From what we have seen so far in both Democrat and Republican presidential debates, dealing with Russia’s macho leader, as well as understanding how the Great Game should be played in 2017 and beyond, is a task for which the current crop of American presidential hopefuls seem wholly unprepared.
Putin’s 2015 foray into Syria was a watershed moment. It showed that the US (and the West’s) relationship with Russia now effects more than what Russia calls its “Near Abroad”, a flexible term broadly covering the former Soviet Union as well as other parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Ukraine remains a very sore point for some US policy makers. But the stakes of the relationship are higher now, having direct bearing on the balance of power in the Middle East, the fight against global Jihad, as well as the economic and diplomatic re-integration of Iran into the world community, which will begin in 2016 but is likely continue to be a source of tension for years to come.
During the Cold War, US Presidents saw their foreign policy ultimately judged on how they managed their Soviet counterpart. Our next commander in chief will need to work effectively with Putin who is four years into a six-year term, with a likely further term keeping him in office until at least 2024.
Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton, is utterly hamstrung on Russia.
The most recent revelations from the Hillary private e-mails released during the holidays suggest she rejected advice to resign as Secretary of State over President Obama’s “open mic” comments on missile concessions to the Kremlin. Adviser Mark Penn told Clinton that Obama’s secret offer of a softer policy on nukes post the 2012 election “may be about the stupidest thing ever said by a president in foreign policy.”
Then there is the shadow still cast over Clinton by the Rosatom Affair, concerning the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled major US uranium mines the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), of which Hillary Clinton was a member as Secretary of State at the time the transaction was considered in 2009 and 2010.
The New York Times reported that a number of investors in Uranium One made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation around the same time CFIUS was looking at the sale of the American uranium assets to Russia.
Above all, Clinton was the author of the ultimately disastrous “reset” policy of 2009; and her credibility on Russia may be fatally undermined by her association with an Obama administration whose ideologically-driven weakness on the world stage has done more than anything else to encourage Putin’s rise: a policy that is now rightfully vilified as “leading from behind”.
Donald Trump, has a different take on the relationship with Russia, which isn’t reassuring. Trump’s approach to foreign policy is simple: project total strength. But it is not clear he understands the Russian agenda, the subtle cunning Putin deploys, and what it will take to work successfully with him.
Establishment Republicans, meanwhile, repeat the outdated and bellicose anti-Russian sentiment of previous nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney.
McCain famously said he saw three letters when he looked at Putin, “KGB”. More recently, in October 2015, he declared that America is effectively fighting a proxy war against Russia in Syria.
Romney, asserted in 2012 that Russia was “without question our number one geopolitical foe” and also claimed that Russia posed a greater threat than Iran, China, or North Korea.
Today’s center-right Republican presidential candidates have taken note. John Kasich memorably claimed in last December’s debate he wants to give Russia a “punch on the nose”, seemingly for no other reason than it would feel good. Chris Christie looks forward to being able to shoot down Russian planes in Syria.
What all candidates appear to lack is a well-informed, constructive but forceful strategy to engage with Russia.
America and the West need Russia as a partner in the fight against the far greater common foe of Islamic terrorism. Working together with Russia to defeat and destroy IS in Syria and Iraq should be priority number one for the relationship. A close second must be using Russia to help maintain leverage over Iran during the forthcoming implementation of the nuclear accord.
Putin will respond to two things: strength and also a clear sense of objectives in the game. Yet, it must be enlightened strength that recognizes how the world has changed. The next American President needs to determine carefully what his or her core strategic interests are and then pursue them without flinching – exactly the same way Putin does.
