III. Is Compromise Possible?
Left unresolved, the current stalemate will eventually lead to war. The Russian leadership cannot tolerate the post-2014 status quo, which it believes will lead to its demise. They also reject Western moral supremacy and global hegemony. Meanwhile, the Western leadership (putting aside Trump for the moment) is dominated by people who believe not only that Western hegemony must be upheld, but also that expansion of the Western world is necessary, and must continue. This means Russia’s desire to stay outside this world (and keep her “buffer zone” neighbors under a Russian umbrella) cannot be accepted.
These are two diametrically opposed schools of thought. Two tectonic plates on a direct collision course. We know what happens when tectonic plates rub against each other long enough. One small crack will be enough to trigger a massive earthquake.
Is there a better path? Can a new Peace of Westphalia be negotiated? What are Russia’s demands?
- Permanent end of NATO expansion. Not for 5 years or 10, but forever. All countries adjacent to Russia that are not already in NATO must remain neutral, like Finland or, better yet, friendly to Russia.
- And yes, that means some of these countries will always be vulnerable to Russian intervention, just as they are today. Their vulnerability is what makes Russians feel safe at night. Implicitly, Russia is granted a sphere of influence where she can interfere whenever her vital interests are at stake. This is what Russia won in Yalta in 1945, and never intended to give up in 1991 when Soviet troops left Eastern Europe.
- Stop and reverse NATO’s military build-up on the Eastern front. End attempts to build a missile defense shield that threatens Russia’s nuclear deterrent. And yes, all that means people like Estonians won’t feel very safe at night. But that too is good for Russia – so nobody gets any dumb ideas to use Estonian territory against Russia.
- No more US-sponsored attempts of regime change in Russia or in neighboring countries. End of US-directed media war against Russia. How Russia conducts elections or treats gay people is her own business.
- End of economic sanctions and any other efforts to harm the Russian economy. Russian banks and gas pipelines should once again be welcome as equal players in the Western marketplace.
What could Russia offer in return?
- Restoring Ukrainian sovereignty in the rebellious Donbas, with security provided by an international peacekeeping force from non-NATO countries like India, Switzerland, Austria or Brazil. (Who pays for that is a separate question.) As for Crimea, not so fast.
- Russian non-intervention in neighboring countries, so long as they don’t do anything to harm Russian interests.
- End of Russian hacking (except purely for espionage purposes), information warfare, support for fringe political parties and other activities designed to disrupt Western societies.
- Cooperation with US in the war against ISIS and global terrorism. In return, the US must drop its “Assad must go” mantra and agree to some kind of partition of Syria into spheres of influence.
- Resumption of nuclear arms control. Freeze development of new strategic weapons that menace the US mainland.
There are many other things the US could ask for, but will not get, ironically because Russia already feels backed into a corner, doesn’t have much left to give and feels too insecure. Democratic reforms in Russia? Neutrality in a US-China conflict? Withdrawal of Russian troops from Crimea? All of these could weaken Russia further, or make the US more powerful. Before 2014 and the Ukrainian revolt, all of these were possible bargaining chips. But that train has left the station, and Russia can never trust the US again.
This deal would never have been endorsed by Secretary Clinton, or by the majority of the current US political establishment. Their approach to Russia was, and still is, uncompromising: keep increasing the pressure and force capitulation. No need to bargain with a sore loser, who doesn’t have much to offer to the US anyway. Trump, on the other hand, seems amenable to some of Russia’s points. He has spoken dismissively of NATO as “obsolete” and positively of Putin, and promised to abstain from regime change, in Syria or elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, Putin wanted Trump to win, and Clinton to lose – or at least get heavily scarred in the process of winning. For Putin, stopping Clinton and destabilizing America was arguably a matter of personal survival. It would be harder for America to keep backing Russia into a corner while America’s own house is on fire. Putin counter-attacked, and it worked.
But stopping the American juggernaut is only half the battle. The post-2014 status quo – Kiev in hostile hands and sanctions strangling Russia — is intolerable for Putin. So, in his view, Russia still needs to get America not just to stop, but to give back its recent gains in Ukraine, lift sanctions and agree to his “New Yalta” deal.
Why would the US agree? What’s the benefit for America in a unilateral retreat, even if we accept Putin’s premise that America has overreached? Why should the US ease up and let Russia get out of the corner, when it looked like the US might be about to win? In fact, there are many strong arguments for staying the course. But most of them raise other troubling questions, when you look more closely.
IV. Instead of Negotiating, Should America Double Down?
First, Russia’s economy is a dinosaur, so why not just keep up the sanctions pressure and wait for it to collapse? In 2018, the Russian reserve funds are projected to run out. Let’s finish off Putin!
- This assumes China, which has plenty of cash, will not come to Russia’s rescue. Doubtful. China has much to lose if Russia collapses and a pro-American leader takes over.
- Sanctions rarely bring down repressive regimes. They didn’t work against Castro in Cuba, or Kim in North Korea. Saddam was muddling through as well, until the US Army had to be brought in. (Not an option against Russia…) Russia is richer than Iraq or Cuba, and can hold out for a very long time, while China keeps gaining on the US in the race for global dominance. Time may not be on America’s side.
