Brian M Downing
The Trump administration talks of a new era of cooperation with Russia. The historical rivals, it believes, can work together in fighting ISIL and developing oil and gas fields, especially in the forbidding trans-Ural and Arctic regions. The partnership may be facilitated by the affinities between two strong-willed leaders who relish power, both personal and national, and welcome opportunities to enhance them.
A partnership is attractive and within reach from the vantage point of the president and his aides, despite occasional demurrals. The bureaus of Arlington and Langley and Laurel are more circumspect. They point to recent Russian actions as signs of concern. The most vigorous response has come from UN ambassador Nikki Haley, who is not a policymaker.
The Ukraine
After several months of reduced conflict during which intermittent artillery salvoes replaced sizable infantry engagements, fighting has increased sharply. This may signal Moscow’s intention to test western resolve in a country with considerable support from NATO though not membership in the defense organization. Alternately, it may be the opening to the acquisition of, through diplomacy with Washington or through armed force, a land bridge connecting Russia with a recent conquest, the Crimea.
The Arctic
Over the years Russia has, by planting its flag on ice floes and sea floors, signaled claims to Arctic regions outside its recognized territorial boundaries. It has set up military posts on barren islands, invested in new ice breakers, and conducted military exercises. The military significance is negligible, though Scandinavian countries might worry that Russian claims to their remote islands are impending.
There is also concern of that Russia will claim rights to resources beyond those contained in international agreements. And of course Russia can better exploit those resources with technology acquired from American corporations.
Syria
In recent years Russia has outmaneuvered the US regarding Assad’s possession of chemical weapons, used massive firepower to regain territory, greatly weakened Turkey’s partnership with NATO, and demonstrated the West’s unwillingness to use force or even form a meaningful response.
Peace negotiations are underway in Kazakhstan, a country close to Russia geographically and politically. The US is conspicuously absent, raising the possibility of a major diplomatic feat in the region that had no significant American participation.
Libya
Russia supports warlord and former CIA asset Khalifa Haftar, who has seized control of much of the east and south of Libya, including a considerable portion of its oilfields and export terminals. Haftar is positioned to drive on the former capital, Tripoli, where a western-backed government tries to administer what it can. He needs only a go-ahead from his backers and a steady supply of Russian arms.
Iran
Since the P5+1 agreement on Iran’s nuclear program in 2015, the mullahs and generals have made a concerted effort to irritate the United States. IRGC ships assume attack profiles as they come on American vessels in the Persian Gulf. Missile tests probe the limits of the international agreement. A recent test brought a stern response from the Trump administration.
Most of these actions have almost certainly been approved by Russia. They are welcome parts of a SIno-Russian effort to test and wear down American resolve in many parts of the world, from the Baltic to the Sea of Japan. It’s plausible, however, that Iran’s recent missile test was an effort to gauge the limits of Russian support. Thus far, Russia has not offered any support to Iran, in either word or deed.
The Kremlin looks at the US
Putin must like what he sees. His chief rival in the world is beset by controversy over the presidential election and a recent executive order on Muslim immigration. The country is deeply divided along red and blue lines. Racial tensions are the worst since the late sixties. Large angry demonstrations are commonplace. Riots with vandalism and arson are erupting too, most recently at a university where a Trump supporter was scheduled to speak. The United States isn’t very united anymore.
Putin might, if only in jest, see parallels with 1991 and 1917 in his own country, or wonder where the next Ft Sumter is. He may recognize the opportunity to act while the US is deeply divided and seemingly paralyzed. Or, he may see Trump as someone who may lash back, either because it fits his temperament or because he believes it will unify the country.
Alternately, Putin may feel confident that he has, or can soon reach, an agreement with a new president – one unschooled in world affairs or Russian foreign policy. If so, people and nations wonder what is the quid and who are the quos?
US national security bureaus
The Trump administration has been oddly silent on recent Russian moves, though ominously harsh toward Iran for an action much less worrisome than, say, Russia’s in the eastern Ukraine. The prospect of a common effort against ISIL seems too small and probably short-lived to form a solid partnership.
The administration has taken the baffling step of removing a general from the National Security Council and replacing him with a calculating pol. The president has antagonized counterparts in Mexico and Australia, and is about to do the same with the Likud government in Israel over West Bank settlements.
Many in the security bureaus will speak out or even resign if in coming months the administration is too accommodating with the Kremlin. Many will also wonder if the newly installed president can act in the nation’s interest, or if he came to an understanding with Putin, if only a tacit one, before the ballots were counted last November.
Copyright 2017 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.