How They’ll Handle Russia
Washington is building a future model for relations with Moscow.
As we near the finish line of the U.S. presidential race, the type of relationship with Russia that will best meet American national interests remains a main concern. The Washington Post published two articles in which Pulitzer Prize winner Karen DeYoung and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien argue about the effectiveness of Donald Trump’s Russia policy. Rejecting accusations that the president has no strategy for relations with Moscow, and that he flirts with President Vladimir Putin, O’Brien warns against a policy of containment, and sees Russia as a potential “friendly partner to the United States and Europe.”
Three months before the United States presidential election, the topic of U.S. relations with Moscow was raised once again in discussions about the presidential race, this time through two Washington Post op-eds. One of the articles criticized the president’s Russia policy, and the other justified it. The debate was led by DeYoung, Washington Post deputy editor-in-chief, and National Security Advisor O’Brien.
DeYoung fired the first shot on Saturday. In her article, “Differences Between Trump and Administration Officials Over Russia Disguises Lack of Strategic Approach to Moscow,” DeYoung built on the events of recent weeks, which she believes have brought the “dissonance between President Trump and his top national security team over Russia” to “new heights,” thereby pitting the president even further against his inner circle.
One of the ways Trump has shown his reluctance to aggravate relations with Putin, DeYoung argues, is the fact that in phone conversations with the Russian leader, Trump has never raised the issue of bounties placed on American servicemen in Afghanistan, allegedly financed by Russian intelligence.
We must remember that it was The Washington Post, along with The New York Times, that published sensational information which, citing unnamed sources, described the “hawala” system of the Taliban, which rewarded the killing of U.S. servicemen at Moscow’s command. However, the scandal quickly died away. No one managed to make the story last. According to DeYoung, Trump buried the results of the investigation, called reports by leading American media “fake news,” and publicly admitted that he did not even consider the matter necessary to discuss with Putin.
Furthermore, DeYoung considers the fact that Trump and Defense Secretary Mark Esper disclosed different reasons for the planned withdrawal of 12,000 American troops from Germany as yet another example of the disjointed attitude toward Russia within the administration.
While the defense secretary stated that the goal of the deployment was to strengthen “NATO deterrence of Russia,” the U.S. president linked the withdrawal primarily to Germany’s failure to adequately compensate America for its defense.
Also, referring to the sanctions imposed on European companies involved in implementing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, DeYoung concludes that Trump is undermining U.S. foreign policy by punishing Germany and other close allies, rather than Russia.
On the very next day, O’Brien outlined the Trump administration’s position on relations with Russia in The Washington Post. In an op-ed titled “President Trump Is Committed to Defending the US, and Russia Knows It,” O’Brien attempted to refute his opponent’s main points.
Countering accusations that Trump chose to minimize the Afghanistan scandal, O’Brien explains that, in fact, the president simply follows a different kind of policy in restraining Russia, which he considers more effective.
"If recently reported allegations of Russian malign activity toward Americans in Afghanistan prove true, Russia knows from experience that it will pay a price — even if that price never becomes public,” warned O’Brien.
Much of O’Brien’s article consists of a detailed account of the current administration’s efforts to contain Russia. Expressing the opinion that “no president since Reagan has shown such resolve to Moscow,” O’Brien lists numerous sanctions against Russian companies and private citizens, the closure of diplomatic missions, and other “successes” that should discredit opponents who believe Trump is too soft on Russia.
The positive rhetoric boils down to the final three paragraphs. “In June, the United States commenced talks with Russia on the New START accord. The United States is cautiously optimistic that we can reach an agreement with Moscow and China on a framework for arms control that seeks to limit all nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner,” O’Brien wrote, referring to the fact that the presidents of Russia and the U.S. “had a cordial call” about the subject on July 23. “Another area of potential cooperation with Russia is counterterrorism. Both Russia and the United States have had their homelands attacked by violent extremists. U.S. officials will likely engage with their Russian intelligence and law enforcement counterparts on such matters in the coming months,” O’Brien continued. In conclusion, he makes it clear that if Russia changes its policy and “refrains from aggression abroad,” it will become “a friendly partner to the United States and Europe.”
