out of the wreckage of the Soviet era and occupy its place next to NATO.