NATO troops lead a revolution on Red Square. What is going on, asks Robert Harneis Soldiers from four NATO countries -- the United States, Britain, France and Poland -- marched through Red Square on 9 May in Moscow to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nothing has been seen like it since 1945. It is no less than a revolution in relations with Russia and part of a bigger shift in US attitudes. Until it happened, no one could ever have imagined that America and three of its closest NATO allies would parade through Red Square in front of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev whilst German Chancellor Angela Merkel sat and chatted with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in the presence of Chinese President Hu Jintao. Russia's nemesis and US plaything, little Georgia, was even there, though represented by a member of the opposition as opposed to its avowed anti-Russian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is less than two years since the war between Russia, South Ossetia and Georgia, after which all four NATO member countries at this year's Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, with exception of France, could not find words harsh enough to describe the Russian actions in Georgia. Shortly before that Britain expelled four Russian diplomats in connection with the Litvinenko affair and it looked like a full-scale renewal of the Cold War was in the works. The explanation for this noticeable change of attitude lies, of all places, in Washington, not Moscow. To accompany the Russian celebrations, United States President Barack Obama even gave an interview to Sergei Brilev on Russian state television. True, he never once mentioned Vladimir Putin's name, but then neither did he mention the words "Georgia" or "Saakashvili". Or "human rights". He talked of producing jobs and raising productivity. He said that he took "very seriously" the European-wide security proposals put forward by President Medvedev and said he was "supportive of NATO- Russia consultations in a much more systematic way than has been observed in the last few years". The American president explained that he called Medvedev immediately after the Moscow bomb attacks on 29 March in which 40 people died and "pledged that the United States would work in any way that made sense in helping to find the perpetrators of this terrible act". Significantly a spokesman for the British Ministry of Defence told Al-Ahram Weekly that a definitive decision to send the élite red-coat Welsh Guards, part of Queen Elizabeth's household troops, was not taken until April, although the invitation had been received some time before. President Medvedev was he said "a good man, very thoughtful. I think we established a relationship of real trust that can hopefully bear fruit in the negotiations and conversations in the years to come." This sudden flowering of goodwill has its roots in continuing Russian strength and self-confidence but much more in American self-awareness of geopolitical and financial overstretch. However, already with his sights on 2012, Obama is really more concerned about domestic legislation. Until the healthcare legislation that had defeated president Clinton was passed, he could not afford to add any more crises internationally, nor could he afford to raise anti-Russian hackles among his domestic foes. Now that healthcare is in the bag he has more freedom to develop his own ideas overseas. It is more than clear from his books that he is far from comfortable with the foreign policy he inherited from Bush and Cheney. His writings prior to becoming president reveal an open mind on foreign issues. This does not mean he intends to ignore US interests or that he can say and do what he likes. It does mean that he is very much aware of the absurd illogic of some US policy positions notably on nuclear weapons, democracy and human rights. His difficulty is changing US policy without going head-to-head with the US foreign policy establishment and the notorious financial military industrial complex. He has one ace up his sleeve, although it is one he probably would discard in a flash: the financial crisis. It is interesting that whilst Obama was talking to the Russians, his Defence Secretary Robert Gates took the unusual step of going to the small town of Abilene, Kansas to the Eisenhower library to call for restraint in defence spending. The Weekly spoke to a senior defence official at the Pentagon who explained that apart from the three or four hundred people in the room the speech was aimed at three groups, the Pentagon, Congress and industry, and that speaking outside the Pentagon in Abilene and invoking Eisenhower as a man who was well known to have understood the need to keep defence costs under control was a sending a powerful message. In the past when Pentagon officials needed more money they just asked for it, he explained. Now Gates is pointing out that expenditure can only be maintained by cutting out waste. The speech was specifically about cutting waste but it is clear that sooner or later the "defence" budget will have to be cut big-time to take account of economic reality. Obama doesn't have to -- doesn't yet dare to -- go further, but the logic of the situation argues for itself. Indeed there is something strangely contradictory about Obama's whole approach to foreign policy. It is almost as if in sticking rigidly to some existing policies he is deliberately exposing them to attack and even ridicule. In July 2009 he made a speech in Moscow to the New Economic School. It was widely reported as tough advice to Russia not to interfere in neighbouring countries -- this coming from the country of the Monroe Doctrine, Guantanamo Bay and 800 foreign military bases. But the text does not support the spin. When he said "The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over," he could just as easily have been talking to the Washington foreign policy establishment as to Moscow generals. In December last year in the middle of a standard Bush-style speech to West Point cadets about Afghanistan, he let drop this bombshell: "That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open- ended: because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own." Of course, there is much that the American president still says that sounds like George Bush, for which he has been justly criticised by many who voted for him, but every now and then and perhaps increasingly it is possible to hear a very different -- hopefully the real -- Obama. However arrived at, a fundamental change in US foreign policy away from empire will make life much more complicated for all of America's current foreign policy partners and will require a complete rethink with respect to all the world's crises. In particular the last few months have been baffling for Russia watchers. The new START treaty seems to accept US missiles in Poland in the teeth of Russian opposition. Russian intentions with regard to Iran are opaque, to say the least. Will they or wont they supply S300 anti-aircraft missiles? Will they support sanctions? Are they cooperating with the United States in Kyrgyzstan or trying to push them out of the key US airbase in Manas? So long as the Russians were faced with a US that was aggressively pursuing a policy of destabilisation and encirclement, the problem of Iran and Afghanistan took second place for them. A financially weakened and more reasonable Washington immediately presents Moscow with a window of opportunity and a corresponding need to reassess its own foreign priorities. Does Russia really want to be left to deal with the problem of Afghanistan alone? Does it want a strong and uncontrollable Iran? What should it do if Washington genuinely demands that Israel be held to the standards of other nations? When real cooperation between Russia, the US and NATO becomes a serious possibility, the frightening apocalyptic scenarios of the Cheneys and their Saakashvilis recede into the realm of nightmares that we can shake off with relief.
