Jiri Valenta: Deal-maker Trump Will Likely Choose Persuasion
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
In the time of international challenges, the collaboration between Russia and US become even more important. Many experts express concerns over Trump policies and his possibility to address key international agenda issues such as protracted conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. In an interview with RIAC Director General Dr. Andrey Kortunov, Dr. Jiri Valenta, CFR member, reflects on what made the victory of Donald Trump possible and shares his perspective on US – Russian rapprochement under President Trump, cooperation on security matters as well as relations between the leaders of Russia and the US.
In the time of international challenges, the collaboration between Russia and US become even more important. Many experts express concerns over Trump policies and his possibility to address key international agenda issues such as protracted conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. In an interview with RIAC Director General Dr. Andrey Kortunov, Dr. Jiri Valenta, CFR member, reflects on what made the victory of Donald Trump possible and shares his perspective on US – Russian rapprochement under President Trump, cooperation on security matters as well as relations between the leaders of Russia and the US.
Andrey Kortunov: These days many American foreign policy pundits consider a potential US – Russian rapprochement under President Trump to be a challenge rather than an opportunity for the United States. The predominant assumption seems to be that Trump might be willing to get back to business as usual with the Kremlin to the detriment of US partners and allies all over the world and, in the end of the day – to the detriment of fundamental US interests. Do you share these concerns?
Jiri Valenta: Indeed, in the run-up to the US presidential election, the mainstream media, the democratic campaign, and even some Republicans repeatedly warned of the supposed endangerment of the US national interest by the apparent affinity between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. However, how real is this threat? And wouldn’t the US-Russia collaboration be conducive, rather than detrimental, to Washington’s international standing?
This is not a wholly far-fetched scenario. In this June 2001 meeting with President George W. Bush, Putin, seeking America’s support for the war in Chechnya, warned of an imminent attack on the US by Al-Qaeda, then nesting with the Taliban. While this warning seemed to have been ignored, the two presidents developed a genuine strategic partnership after the 9/11 attacks against the Islamist foe in Afghanistan. Most essential was Russia’s arrangement of over-flight rights and logistical support for American forces through Central Asia. Had Washington finished the war in Afghanistan rather than proceed to Iraq, Putin, who found Bush “a decent man… someone with whom he could do business,” might have even sought NATO membership, as he rhapsodized in a BBC TV interview.
Andrey Kortunov: Yes, for some time in early 2000s it seemed that we were entering an entirely new era in the US – Russia relations. Nevertheless, the euphoria did not last for too long. What went wrong, in your view?
Jiri Valenta: As events transpired, the American intervention in Iraq created a dangerous power vacuum that was eventually filled by Islamic State (IS). This and the crisis in the South Caucasus were serious tests for the US – Russia relations. NATO also embarked on what Putin perceived as a dangerous expansion toward the Russian border, and he began to speak about a new “encirclement” of Russia. In August 2008, Putin invaded Georgia, ostensibly to protect two breakaway, Russian-speaking provinces, but also to regain valuable Georgian coastline (Abkhazia) that had been lost with the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Andrey Kortunov: So these tests apparently outweighed good personal relations between George Bush and Vladimir Putin. In fall of 2008, many of us believed that we were doomed to a long period of the US-Russia confrontation. Yet, in less than a year, we watched the launch of the policy of “reset” and President Barak Obama came to Moscow as a partner, not as a foe.
Jiri Valenta: True, but despite President Obama’s backing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “reset” of US-Russia cooperation, relations quickly soured. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who opposed the 2011 intervention, put it, “The Russians firmly believed they were deceived on Libya” by the expansion of the NATO intervention from the protection of civilians to the toppling of the Qaddafi regime, with the attendant loss of many Russian military and economic contracts. “They would subsequently block any future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”
“If Libya breaks up and al-Qaeda takes root there,” Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned, “the extremists will end up in the North Caucasus.” After Qaddafi was killed and Libya disintegrated into an amalgam of rival Islamist militias, with weapons of the fallen regime exported to terror groups abroad and throngs of migrants using the country as a springboard for crossing into Europe, Putin was determined to ensure the survival of the Assad regime. Apart from shoring up Russia’s foremost regional ally vis-à-vis the US, which had made its removal a top priority, Moscow was heavily invested in refurbishing the port of Tartus and planned energy pipelines through Syria.
Andrey Kortunov: There are reasons to believe that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was more hawkish on many foreign policy matters than President Obama. She supported the US intervention in Iraq, lobbied for an active US engagement in Libya and later on entertained the idea of a no-fly zone in Syria. Do you think that with President Clinton in charge, Russia would find it very difficult, if possible at all, to cooperate with US on security matters?
