"Relations between the United States and Russia today remind one of the report from the well digger, 'We hit bottom and have started to dig.' Whether it’s over issues like leaker Eric Snowden or Syria and Iran, the US and Russia seem to end up on opposite sides of most major problems," write Kevin Ryan and Simon Saradzhyan. But that trend could soon reverse – at least regarding one contentious subject – missile defense.

As U.S. and Soviet forces converged in Germany in the final days of WWII, both armies met at the River Elbe near Torgau. That meeting of comrades, united in the face of common threats, is the inspiration for the Belfer Center’s “Elbe Group,” whose purpose is to maintain an open and continuous channel of communication on sensitive issues of U.S.-Russian relations. In late March, the Elbe Group met in Jerusalem for its eighth meeting since its founding in 2010.

In a recent op-ed published in Russia in Global Affairs the Belfer Center's Kevin Ryan and Simon Saradzhyan argue that at a time when deep U.S. defense budget cuts are underway, supporters of continued U.S. missile defense development should consider the potential for cutting costs that cooperation with Russia could offer.

"On the eve of the NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21, it seems that the rhetoric from both the United States and Russia has returned to a more combative past," writes Kevin Ryan, executive director for research at the Belfer Center and noted expert on Russia. "Deep-seated disagreements over missile defense and so-called frozen conflicts in Georgia have renewed suspicions and battered trust between the countries. This corrosive situation is only amplified by the fact that both countries are in an election year when moderation is viewed as a weakness and hyperbole is the norm."

The Elbe Group, former leaders of American and Russian intelligence and military organizations, write that the nuclear security summit in Seoul provides an important opportunity to reaffirm U.S. and Russian leadership against the deadly menace of nuclear terrorism — a threat that combines the Cold War peril of nuclear holocaust and the 21st century danger of international terrorism. Kevin Ryan joined other Elbe Group members in writing this oped.

Writing about the contrast of a recent act of heroism by a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan who gave his life to save a young boy and another soldier who killed 17 sleeping children and adults, Brigadier General (ret.) Kevin Ryan says,"When a soldier makes the right choices, his deeds can be famous. When he makes the wrong choices, they are infamous. Each of us confronts these choices every day. In war, the choices and the results are magnified."

"Don’t get me wrong – I am pleased that the executive branch and defense establishment have developed a fresh expression of our national defense goals and strategy from the top down, as it should be. But let’s stop calling this new guidance a 'strategic pivot' or a spectacular break from the past," writes Kevin Ryan, executive director for research at the Belfer Center.

Russian leaders have previously promised to improve the survivability of their offensive nuclear missile force as a means of ensuring that they would retain an effective nuclear deterrent, and that will likely happen.  But recent events and announcements indicate that Russia is also investing money in its own increased missile defenses.

According to media reports, the United States and Russia were close to signingan agreement on missile defense cooperationon the margins of the G-8summit meeting in May. The details ofthe proposal are not public, but the disappointmentover not achieving theagreement is.

During the Cold War, the threat of a nuclear attack came mainly from the U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals, writes Kevin Ryan. Today, however, the United States and Russia have been forced to adapt to a new nuclear threat—that of dedicated terrorists with money and technological access who seek to obtain and use a nuclear device.