- It is unlikely that Russian people will take to the streets, even if their economy collapses. Russians are hearty people who can stomach poverty and casualties. They believe they are right, and bowing to foreign pressure is just not how they roll. Instead, it consolidates them together. Most have closed ranks behind Putin in the face of external threat, just as they did for Stalin in 1941. Even the Russians who dislike Putin understand that he won’t give up power easily, and that a civil war in a country full of nukes is not a great idea. The Syrian example is instructive to them. Don’t expect Russian society to crack soon.
- But that brings us to the key point: has the US carefully considered the potential long-term outcome of a Russian revolution? A free Russia is not the likely result. Prior attempts at democracy were short-lived, and the civic culture is not ready for it. Look at Libya, or Syria. More likely, a Putinesque regime will defeat the rebellion, and hold out, in the European part of Russia. But the middle of the country, from the Caucasus to the Urals, populated in part by millions of Muslims, could blow up – and become the next ISIS. That would split Russia in half, roughly down the middle. The third piece – least populated but most oil-rich — would be the remote East Siberia and Far East. Cut off from Moscow and left to their own devices, they probably would end up controlled by a pro-Chinese regime, since China is next door and cannot let America get into Siberia. (As a result, China becomes an instant superpower, just like Iraq’s collapse played into Iran’s hands.) All three of these new regimes would have nukes.
- Far from nirvana, this should be America’s greatest nightmare: a nuclear-armed Caliphate staffed by Russian-trained officers, and a Greater China in charge of Siberian natural resources. And instead of a single Putin, now the US would have to deal with three Putins, each of whom can still destroy the US and one of whom may be a fanatical jihadist. Good luck negotiating with that crowd.
- Oh, one last thing – which Putin probably already whispered to Obama in private: If you succeed with your regime change shit, and crowds start storming the Kremlin, the last shot I fire will be a missile strike on America and Europe. I will slam the door on my way out. Millions of Western civilian lives may already – unbeknownst to them – be serving as collateral that secures Putin’s continued survival. If he goes down, we may go down with him.
Second, OK, maybe it’s not in America’s interest to make Russia crumble. But the US has a good thing going now, so why pull back? Russia is weak and cannot do much to us. So let’s just keep things as they are, and keep our fingers around Putin’s throat. We understand Putin is unhappy with the status quo, and may invade Ukraine again (sucks for them), but what can he really do to harm us?
- Well, he already showed a preview by hacking the Democrats. (To those of you who believe that affected the election, anyway.) Trump’s election may cause irreparable damage to America. And don’t get us started on what hacking can do to electric power grids, financial markets or air traffic control. (In fairness, Russia will probably save those moves for a real war.)
- More importantly, Russia’s cyber warfare and sophisticated “fake news” assault showed that the US political system is vulnerable to the same populist regime change tactics that the US and its friends had long used in Ukraine, Middle East and Latin America. If Americans don’t play ball, Russia can just keep turning the tables on them. American society is deeply divided while Trump’s administration may be the weakest, and most despised, in US history. Imagine a racial riot in Chicago, fueled by well-placed fake news stories and Twitter trolls. Or a Calfornia secession movement, picking up steam with murky funding and a blogosphere blitz. Creative opportunities to rock the US boat are endless. America already had one revolution and one civil war. It could be due for another one of those, or both, more so with crafty outside help.
- Aside from the US itself, Putin could pounce on other weak spots in the US neighborhood. For example, Mexico, a huge and shaky Southern neighbor ruled by a shady regime, where police abuse and media harassment are rampant – North America’s version of Ukraine. How hard would it be for Putin to start an insurgency there? The ripple effect on America’s Southwest, if Mexico catches fire and sends waves of new immigrants fleeing North, could be significant. Not to mention, the possibility of a “home run”: a Castro-like figure taking over Mexico City and striking an alliance with Russia and China. (In that case, the US may have to stop trumpeting international law and send in the Marines, just as Putin did in Ukraine.) Here too, Trump is already helping Putin by pissing off Mexicans.
- Closer to its home base, Russia would continue to destabilize the EU and NATO, focusing on its weak Southeastern rim. If the EU crumbles, then anti-Russian sanctions are toast, and so is the US-backed kleptocracy in Kiev.
- But the low-hanging fruit may be in the Middle East, still a vital supplier of oil to the global economy, where Russia always dreamed of being a big player – and sometimes has been. Putin is patiently stitching together a loose cobweb of overlapping “alliances of convenience” with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Turkey. Could someone help him sponsor a long-overdue Saudi revolution? This can lead to a complete ouster of US military presence from that region, disrupt global financial markets, and extinguish any hope of a US hegemony.
Trying to finish off a cornered rattlesnake, or even to keep it confined in the corner, is very dangerous business. The Russian snake has already lashed out, and will do it again. Putin now has little left to lose. America, by contrast, has much to lose if the snake bites in the right spot. Even if the snake dies, America may never recover.
V. What Shall Be Done? American Policy at a Crossroads.
The US policy makers have two basic choices with respect to Russia. The course they choose may ruin – or save – millions of American and Russian lives, and have “yuge” implications for the whole world.
