Avoiding Crises: What Trump’s Foreign Policy Will Be

During the election, Donald Trump made more than a few statements regarding foreign policy. Some of them gave hopes that he will try to improve U.S. – Russian relations, which are in a deep crisis today. To tell the truth, Trump’s campaign promises often contradicted one another. What will be the foreign policy of the 45th president of the United States of America, and should we really count on him establishing a constructive dialogue with Moscow?

In American politics, they often aim to play hardball, wishing to get all of the spoils. This is a zero sum game: the loser doesn’t just disappear, like in Russian roulette, but they do not get the chance to play a second round. In domestic politics, the opponent doesn’t win any political points and usually doesn’t become a candidate again. In foreign politics, the opponent either ceases to be a serious competitor, or becomes part of the American global agenda, as a follower who chose to be on “the right side of history.” There is no third, compromise solution available from the outset. It can only come about as a result of harsh crises, like during the Cold War period.

Today, alas, such crises are becoming the rule, not the exception, and American politicians, as the presidential election demonstrated, are ready to play a tough game. To discredit their opponent, the candidates for the most important position in the country were capable of accusing one another of anything. Hillary Clinton built her campaign, to a large extent, on accusing Donald Trump of betraying national interests: unethical ties with the Kremlin, encouraging Russian espionage and hacker attacks. Through her efforts, the Republican candidate appeared to the electorate as either a paid agent, or as a useful idiot of the wily aggressor and dictator, Vladimir Putin. For his part, Trump declared unambiguously that after violating the rules of classified communication, Hillary shouldn’t even be a presidential candidate, but rather serve time in prison, which he would make sure of, were he elected. In terms of the amount of compromising material, dirt and mutual accusations, these elections are hard to compare to any previous ones.

In foreign politics, the urge to get all of the spoils is especially dangerous. The United States is no longer in a condition to control the world from a position of power and the imposition of its own values. Other powers have become stronger and made their presence known, vying to increase their winnings and to divide up responsibility for control of the globe. The list of disagreements between the U.S. and China is growing, while the latter is fighting for its own sphere of military and political influence in Asia and does not wish to join the system of trade and economic agreements initiated by the United States. Moscow has even more grievances about America’s system of global dominance. Pushing Russia out of Europe by expanding NATO, the global strategy of overthrowing governments unfavorable to Washington, economic sanctions caused by the Ukrainian crisis: Those are just some of the manifestations of the far-reaching crisis in Russian-American relations.

We can expect that the new U.S. administration will attempt to establish a dialogue with Russia. After the end of the Cold War, such attempts were made thrice: each time when the American leadership changed. Today, the relationship with America is entering a fourth cycle in its development. Although this relationship is at the lowest point it has been in the last 30 years, the list of issues that require Russian participation to be solved is still long. Specifically, Washington’s priorities are the issues of nuclear proliferation, cyber threats, terrorism and regional instability. With the appropriate political will, diplomacy could create conditions that make a dialogue possible.

There are two more circumstances that will push the U.S. to establish a dialogue with Russia. The first is related to the weakened international capabilities of the U.S., which is wracked with significant internal problems. The main part of the society’s trust in the political class is at a low point and continues to fall. The economy is developing weakly. The American system needs reforms and a new deal with the populace. These problems caused Trump’s phenomenal success. If he wants to have a second term, he must engage in structural reform.

The second circumstance is tied to the growth of China, the only country that the U.S. sees as a threat to its global positions and future security. The overwhelming majority of American politicians think that it is paramount to fend off China’s international ambitions, and some openly call for Moscow’s support in accomplishing this. Even those who are convinced that Russia is too weak to be a partner are wary of strengthening Sino-Russian military and political ties. Moscow and Beijing’s closeness got an additional boost because of Western sanctions; this is a process that is being monitored closely in Washington, and with greater alarm as it seems more like it is moving towards an alliance on Chinese terms.

Alas, the factors that make establishing a dialogue between the U.S. and Russia difficult are quite important too. The most important among them is the huge deficit in trust between the elites in both countries. The U.S. election that just wrapped up showed that it’s not just those in the Kremlin who think that the other side is seeking to weaken their competitor by pushing regime change and destroying their political system. It became clear that in the American political class too, there was a deep weakening both in understanding Russia’s foreign policy goals and also confidence in the stability of its own domestic institutions. Both sides are convinced that their fundamental perceptions of the global order are irreconcilable. Their interests indeed differ, and their allies on both sides are pushing to polarize them. For instance, Poland, the Baltic states and others demand that Russia be treated harshly, while Syria and Iran are jealous of any attempts at cooperation by Moscow and Washington.

An important and typical problem for Russian-American relations is the psychological compatibility of both countries’ leadership. Putin and Hillary’s public spats are well known. It’s heartening that there are no such problems between Putin and Trump. Both politicians have expressed mutual sympathy on several occasions, and they no doubt hope to find a common language, but this is still no guarantee of success. Let’s remember that there was also a mutual understanding between Putin and Bush; however, it was Bush who initiated a whole series of steps in the area of nuclear security, NATO expansion and global regime change that were unacceptable to Russia. Trump’s positions on a whole set of issues will also be a serious problem for Russia. Specifically, he has been critical of the Russian-American agreements on Iran and controlling nuclear weapons. Besides which, Trump is impulsive and politically unpredictable. It’s not out of the question that Trump will re-evaluate all of the policy statements that made him liked by Russians during the election. Trump is quite capable of becoming a difficult partner. Even if the first steps towards reconciliation are made, the likelihood is quite high that they won’t be received well or with the appropriate level of responsibility.

There is still a tendency in relations between Moscow and Washington to hold back the ambitions of the opposing side rather than the will for pragmatic cooperation. All of this leads to the conclusion that the dialogue will be complicated and possibly short-lived, after which there will again come attempts to solve things by force. Only time will tell if the two sides have reached the limits of their arm-flexing contest or whether there are still battles ahead over Ukraine, the Middle East, control over the information sphere and so forth. For relations not to end up in a terrible crisis once more, there needs to be a road map of moving toward a new global order. The transitional period will be long and there will need to be a “negative” agenda based on the principle of “do no harm,” drawing red lines and developing measures to increase trust. For now, this is all that we can realistically strive for.