The Trump administration and the future of American-Russian relations
Brian M Downing
President-elect Trump has all but promised better relations with Russia. Throughout the acrimonious election campaign he criticized Hillary Clinton for damaging the ties between the two powers. He has even expressed optimism of working with President Putin on a solution to the vexing Syrian war.
The two powers might be able to reduce the fighting in Syria by supporting a partitioning of the country, chiefly along sectarian lines. Largely overlooked is the cooperation in Afghanistan, where logistics rely on supply routes through Russia. Agreement on broader issues across Europe and the world, however, is unlikely. There are serious disagreements on each other’s role in the world, capacities, and intentions.
Weakness and resurgence
Russians look warily at the world around them. History has given them good reason to. Mongols, Napoleon, and the Third Reich have devastated the country. The most recent, still in the living memory of many, left 27 million dead.
The collapse of the Soviet Union brought the dissolution of the tsarist empire and a protracted period of weakness. George Bush the Elder assured the new Russian leadership that NATO would not press eastward by incorporating Eastern European countries and former soviet republics, but his successors did just that, triggering alarms in Russia that fueled support for authoritarian rule.
With a stronger form of government in power, led by a former security apparatchik, Russia is reasserting itself in the world. It’s seeking to do so at the expense of the power that it sees as having exploited its weakness in recent decades.
America in decline
Like many countries, and many American thinkers too, Russia perceives the US as a weakening power. Internally, the US is riven by political polarization that may one day bring secession. The recent election is making this clear, though had it gone the other way secessionist sentiment would almost certainly have been stronger.
The US is also weakened by racial tensions. A new wave of Black militancy is beginning and Latinos are facing large-scale deportations despite their importance in the economy and their composition of a new proletariat.
Cities and critical infrastructure are in disrepair. Wealth has become concentrated in small, disrespected elite. The national debt continues to rise to incomprehensible levels.
The military is committed to scores of countries around the world. Troops have been introduced or reintroduced to Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya. Many Americans would prefer to see defense spending reallocated to domestic problems. Troops are increasingly concerned with deployments which have cost lives and marriages. The US is less willing to use large-scale force than it once was – and far less than Russia is.
Partnership with China
Putin’s assessment of his country’s power may well be illusory. Oil revenue upon which the economy depends is expected to be low for many years. Other parts of the economy are held back by oligarchic monopolies and fear of state arbitrariness and confiscation.
Russian power is strengthened by partnership with China, whose power is undoubtedly on the rise. It too sees the US as having exploited its weakness and as a power in decline. The two states can challenge – and further weary – the US across the Eurasian land mass. Russia wants the US out of Eastern Europe, China sees its reassertion of greatness hindered by the US presence in East Asia.
Early signs of confronting China on Taiwan and trade will steel the Moscow-Beijing partnership and increase their resolve to expand their influence at Washington’s expense
The Eurasian partners know that the US has powerful allies in Europe and Asia. They also recognize that an inexperienced president, one prone to intemperate statements and openly critical of many allies, may weaken even longstanding vital partnerships.
* * *
President Trump, though a successful dealmaker in the business world, is unlikely to bring about a new day of comity with Russia. He will have to recognize that recent tensions are based not on dubious policies of the present administration but on diverging national interests. He may also have to recognize that his personal forcefulness and negotiating skills will be at least matched by those of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
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.