Russia is not our Adversary [View all]

[grantcart]

Russia is not our Adversary.

Words matter and once you establish certain frames of reference then the terms define the acceptable outcomes and thereby significantly limit policy options. Limited options often are accompanied by heightened emotions and flash points. This was exactly how World War I was started, once a certain framing was accepted then it was inevitable that war would follow.

The word adversary is not the word for diplomacy or for normal relations between states. It is a term that presages conflict not resolution, military confrontation not diplomatic cooperation.

To begin with we have no inherent conflict with the people of Russia. Both countries have long term interests and there is some inherent competition of those interests but there is nothing that cannot be surmounted with reason, good will and mutual respect.

The current Russian leadership is the result of the greatest theft of state assets creating the world’s greatest kleptocracy. Putin is anti-democratic and has used blackmail, fear and murder to consolidate power. However we have allies, like President Duterte of the Philippines who has killed more and the House of Saud that are less democratic.

It was somewhat astonishing then that the House Committee today glibly asked the Director of the FBI and the NSA if Russia was our adversary and their glib reply was a single affirmative “yes”.

Historical Objectives of Russia

From Czarist Russia to Revolutionary Russia to the USSR and the current Russian Federation there has been a remarkably consistent Raison d'être for its political class. Consistent with Toynbee’s understanding that climate and geography are strong determinates of national character and interest Russia’s unique position and climate have forced a remarkably consistent nexus of interests for its leadership over 5 centuries. Those priorities have been:

1) Obtain a Warm Water Port. No land locked country has succeeded in developing a strong basis for its society. Here are two articles that explain the existential need for a warm water port and their movements in the Ukraine and Syria:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/warm-water-port.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/navy-base-syria-crimea-putin/408694/

2) Security through Hegemony. Russia’s immense and long border make border security impossible. To achieve border security Russia has for centuries opted for the only practical option that would provide security in neighborhoods that can be aggressive, hegemony. By concentrating power onto smaller neighbors they are practiced at installing friendly governments in its neighbors that would provide a buffer from aggressive large countries. It usually is a positive cost/benefit formula. Usually not requiring force but when it does, like Czechoslovakia in 1968, it is a temporary high profile exercise followed by controlling an autonomous friendly client state. The initial movement of Soviet forces into Afghanistan was not an invasion against a government that was hostile to the Soviet Union but, strikingly similar to the Czech invasion, was made to support the Communist government that had taken control of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

It is easy for Americans to be critical of Russian reflex to always try to establish intimidation of hostile neighbors but we have been almost universally surrounded by friendly neighbors our entire existence. If you want to see how we would react to hostile neighbors simply look at the disproportionate response that the US had by the relatively small challenge that Cuba presented.

3) Authoritarian Rule. With so much territory and so much divergence in culture between the European West and the Asian East Russia has always supported strong despotic leaders as they value order over chaotic discourse. Putin is not contrary to Russian rule but fills the same shoes that Catherine the Great (and others) wore, although he is more much more civilized than his ancient predecessors.

4) Acceptance as a European Equal. Russia doesn’t want to dominate Europe nor does it necessarily need to challenge the US. It does mean that a united European Community with a strong bond to the US challenges Russia’s essential identity and that they are determined to disrupt the coalition. At the heart of Russian leadership is the desire to be accepted as an equal member of standing in the European community and they don't care how many heads they have to smash to get that respect.

Trump is going to destabilize US/European relationships to the same degree that Bush destabilized middle Eastern relationships. The best response is for the US to remain united with Europe and patiently continue to present a united front for universal democratic values. If the outcome of Trump’s paranoia and transgressions is that we come to automatically label Russia as an “Adversary” then we will have increasingly limited options to trying to establish normal relations between countries based on mutual respect.

In pursuing the crimes of Trump and his associates and exposing how those crimes intersect with the criminal side of Russia we should not allow our bilateral relationship to escalate in a way that makes military confrontation, either directly or indirectly through surrogate conflicts, more likely. It is the kind of nuance that Trump could never fathom.

To give an example how we might be able to solve big problems with Russia and maintain our principles look at the Russian annexation of Crimea. Russia couldn't care less what we think in the short term. They will take decades of discomfort in exchange of obtaining a lock on centuries of a warm water port.

In the international law that covers the Suez and Panama Canal there is, I believe, the foundation of a settlement that would meet the important interests of all sides. The principle for the Suez and the Panama canal is that once you create a universal passage then you cannot use that passage to exploit a parochial advantage. If Egypt or Panama try to close the waterway then the international community has the right to restore its universal application, but they don't lose sovereignty. In the Crimea we could use the same principle of establishing an "international port and land bridge" to Russia. Like Suez and Panama the administration would be subcontracted to a private company and the fees for usage revert to the sovereign power, in this case Ukraine. If Ukraine did move to restrict access of goods to Russia then they would have the military right to enforce its reopening (like France/England did in Suez, or the US has in Panama). Ukraine would continue to hold the rights of sovereignty (for example any crimes committed in the port would still be tried in Ukraine) but an Intergovernmental Committee with the stakeholders could govern the running of the port and the corridor to Russia.

Trump is like a crazed bull in the glass emporium. It would be a tragedy if his Presidency gave Putin his ultimate victory by destabilizing not only the Atlantic alliance but created a chaos that allowed Putin to profit from his crimes.