Vladimir Batyuk, chief researcher at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained the Trump administration’s reluctance to burn bridge bridges with Moscow. “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington sought to integrate the Russian Federation into the U.S.-centric system of alliances as a junior partner, or – if that failed – to isolate Russia. However, on July 23, announcing a new Cold War on China through the mouth of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Americans unwittingly increased the importance of the Russian factor in international affairs. America cannot crush the Chinese colossus alone. Therefore, it needs partners and allies, including Russia,” Batyuk told Kommersant. “Hence [we have] American officials’ statements expressing desire for friendly relations with Russia, if only Moscow refrains from aggression abroad and becomes a friendly partner of the United States and of Europe.
In sum, Batyuk said, “[T]he split in the Russian-Chinese alliance that has emerged in recent years is becoming the most important foreign policy task for the United States. It is true, at the same time, that Washington does not want to make serious concessions to Russia.”
Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, noted in turn, “The discussion on The Washington Post’s pages showed that Russia remains the main issue of the U.S. presidential election. The Democrats’ key thesis is that Donald Trump’s attachment to Vladimir Putin has no rational explanation, while Donald Trump himself is trying to prove that he alone is capable of strengthening relations with Russia to meet U.S. national interests … However, in any case, this is not an attempt to find a new balance between cooperation and rivalry in relations with Moscow, but rather a dispute over which means of restraining Russia will be most effective.”
“This means that after the U.S. presidential election, regardless of who wins, relations with Russia will continue to build on the basis of the ‘lowest common denominator,’ which implies a continuation of the current confrontational course. Moreover, anti-Russian sentiment among American elites remains very stable and even a sharp aggravation in relations with China would, most likely, not fundamentally change them in the foreseeable future,” Kortunov concluded.
As we near the finish line of the U.S. presidential race, the type of relationship with Russia that will best meet American national interests remains a main concern. The Washington Post published two articles in which Pulitzer Prize winner Karen DeYoung and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien argue about the effectiveness of Donald Trump’s Russia policy. Rejecting accusations that the president has no strategy for relations with Moscow, and that he flirts with President Vladimir Putin, O’Brien warns against a policy of containment, and sees Russia as a potential “friendly partner to the United States and Europe.”
Three months before the United States presidential election, the topic of U.S. relations with Moscow was raised once again in discussions about the presidential race, this time through two Washington Post op-eds. One of the articles criticized the president’s Russia policy, and the other justified it. The debate was led by DeYoung, Washington Post deputy editor-in-chief, and National Security Advisor O’Brien.
DeYoung fired the first shot on Saturday. In her article, “Differences Between Trump and Administration Officials Over Russia Disguises Lack of Strategic Approach to Moscow,” DeYoung built on the events of recent weeks, which she believes have brought the “dissonance between President Trump and his top national security team over Russia” to “new heights,” thereby pitting the president even further against his inner circle.
One of the ways Trump has shown his reluctance to aggravate relations with Putin, DeYoung argues, is the fact that in phone conversations with the Russian leader, Trump has never raised the issue of bounties placed on American servicemen in Afghanistan, allegedly financed by Russian intelligence.
We must remember that it was The Washington Post, along with The New York Times, that published sensational information which, citing unnamed sources, described the “hawala” system of the Taliban, which rewarded the killing of U.S. servicemen at Moscow’s command. However, the scandal quickly died away. No one managed to make the story last. According to DeYoung, Trump buried the results of the investigation, called reports by leading American media “fake news,” and publicly admitted that he did not even consider the matter necessary to discuss with Putin.
Furthermore, DeYoung considers the fact that Trump and Defense Secretary Mark Esper disclosed different reasons for the planned withdrawal of 12,000 American troops from Germany as yet another example of the disjointed attitude toward Russia within the administration.