Jiri Valenta: In my view, by the time of the US presidential campaign of 2015-16, Putin had concluded that, given Hillary’s hawkish foreign policy record in general and the Libya misadventure in particular, he could not work with her as president. He was likely aware of Trump’s Reagan-like strategy of reestablishing peace through strength by rebuilding the US military while at the same time rejecting large-scale foreign interventions aimed at regime change and nation-building and seeking cooperation and partnership with Russia. Reagan’s actions were rooted in pragmatism, not ideology. Trump seems to display a similar pragmatism, as well as a relatively positive view of Putin.
Andrey Kortunov: Until the very end of the election campaign, many of us did not believe that the victory of Donald Trump was possible. The Washington political establishment had mobilized a very powerful coalition against him, including most of the mainstream media, leading think-tanks, foundations, even Hollywood stars. Yet, he won. When did you personally realize that Trump could really make it?
Jiri Valenta: Let the facts speak for themselves. I am enclosing a July 4, 2015 open letter we wrote to Donald Trump, that I published on the CFR Member Wall and at your Russian International Affairs Council. It was then that I first realized and wrote that he was a serious candidate. I was laughed at by everybody. There was no one else at CFR who seriously supported him in writing. Only the CFR president, Richard Haass, with whom I corresponded, eventually met with Trump. At CFR I was totally ignored. My wife and partner, Leni Friedman Valenta, a former Democratic Party official turned Tea Party activist, posted the letter at their command center. A great discussion followed!
In my analysis of Trump’s potential, I engaged in comparative analysis with yet another man underestimated by your and our establishment, Boris Yeltsin. You know I was the first russologist in America who recognized Yeltsin as the wave of the future for Russia. Trump actually reminded me of Yeltsin, a large, charismatic builder involved with peaceful revolution, who mesmerized crowds and took on the entire establishment, I developed a personal relationship with Yeltsin and had two unprecedented visits with him in 1990 in Moscow, one of them with two bottles of vodka and his family, and I am featuring it in my forthcoming memoirs.
Leni and I have written dozens of blogs published at the CFR Member Wall and also at RIAC and reprinted at Linkedin. Incidentally, credit where it’s due, your organization never censored me. Unfortunately, I was twice censored at CFR. Yesterday, after I wrote a major article supporting General Petraeus becoming Secretary of State, the Linkedin URL I attached mysteriously didn’t work.
My total break with the establishment about Trump came with an article we were asked to write for The National Interest, “Why Trump is Right About Bush’s 9/11 Record.” Supporting Trump in a major fracas over whether Bush had kept us safe in 2001, I let the evidence lead me. My conclusion was that Bush and Condoleezza Rice flagrantly failed in protecting us from 9/11 despite being warned it was coming from the CIA but also from Vladimir Putin. I also took to task Rubio’s adviser, Max Booth, who called Trump a “fascist” (no wonder Rubio failed) and a man whom I respect, columnist George Will, who didn’t think he was conservative enough. Finally, when I heard a few months before the election that key members of our establishment like Dick Burns’, who joined Hillary as her adviser, were still trying to poison the minds of Russian analysts and officials by badmouthing Trump, I became certain he had a good chance to win.
Andrey Kortunov: The ongoing conflict in Syria appears to be one of the urgent tasks that the president elect has to address. The situation in Aleppo and around is changing very fast; the forces of Assad are gaining ground and are committed to capturing the whole city. On the other hand, we see Turkey getting deeper and deeper involved in fighting in Syria. What should the Trump Administration do to help resolving this protracted conflict?
Jiri Valenta: Rather than fight Russia and Assad, Trump should, and likely will, recognize that his most immediate task in the Middle East is to seek great power collaboration in ending the “geopolitical Chernobyl” that is the Syrian civil war (to use General David Petraeus’s words). The war is an Islamist hotbed radiating across the Middle East and attracting via social media, young jihadists from around the world, increasingly including our country. And they don’t need any weapons. Just yesterday 18-year old Somali at Ohio State University attacked his fellow students with a car and butcher knife and injured several.
Donald Trump Will Create a “Window
Of Opportunity” In the Middle East
Even before his inauguration, the president-elect should present Putin with proposals for a joint Syrian policy. As our small institute proposed in BESA (Center for Strategic Studies of Bar llan University) paper, they should include: a) the immediate cessation of air attacks on the city of Aleppo; b) the creation of enclaves to protect innocent civilians, to be established with UN and international support; c) the removal of all Islamist groups from Syrian territory; d) a declaration of amnesty for anti-Assad resistance groups; e) a declaration of the Syrian regime’s readiness to cooperate with non-jihadist rebels in forming a unified government; and f) a purge of Assad generals found guilty of crimes against civilians.
Andrey Kortunov: And after a stable cease-fire is reached and a political dialogue starts?