One choice is to continue confronting Russia, in Ukraine and elsewhere, and refuse to concede any boundaries to Western expansion. This is a course that Russian leadership perceives as an existential threat to itself. Then the US policy makers need to be honest with the American people. They must admit that the US is playing a very risky game – especially if Putin is maniacal, as they claim – against a leader who has shown a propensity for sudden and dramatic moves.
Imagine if a US government official said this in public:
“Yes, we are trying to overthrow Putin. We need Russia to accept our dominance and our rules. That can only happen if his dictatorship falls, or capitulates. Leaving Russia and its neighbors exempt from the American system would mean that we can never beat China. We need to keep moving forward and win now, otherwise the US will fade away and China will rule the world. And yes, this is a dangerous path and could get us all killed.”
This admission would play into Putin’s hands, of course. He will say: See, I told you. But most Russian people already believe this anyway. Moreover, in a true democracy (if that’s what America still wants to be), leaders cannot avoid telling their own people the truth just because it might validate the enemy’s propaganda. Especially when life or death of millions of Americans is at stake. If America’s survival is potentially put on the line, in a surreptitious effort to overthrow the one guy who can kill us all, then the US people should know this and should be involved in the decision.
Polls suggest that most Americans do not wish to confront Russia. In a recent survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, they were asked: “In dealing with Russia, do you think the US should undertake friendly cooperation and engagement with Russia or actively work to limit Russia’s power?” 56% chose cooperation, 39% chose “limit power.” This, despite being bombarded with an overwhelmingly negative and scary image of Russia by the mainstream US media for decades. The majority of Americans do not share the vision of Washington’s foreign policy makers and don’t trust the media that parrots them. Maybe Trump was no dummy when he made friendship with Russia (and hatred of “dishonest media”) part of his election platform?
Similarly, German polls show that most Germans support lifting the sanctions on Russia, while Chancellor Merkel and Der Spiegel do not. No German Trump has surfaced yet, but it’s only a matter of time. Across the Western world, the public’s vision has diverged from that of the governing elite – on this issue and many others. No wonder populism is rising. The people are frustrated with an elite that pursues policies they don’t agree with and don’t understand, and the traditional media that fails to honestly examine these policies. Maybe it’s because people sense there is a part of the story that is being hidden from them?
So, if the US elite chooses the “double down” approach, it will need to do a better job of explaining the reasons to the skeptical American public. After Iraq, most US people don’t believe what they hear from Washington, or on CNN. Simply saying “Putin is the Devil” and “Russia is a threat” doesn’t work. Most people either aren’t buying it, or don’t see it as a valid reason to risk nuclear war. Repeating clichés about Ukrainian sovereignty and sanctity of borders also doesn’t work. Americans know what their own country does overseas, and can smell hypocrisy from ten miles away. The only thing that works is the truth, and the US leaders owe it to the people. Not only because honesty is required in a bet-the-house case like this, but because without it they will not be able to sell Americans on all-out war with Russia when the time comes. Unpopular wars have brought down many Presidents.
The other choice is to back off and accept that Pax Americana won’t happen and NATO expansion is over. That the US cannot defeat both China and Russia, and must make peace with at least one of them – whatever that takes – or, more likely, accept sharing global power with both. That many nations do not like American values and find them threatening, and the US cannot keep trying to impose these values on others. That Putin is not a maniac who seeks world domination, but simply an insecure despot trying to hang onto power – so he can keep looting his country and die in luxury. That America has overreached, and Ukraine needs to make its own peace with Russia – again, whatever that takes. (Ukrainians can choose to fight to the death, but that’s neither the best outcome nor America’s fight. If Trump cuts off the money lifeline that keeps afloat corrupt Kiev mafiosi masquerading as revolutionaries, and stops supporting them publicly, that might bring peace quickly.) That Putin should be left alone in his fiefdom, because Russians will be tough to beat and the consequences of continuing to “lean in” could be catastrophic for America.
This choice seems to be Trump’s view. Astonishingly few serious US analysts or policy makers advocate this choice publicly. A few, like Henry Kissinger, Robert Gates, and even the intellectual godfather of NATO expansion (and perennial Russophobe) Zbigniew Brzezinski are honorable exceptions. The vast majority of the US media is too busy demonizing Putin and Trump to pause and consider the case for compromise. There is no serious debate about this choice in America. The TV zombie box just keeps blaring that Russia is evil and confronting her is our duty.
It is a sad commentary on American politics that the only US politician advocating a sane foreign policy on Russia is a narcissistic xenophobe who grabs pussies and mocks disabled people. But, sometimes, unconventional outsiders are the ones who find the hidden path. They see shit that normal people don’t see. Trump has been a jerk to many people, but that doesn’t mean his views on Russia are wrong.
Russia may never be America’s ally, but there should be no compelling reason for her to be America’s mortal enemy. And treating Russia as a mortal enemy is a path to nuclear annihilation. I never thought I would agree with The Donald on anything, but this case is an exception. America should back off. Trump is right.
Vadim Mahmoudov
February 11, 2017.
Thank you for taking the time to do the analysis and write this.