[ad_1]
President Donald Trump will meet Russian Vladimir Putin next month in Helsinki, Finland. President Trump has long sought this summit and talk is better than silence. However, without change in US policy, the positive results are unclear.
Much of Washington has set the Russian Federation as the most dangerous enemy of America. Democrats who rejected Mitt Romney when he touched Moscow in 2012 now treat the White House as occupied territory by Russia. Republicans outraged by any nation that resists American authority see Putin as a leader of global resistance. US policymakers are strangely treating Russia as the threat it wants to be.
The president should approach the summit with a realistic assessment of Moscow's capabilities and intentions. Putin is not a friend of liberalism in the West, but then many American allies are no less authoritarian. There is no evidence that it bears any ideological animus towards America or Europe. The KGB officers were among the most mundane and cynical Soviet officials. Although Putin regrets the geopolitical collapse left by the collapse of the USSR, he did little to recreate the Empire of Evil. Resuming Crimea and gaining influence in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Donbass does not count for much.
Putin's policy suggests that his ambitions are those of a modern tsar. A world empire is unrealistic and useless. Instead, he stresses respect for the interests of his nation, expects secure borders, seeks to deter potential military threats, and wishes to participate in global power councils. Nothing suggests plans of aggression against Europe. And the Europeans do not believe it either: even screaming countries for US troops spend just two per cent of GDP in their armed forces, ridiculous levels they really fear an attack.
The United States might prefer the embarrassing Russia of the 1990s, but it is gone forever. Moscow is no longer a superpower, it does not have the population and the necessary economy. Russia is however able to assert itself, as evidenced by its policy of confrontation with Georgia and Ukraine. Yet, again, the Putin government's ambitions were limited: taking control of certain territories and freezing conflicts to prevent the two countries joining NATO. In this behavior Putin has been ugly but effective, and not worse than that of such American allies as Saudi Arabia, which is waging a brutal and selfish war, with American support, against Yemen.
While many Westerners complain about Moscow's security fears, this prospect is easier to maintain with the history of America than the history of Russia. Add to that Washington's widespread attempts at regime change, support for "colored revolutions" and the calculated lie about NATO's expansion: Russian skepticism toward Western intentions. is understandable. What Moscow considers to be crimes may not justify its actions, but its bill certainly explains the aggressiveness of Russia.
Relationships, though bad, have not yet turned into another cold war. To improve bilateral relations, the two leaders should begin by comparing national goals. There are no essential conflicts. Even where the two governments seem to be opposed, as in Syria and North Korea, the differences are manageable. Moscow wants to participate in the action and Washington can not refuse a role to Russia.
Indeed, Syria demonstrates that American decision-makers too often succumb to the interventionist temptation, immersing themselves in the world even if it is not in America's interest. . Moscow long allied with Damascus. A continuous Russian bridgehead hardly diminishes Washington's influence: after all, the United States is allied with Israel, the Gulf States, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and the United States. all other countries in the region. Washington decision makers simply want it, but it is not always possible.
Presidents Trump and Putin also shared open interests in cooperation. Terrorism is an area. Maybe Syria and North Korea if the United States is ready to share the stage. In fact, President Trump would be interested in using the next summit to reach an agreement on Syria that would allow a US exit, a laudable goal. Maybe there is an agreement to hit Iran, since Moscow seems interested in bringing the latter out of Syria.
More importantly, it would be to work together to coerce China, that is to moderate its ambitions and influence. The United States has unnecessarily pushed Moscow to Beijing in a stupid but unintentional reversal of President Richard Nixon's geopolitical strategy. The tensions between China and Russia, junior partner in any relationship, are obvious. Moscow might prefer to look to the West, where its economic and territorial interests are less likely to be overwhelmed.
To forge better relations, Washington and Moscow must solve the problems that divide them most clearly. Since Putin is unlikely to admit to interfering with the US election, both presidents should agree to stay out of the internal affairs of the other. In fact, the United States is a more active mediator than Russia-Washington has intervened in at least eighty-one elections around the world, including the 1996 Russian contest. And that does not include the coups d'etat and other forms of coercion. Acknowledging his past bad behavior would give Washington greater credibility for complaining in the future.
Source link