Jiri Valenta: Eventually, Assad will have to be replaced with another, more acceptable Alawite figure (I’m sure you know the Alawites are essential for the protection of Syrian Christians). The Sisyphean and enormously costly rebuilding of Syrian infrastructure and civil society should become a multinational project with the participation of the UN, the great powers, the anti-Islamist Sunni governments and, perhaps, even Israel. It is essential that Trump recognize the unspoken linkage between the Syrian conflict and Ukraine – his weakest foreign policy area. These conflicts will have to be approached separately and jointly at the same time, with tough deal-making required on both fronts.
Andrey Kortunov: So, what about Ukraine?
Jiri Valenta: Trump can begin with Henry Kissinger’s notion of Ukraine as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than a western bulwark. But the bridge must be bolstered by a Swiss-Austrian-type armed neutrality and US defensive arms. Trump was poorly advised to remove these arms from the GOP platform. Because Ukraine will never seek NATO membership, the arms will be used for strictly defensive purposes.
Andrey Kortunov: Should we be concerned about how Trump approaches Iran?
Jiri Valenta: Trump has highlighted his intention to revise, rather than shred, the nuclear deal with Iran. To accomplish this, he will likely reinstate a genuine military option for both the US and Israel, pending Tehran’s failure to live up to its provisions.
Andrey Kortunov: We know that there are many hardliners from the neocon camp, who are trying to ‘educate’ Donald Trump on foreign and security matters. Do you think that under this pressure he might seriously deviate from his campaign agenda?
Jiri Valenta:The president-elect will still be dealing with those bound by the traditional Cold War view that Moscow must be kept out of the Middle East and that containment of the Russian bear is preferable to persuasion. In my view, deal-maker Trump will likely choose persuasion. My hope is that he may be able to calm the naysayers by following in Reagan’s footsteps. While dealing with the then-controversial Central American issue that divided America in the 1980s, Reagan established a Bipartisan Commission on Central America chaired by Kissinger that helped to forge a national consensus. By taking similar action, Trump could benefit from the expertise of foremost authorities. One example would be General Petraeus, who is not only a tested military commander but also a brilliant strategist. I would like to see him preside over US foreign policy-making as did General George Marshall in the late 1940s. But in any case, Petraeus will have a prominent role.
Trump is a new kind of president. He took on the entire establishment and prevailed. With his ascendancy Americans can liberate themselves from self-imposed Cold War shackles. Partnership with Christian Russia is a prerequisite for the saving of Western civilization, rooted as it is in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Recall that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill forged a close alliance with Stalin against the Nazi threat. Putin, a Christian autocrat, is no Stalin. Remember Churchill’s famous quip: “If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” We would do well to remember which devils they can tolerate and which they must destroy.
Andrey Kortunov: In US – Russia relations, personal relations at the highest level have always been very important. The Russian and the US presidents are likely to meet before too long. Suppose, you were in a position to advise President Putin on the eve of his first meeting with Donald Trump. What would be your advice?
Jiri Valenta: As a new leader he will be feeling his way. He has a big ego and needs to feel respect. He is basically an optimistic person, so start by finding common ground. I would advise Putin to reread some of your own articles, like the one where you found the courage to calm him down on Turkey while being interviewed by a Turkish newspaper. I would also seriously advise him to forget most of the American russologists and read Leni’s and my blogs for CFR wall and RIAC. I know some of Trump’s advisers. I am very glad that Trump is appointing some of the generals. Contrary to popular belief, generals and military officers are not war mongers. Remember I taught them for a decade at the US Postgraduate Naval School. All in all, patriotic, bright and hard workers. Many had seen battles and were psychologically affected by its horror. They believed that the military should be strong to assure deterrence, avoid wars. I believe this holds true also for the Russian military.
As you can see how Trump was ostracized by most of CFR, the supposedly most prominent people, it is clear Putin should forgo regular meetings with the large delegations from established research institutions. After all, Trump said he wants to “drain the swamp” in D.C. Maybe Putin should also drain his in Moscow. He should rely on independent thinkers who genuinely believe that US-Russian rapprochement is possible and are prepared to march to their own drummer and not to follow the herd. Recall some of the Reaganites were those who believed and wrote, since we “won” the Cold War, we could be, as Winston Churchill proposed, magnanimous with Russia. Churchilian notion of magnanimity even implied we should look seriously at NATO membership for Russia. Unfortunately, as the Reaganites faded away they were replaced by flexible apparatchiks seeking jobs and titles but not having any new ideas. Only a few of them ever saw actual invasions or interventions like some of us.
Final point: any serious improvements at home, more rights for Russian citizens and human rights activists, even gestures like Boris Nemtsov’s plaque recently erected in Nizhni Novgorod, would strengthen what is in my judgment inevitable; a new, democratic revival that will again occur in Russia as the great Russian thinkers, Andrey Sakharov and Alexander Yakovlev believed. And then, as in the late 1980’s, we can build again a strategic alliance between our two great countries.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
