• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Rose Gottemoeller"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

A Task of Monumental Importance for Putin

Putin’s role in Russia currently remains unclear. Amidst the transition of the U.S. government, this factor will hinder U.S.-Russia relations. However, a bilateral commission made up of past U.S. and Russian presidents, with Putin serving the role of past president, can alleviate this problem.

Link Copied
By Rose Gottemoeller
Published on Oct 2, 2008

Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta

The first debate between American presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama was supposed to be about foreign policy, but almost all of it was about the crisis wracking the U.S. economy.  Russia only came up toward the end, after about an hour and fifteen minutes of the ninety-minute exchange.  The candidates did not say anything new about Russia—indeed they traded the same barbs they have been hurling at each other since the conflict in Georgia began. 

What is amazing about the Russia exchange, however, is that both men failed to mention even once Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.  Medvedev’s absence from the remarks of the U.S. presidential candidates is no accident.  Of course, Medvedev’s absence might be explained by the fact that his name is difficult for English speakers to pronounce.  More likely, however, the Russian President did not figure prominently in the scripts that the two candidates used for their preparations—but Prime Minister Putin did.

If this is the case, then it does not portend well for the future of the tandem leadership arrangement that Putin and Medvedev have established.  The division of labor that was set at the time of Medevedev’s inauguration in May, with the President in charge of foreign and security policy and the Prime Minister in charge of the economy, has clearly been cast into doubt.  This is not good news for Russia’s international partners, since they thus are unsure about whom them must deal with.   For the new President of the United States, the uncertainty is especially serious, because he will come into office with U.S.-Russian relations at their worst point since the depths of the Cold War.

One of the President’s early foreign policy tasks will be to figure out what to do with Russia—and the Russian leadership will likewise have to decide what to do with the United States.  An unclear picture of who is in control of Russian foreign and security policy will seriously complicate these efforts, in both the Russian and U.S. governments. 

To help to clarify this picture, perhaps Vladimir Putin could take up a special task, in keeping with his role as a past Russian president.  Efforts to right the U.S.-Russian relationship will not succeed without sustained high-level attention.  The new U.S. President will have many issues to address, and the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan will certainly head the list.  The damage to the U.S.-Russian relationship may deepen in the meantime, just from a lack of a top priority in Washington during the political transition process.  

A risky but potentially big pay-off strategy is needed to keep a focus on the relationship with Russia.  A bilateral Presidential commission formed at the highest levels would be one way to go about it.  The mission of this commission would be two-pronged: First, to examine how to get relations back on track between the United States and Russia; and second, to provide high-level counsel to urgent negotiations, such how to extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which goes out of force in December 2009, or what to do about the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), which was dealt a severe blow by the Russian incursion into Georgia. 

This commission would be of short duration, no more than six months in length.  Past presidents would be invited to serve, including Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton on the U.S. side.  Once President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, he may also be willing to join the group.  The problem, of course, would be an unbalanced situation on the Russian side, since Presidents Gorbachev and Putin are the only living past presidents of Russia, and Putin is currently serving as Russian Prime Minister.  An answer to this problem may be to invite Putin to serve while explicitly recognizing his official status—he would sustain the heft of the Russian premiership without unbalancing the Commission’s deliberations.

Although high-risk, the goal of such a commission would be profound: to avert the tragedy of Russia and the United States deeply at odds, unable to cooperate on critical international issues. If Putin agreed to take up this task, then it would help to clarify his role in the Russian leadership.  The commission would be a classic venue for past presidents.  They would lend their considerable authority, experience and wisdom to determining the future of the U.S.-Russian relationship, but they would not be partaking of day-to-day government decision-making.  This would be a worthy task, and one of monumental importance.  

Click here for the Russian version of this piece.

About the Author

Rose Gottemoeller

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program

Rose Gottemoeller is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Nuclear Policy Program. She also serves as lecturer at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Ambassador Gottemoeller served as the deputy secretary general of NATO from 2016 to 2019. 

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    The Spectacular Rise of the “Bad Boys” of NATO During the Ukraine Crisis
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +2

      Judy Dempsey, Alexander Gabuev, Rose Gottemoeller, …

  • Q&A
    Russia Is Updating Their Nuclear Weapons: What Does That Mean for the Rest of Us?

      Rose Gottemoeller

Rose Gottemoeller
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program
Rose Gottemoeller
Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesCaucasusRussia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?

    French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for Europe

    The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Trump United Nations multilateralism institutions 2236462680
    Article
    Resetting Cyber Relations with the United States

    For years, the United States anchored global cyber diplomacy. As Washington rethinks its leadership role, the launch of the UN’s Cyber Global Mechanism may test how allies adjust their engagement.

      • Christopher Painter

      Patryk Pawlak, Chris Painter

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not Less

    Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.

      Dimitar Bechev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.