• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "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 India 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 India

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.