While the defense secretary stated that the goal of the deployment was to strengthen “NATO deterrence of Russia,” the U.S. president linked the withdrawal primarily to Germany’s failure to adequately compensate America for its defense.
Also, referring to the sanctions imposed on European companies involved in implementing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, DeYoung concludes that Trump is undermining U.S. foreign policy by punishing Germany and other close allies, rather than Russia.
On the very next day, O’Brien outlined the Trump administration’s position on relations with Russia in The Washington Post. In an op-ed titled “President Trump Is Committed to Defending the US, and Russia Knows It,” O’Brien attempted to refute his opponent’s main points.
Countering accusations that Trump chose to minimize the Afghanistan scandal, O’Brien explains that, in fact, the president simply follows a different kind of policy in restraining Russia, which he considers more effective.
"If recently reported allegations of Russian malign activity toward Americans in Afghanistan prove true, Russia knows from experience that it will pay a price — even if that price never becomes public,” warned O’Brien.
Much of O’Brien’s article consists of a detailed account of the current administration’s efforts to contain Russia. Expressing the opinion that “no president since Reagan has shown such resolve to Moscow,” O’Brien lists numerous sanctions against Russian companies and private citizens, the closure of diplomatic missions, and other “successes” that should discredit opponents who believe Trump is too soft on Russia.
The positive rhetoric boils down to the final three paragraphs. “In June, the United States commenced talks with Russia on the New START accord. The United States is cautiously optimistic that we can reach an agreement with Moscow and China on a framework for arms control that seeks to limit all nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner,” O’Brien wrote, referring to the fact that the presidents of Russia and the U.S. “had a cordial call” about the subject on July 23. “Another area of potential cooperation with Russia is counterterrorism. Both Russia and the United States have had their homelands attacked by violent extremists. U.S. officials will likely engage with their Russian intelligence and law enforcement counterparts on such matters in the coming months,” O’Brien continued. In conclusion, he makes it clear that if Russia changes its policy and “refrains from aggression abroad,” it will become “a friendly partner to the United States and Europe.”
Vladimir Batyuk, chief researcher at the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained the Trump administration’s reluctance to burn bridge bridges with Moscow. “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington sought to integrate the Russian Federation into the U.S.-centric system of alliances as a junior partner, or – if that failed – to isolate Russia. However, on July 23, announcing a new Cold War on China through the mouth of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Americans unwittingly increased the importance of the Russian factor in international affairs. America cannot crush the Chinese colossus alone. Therefore, it needs partners and allies, including Russia,” Batyuk told Kommersant. “Hence [we have] American officials’ statements expressing desire for friendly relations with Russia, if only Moscow refrains from aggression abroad and becomes a friendly partner of the United States and of Europe.
In sum, Batyuk said, “[T]he split in the Russian-Chinese alliance that has emerged in recent years is becoming the most important foreign policy task for the United States. It is true, at the same time, that Washington does not want to make serious concessions to Russia.”
Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, noted in turn, “The discussion on The Washington Post’s pages showed that Russia remains the main issue of the U.S. presidential election. The Democrats’ key thesis is that Donald Trump’s attachment to Vladimir Putin has no rational explanation, while Donald Trump himself is trying to prove that he alone is capable of strengthening relations with Russia to meet U.S. national interests … However, in any case, this is not an attempt to find a new balance between cooperation and rivalry in relations with Moscow, but rather a dispute over which means of restraining Russia will be most effective.”
“This means that after the U.S. presidential election, regardless of who wins, relations with Russia will continue to build on the basis of the ‘lowest common denominator,’ which implies a continuation of the current confrontational course. Moreover, anti-Russian sentiment among American elites remains very stable and even a sharp aggravation in relations with China would, most likely, not fundamentally change them in the foreseeable future,” Kortunov concluded.
Previous article![]( "The United States Presidential Election: From 1 Peril to Another")
Next article![]( "Will Trump Pull ‘October Surprise’?")