In the previous, “ideological,” era both America and Russia pursued their agenda using the Yalta legacy of the “areas of influence” and interference in domestic affairs of other states. Today in an “era of pragmatism,” as Syria shows, they have turned to noninterference even in the case of mass slaughter. This annihilates the OSCE principle according to which the issues of human rights, basic freedoms, democracy, and rule of law cannot be viewed as only internal issues of the state. But who cares! We are pragmatists now. Forget about “Responsibility to Protect,” too!

This does not mean that Yalta will be forgotten. The “areas of influence” approach still is the best technique to expand the influence of the two remaining empires—one liberal and the other autocratic. Whereas, the “noninterference” mechanism works better if the predatory regime has to be saved. There is no doubt as to who the beneficiary of the second approach could be.

Indeed, one would say it is Vladimir Putin, who is the author of the new “noninterference Doctrine.” However, this Doctrine could be traced to the “de-linkage” principle which justified delinking foreign policy from domestic developments and was the foundation of Obama’s “reset.” True, the end of “reset” hardly could be viewed as a convincing success.

But in any case, we need to give due to both Founding Fathers of the concept that could be called the “Obama-Putin Doctrine.” We do not have to wait long to see its results.