As crises mount, relations
between the US and Russia are worse than at any time since the cold war
Vladimir Putin at a meeting with foreign investors in Moscow on 12 October. Photograph: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images
Boris Johnson’s suggestion that
Britain, the US and other allies are re-examining “military options” in Syria has sharply focused minds on a
phenomenon western politicians have spent the last 15 years trying not to think
about: post-Soviet Russia’s determined drive to re-establish itself as a major
global power and the willingness of its ruthless and tactically astute leader,
Vladimir Putin, to employ almost any means, including use of force, to achieve
that end.
The
foreign secretary’s remarks were condemned by Moscow as an attempt to whip up
anti-Russian “hysteria” and were swiftly disowned by a nervous Downing Street.
Johnson’s call for demonstrations outside Russia’s London embassy invited similar, retaliatory action against British interests in
Moscow. The gaffe underlined his inexperience and lack of judgment.
But on
Syria’s plight, and particularly on war crimes allegedly committed during the
relentless “pulverising” of Aleppo, Johnson had a point. His comments served to
highlight the much bigger strategic, security and diplomatic problem: what to
do about Russia.
Military
options are indeed being discussed again in Washington, from where Britain
usually takes its cue. The key question is no longer how best to remove the Syrian
dictator, Bashar al-Assad. It is how to stop the Russian military, Assad’s main
backer, which is held responsible, directly or indirectly, for numerous lethal
aerial attacks against civilians, hospitals and schools, including last month’s
destruction of a UN aid convoy.
So furious
was John Kerry, the US secretary of state, at what he saw as Moscow’s
deliberate sabotage of the latest Syria ceasefire that he broke off bilateral
talks with Moscow. Samantha Power, US
ambassador to the UN, accused Russia of “barbarism”. But repeating a pattern of behaviour
familiar in Ukraine, Georgia and other crises, an unabashed Putin refused to
back down. On the contrary, he rapidly upped the ante.
Within
days of Kerry’s move and official leaks that the White House was considering cruise
missile strikes on Syrian military airstrips, the Russian defence ministry
warned that Russia had deployed advanced S-300 and S-400 ground-to-air missiles
in Syria. Any US bombing raids would be deemed threatening to Russian military
personnel, who would respond accordingly. Moscow also doubled supplies to the Assad regime’s war effort.
Almost
simultaneously, Putin scrapped a US-Russia agreement to reprocess excess
plutonium to prevent its use in nuclear weapons and two other nuclear
cooperation agreements. The deployment of short-range, nuclear-capable
Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave in eastern Europe bordering Nato members Poland and
Lithuania, was confirmed. And, not coincidentally perhaps, massive civil
defence exercises were held inside Russia, in apparent preparation for a
nuclear war.
Just in
case Washington had not understood how serious Russia was, officials also
declared Putin was considering reopening military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. It
is hard to think of a more defiant, taunting message to the Obama
administration than conjuring the spectre of a new Cuban missile crisis.
Demonstrating
that Moscow has other strategic partnerships that could be turned against
Washington, Russian ships joined military exercises with China around the
disputed South China Sea islands. It is also busily building up alliances with
emerging powers such as South Africa and India, notably at this weekend’s Brics summit in Goa, while courting traditional American
allies such as Turkey and the Philippines.
Sergei
Lavrov, Putin’s veteran foreign minister, was blunt. Russia would not be told
what to do. Like it or not, it was once again a global force to be reckoned
with. “Washington... cannot
use the language of force, sanctions and ultimatums with Russia while continuing to
selectively cooperate with our country only when it benefits the US,” he said.
Last week,
Putin himself took to the airwaves to deliver a similar message. Responding to
a formal accusation by the US government that Moscow had launched a cyber
warfare-style campaign to “interfere with the US election process”, Putin denied he was trying to help the
Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
“They
started this hysteria, saying this [hacking] is in Russia’s interests, but this
has nothing to do with Russia’s interests,” Putin said. His government would
work with whoever won the election “if, of course, the new US leader wishes to
work with our country”.
This
latter statement was chilling. Putin was plainly saying that Russia, no longer
the post-Communist economic and military basket-case it briefly became under
his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, does not need or seek American
approval or agreement to take action in its own interests in Syria or anywhere
else. If Barack Obama or his successor want to do business in future, then
Russia must be treated as a global equal, not as an irritant or a spoiler or
mere regional actor.
Such
assertions flatly contradict Washington’s preferred narrative, namely that the
west “won” the cold war and Russia is no longer a great power. Hence, perhaps,
American slowness to come to terms with a changed situation. But the grave
implications of unravelling US-Russia relations are slowly sinking in across
Europe, as always the nervous pig stuck in the middle. The German magazine Spiegel recently
suggested that Syria was the most prominent battlefront in a new global war, more perilous
even than the Cold War because the old power structures and rules are no longer
in place.
Yet any
sort of western consensus over what to do about Russia remains elusive. Opinion
is divided in Europe, where many countries are dependent on Russian energy
supplies. Germany’s Social Democrats, for example, oppose sanctions on Moscow
in addition to those imposed after Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. Poland
and the Baltic states, threatened by the Kaliningrad deployment and border
troop build-ups, demand a more muscular Nato stance. Neutral Finland and
Sweden, troubled by Russian air and sea incursions, edge ever closer to the
western alliance.
