Oil and geopolitics in the Trump administration

Oil and geopolitics in the Trump administration 

Brian M Downing 

President-elect Trump spoke confidently of better relations with Russia and blamed his adversary, former Secretary of State Clinton, for tensions. His National Security Advisor, retired three-star Michael Flynn, envisions a US partnership against Islamist militants. The choice for Secretary of State, Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson, has close business ties with Russia. Vladimir Putin has honored him with his country’s Order of Friendship. Who could ask for more?

Oil and geopolitics have gone hand in hand since Nobel and Rothschild developed the fields of Baku, and the dreadnoughts of world powers moved away from coal-propulsion. But is a long-term partnership, beginning with a major oil deal, going to bring better relations between the US and Russia? Is there a nuanced perspective in the Trump Tower, or will the Kremlin recognize naiveté and emerge with the upper hand in a few years?

Detente redux?

An oil partnership, from the perspective of the president-elect and his proposed chief diplomat, will begin to restore relations between the two powers. Russia will benefit from joint ventures, especially in the Arctic region, and be more accommodating on other matters, hopefully in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

This may be illusory. The view from the Kremlin differs tremendously from that of a high-rise in Manhattan or Dallas. Russian leaders, from the early Romanovs to the present, have placed far less emphasis on trade and revenue than on power and territory.

We may be seeing a reprise of the Detente strategy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. It brought hearty handshakes and trade deals but came to a halt with the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The leadership did not hesitate to act in its security interests and the public demonstrated its willingness to endure the hardships of sanctions, seeing them as part of foreign efforts to weaken their land and open it to invasion.

Objections inside the US

Stronger business ties with Russia will not be warmly greeted in the American public or congress, even, if not especially, among members of the president-elect’s own party. Many of the retired military personnel in the administration and their colleagues in the Pentagon will be circumspect, to say the least. Objections will be based on residual Cold War outlooks but also on straightforward assessment of present-day actions and ambitions, which are not so apparent to those in real estate and hydrocarbons.

Continued trade will cancel out the sanctions imposed after the seizures of the Crimea and the eastern Ukraine. It isn’t time to forgive and forget those invasions – nor to overlook Aleppo. Security thinkers in the US, Asia, and Europe will wonder what future deals the Trump administration will cut at the expense of various countries in the world

An Arctic enterprise will bring Russia substantial revenue that solidifies authoritarian rule and further strengthens the military and security bureaus. The enterprise will also transfer technology and help Russia exploit the Arctic region, despite the wording of international law.

Confidence in the result of improved trade ignores the geopolitical framework of the day. Russia and China are in alignment and routinely challenging American influence in the world from Eastern Europe to East Asia. Russia will not risk so portentous an alignment for relatively small advantages with a country whose political system could reverse course shortly after the next election.

The Russian Far East is coming into Beijing’s business sphere. Development projects are undertaken by Chinese engineers and workers – much to the dismay of the region’s officials and population. Russia and China may one day be antagonistic – a scenario that might figure in the president-elect’s calculus. But that day is not at hand. Strengthening Russia today carries greater risks for the US and its allies than for Russia and China. Those states will see their rival’s geopolitics swayed by egotism and the attraction of a deal.

Copyright 2016 Brian M Downing

Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.