• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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
Program mobile hero image

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine.  Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Shockwaves Across the Gulf

    The countries in the region are managing the fallout from Iranian strikes in a paradoxical way.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • 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
    Diwan
    The U.S. Risks Much, but Gains Little, with Iran

    In an interview, Hassan Mneimneh discusses the ongoing conflict and the myriad miscalculations characterizing it.

      Michael Young

  • Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wearing an orange cap, and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, dressed in saffron robes, are greeting supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, on April 6, 2024.
    Paper
    India’s Foreign Policy in the Age of Populism

    Domestic mobilization, personalized leadership, and nationalism have reshaped India’s global behavior.

      Sandra Destradi

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.