The
so-called Minsk group is due to make another attempt to advance a Ukraine settlement.
But nobody is optimistic; the situation there is steadily deteriorating.
Following the bad-tempered cancellation last week
of Putin’s visit to France, EU heads of state are also due to meet on Thursday with Syria-related
sanctions against Russia on the agenda. This, too, may prove a non-event.
In
Britain, meanwhile, as Johnson splutters impotently and contradicts himself
over no-fly zones, the Labour party claims against all known facts that there
is some kind of equivalence between Russian and US actions in Syria. If
opposition fighters vacate Aleppo (handing victory to Assad), Labour suggests, all will be well. Its script could
have been written by the Kremlin.
The
challenge presented by Russia is one of the biggest facing the next US
president. Some analysts say Putin is taking advantage of Obama’s lame duck
status to create “facts on the ground” in Syria. The Russian president is said
to anticipate a further deterioration in bilateral relations if Hillary Clinton
wins.
The two have a history of personal dislike, dating back to Clinton’s time
as secretary of state. “She says she sees in him a cold-blooded, self-enriching
KGB agent and a bully; he remembers how she appeared to encourage street
protests against him in 2011,” said analyst Leonid Bershidsky. Speaking in August, Clinton described
Putin as “the grand godfather
of this global brand of extreme nationalism” – lumping him with Trump, German
anti-immigrant xenophobes and hard-right populists such as France’s Marine Le
Pen.
Assuming
Trump loses, a Clinton administration has three possible courses of action. One is to acknowledge Putin has a fair case when he argues that
the US, the EU and Nato ignored or trampled on Russia’s interests in the
post-Soviet era, accept that Crimea is lost and that Assad stays in power for
the time being, and focus in future on pragmatic, one-off “transactional” deals
where interests coincide.
A second approach is a longer-term variation
on the first, containing Russia wherever possible, maintaining or toughening
sanctions, and waiting for the departure of Putin and what some economists say
will be Russia’s inevitable economic collapse as its oil and gas runs out and
international ostracism, corruption and a declining working-age population take
their toll. The plan would be to re-set relations (again) with a post-Putin
“new Russia”.
The third possibility, and one that seems most
likely at this point given Clinton’s policy positions, is that the US will move
on to the front foot and purposefully confront Russia directly, not only in
Syria but on a number of other areas, backed up by the possible use of military
force.
This prospect is fraught with danger,
especially since Putin has shown repeatedly that he reacts badly to diktats and
threats. When cornered, Putin does not back down. He escalates. He does not
have a domestic electorate, critical parliament or independent media scrutiny
to worry about. He disdains international opinion and international law.
Despite last month’s bust-up, Kerry and Lavrov met again on Saturday to try to
agree another Syria ceasefire.
But a lasting solution looks as far away as
ever. If the past 15 years show anything, it is that Putin, like a marauding
Red Army tank, has no reverse gear.
Much in the Middle East, Europe and beyond
now rides on what an untested Clinton, with an awful lot to prove, decides is the
best way forward.
SYRIA
Barack Obama’s decision not to intervene
militarily after Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons left the door open for
Russia. By going to the aid of his long-term ally Assad, Putin saw a chance to
expand Russian influence in the Middle East at American expense and secure
military bases on Syria’s Mediterranean coast. Fighting Islamic State terrorism
was a secondary consideration. The US insists Assad must go, but its limited
commitment so far means the non-jihadist opposition continues to struggle while
civilians bear the brunt of the violence.
UKRAINE
Despite the US-orchestrated imposition of
international sanctions on Russia, Putin shows no sign of reversing his 2014
annexation of Crimea. Moscow’s not-so-secret support for separatists in eastern
Ukraine opposing the pro-western government in Kiev continues unabated, with
renewed fighting reported last week. Peace efforts led by Germany in the
so-called Minsk group have stalled. Given the US believes it is upholding an
important principle of international law, a future Clinton administration is
unlikely to recognise Russian-made “facts on the ground”.
THE BALTIC FRONT
The deployment of Russian nuclear-capable
missiles in Kaliningrad, the isolated enclave it controls on Poland’s and
Lithuania’s border, is the latest move in a war of nerves along Europe’s
eastern flank. The Baltic sea has also become a contested area as Russian
submarines and aircraft test western reactions. Nato has beefed up its
defences, and Britain has pledged its support. But the uncomfortable question
remains: would an American president go to war to defend Estonia?
CYBER
WARFARE
The US has formally accused Russia of
launching a hacking campaign to disrupt the American presidential electoral
process. The suspicion is that Putin, who has been praised by Donald Trump,
wants Hillary Clinton defeated and the credibility of the election result put
in doubt. Trump has already claimed the poll is fixed against him. Putin denies
involvement. But the affair resembles previous cyber attacks on countries that
were blamed on government-backed Russian hackers.
THE UNITED
NATIONS
The US and Putin’s Russia have clashed
repeatedly in the UN Security Council, most recently over Moscow’s veto of a
resolution demanding an immediate halt to the bombing of Aleppo. The standoff
has raised wider concerns about the effectiveness of the UN system when
permanent members appear permanently at odds and its aid convoys are blown up.
Russia is accused by the US of ignoring international law and of possible war
crimes, and there are moves to refer it to the International Criminal Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment