It is a terrible idea
GEORGE W. BUSH looked into
Vladimir Putin’s eyes and thought he saw his soul. He was wrong. Barack Obama
attempted to “reset” relations with Russia, but by the end of his term in
office Russia had annexed Crimea, stirred up conflict elsewhere in Ukraine and
filled the power vacuum that Mr Obama had left in Syria. Donald Trump appears
to want to go much further and forge an entirely new strategic alignment with
Russia. Can he succeed, or will he be the third American president in a row to
be outfoxed by Mr Putin?
The details of Mr Trump’s
realignment are still vague and changeable. That is partly because of
disagreements in his inner circle. Even as his ambassador to the UN offered
“clear and strong condemnation” of “Russia’s aggressive actions” in Ukraine, the
president’s bromance with Mr Putin was still smouldering. When an interviewer
on Fox News put it to Mr Trump this week that Mr Putin is “a killer”, he
retorted: “There are a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so
innocent?”
For an
American president to suggest that his own country is as murderous as Russia is
unprecedented, wrong and a gift to Moscow’s propagandists. And for Mr Trump to
think that Mr Putin has much to offer America is a miscalculation not just of
Russian power and interests, but also of the value of what America might have
to give up in return.
The art of the deal meets the tsar of the steal
Going by the
chatter around Mr Trump (see Briefing), the script for Russia looks
something like this: America would team up with Mr Putin to destroy “radical
Islamic terror”—and in particular, Islamic State (IS). At the same time Russia
might agree to abandon its collaboration with Iran, an old enemy for America in
the Middle East and a threat to its allies, including Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.
In Europe Russia would stop fomenting conflict in Ukraine, agree not to harass
NATO members on its doorstep and, possibly, enter nuclear-arms-control talks.
In the longer term, closer ties with Russia could also help curb Chinese
expansion. Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump’s most alarming adviser, said last year
that he had “no doubt” that “we’re going to war in the South China Sea in five
to ten years.” If so, America will need allies, and Russia is a nuclear power
with a 4,200km (2,600-mile) border with China.
What’s not to like?
Pretty much everything. Russian
hacking may have helped Mr Trump at the polls, but that does not mean he can
trust Mr Putin. The Kremlin’s interests and America’s are worlds apart.
In Syria, for example, Mr Putin
makes a big noise about fighting IS terrorists, but he has made no real effort
to do so. His price for working with America could be to secure a permanent
Russian military presence in the Middle East by propping up Bashar al-Assad,
whose regime was revealed this week to have hanged thousands of Syrians after
two- or three-minute trials. None of this is good for Syria, regional stability
or America. Even if Mr Putin and Mr Trump shared a common goal (they don’t) and
Americans did not mind becoming complicit in Russian atrocities (they should),
American and Russian forces cannot easily fight side by side. Their systems do not
work together. To make them do so would require sharing military secrets that
the Pentagon spends a fortune protecting. Besides, Russian aircraft do not add
much to the coalition air power already attacking IS. Ground troops would, but
Mr Putin is highly unlikely to deploy them.
Likewise, Russia is not about to
confront Iran. The country’s troops are a complement to Russian air power. Iran
is a promising market for Russian exports. And, most of all, the two countries
are neighbours who show every sign of working together to manage the Middle
East, not of wanting to fight over it.
The notion that Russia would be a
good ally against China is even less realistic. Russia is far weaker than
China, with a declining economy and population and a smaller army. Mr Putin has
neither the power nor the inclination to pick a quarrel with Beijing. On the
contrary, he values trade with China, fears its military might and has much in
common with its leaders, at least in his tendency to bully his neighbours and
reject Western lecturing about democracy and human rights. Even if it were wise
for America to escalate confrontation with China—which it is not—Mr Putin would
be no help at all.
The gravest risk of Mr Trump
miscalculating, however, is in Europe. Here Mr Putin’s wishlist falls into
three classes: things he should not get until he behaves better, such as the
lifting of Western sanctions; things he should not get in any circumstances,
such as the recognition of his seizure of Ukrainian territory; and things that
would undermine the rules-based global order, such as American connivance in
weakening NATO.
Mr Putin would love it if Mr Trump
gave him a freer hand in Russia’s “near abroad”, for example by scrapping
America’s anti-missile defences in Europe and halting NATO enlargement with the
membership of Montenegro, which is due this year. Mr Trump appears not to
realise what gigantic concessions these would be. He gives mixed signals about
the value of NATO, calling it “obsolete” last month but vowing to support it
this week. Some of his advisers seem not to care if the EU falls apart; like Mr
Putin, they embrace leaders such as Marine Le Pen who would like nothing more.
Mr Bannon, while admitting that Russia is a kleptocracy, sees Mr Putin as part
of a global revolt by nationalists and traditionalists against the liberal
elite—and therefore a natural ally for Mr Trump.
Played for a
sucker by a silovik
The quest for a grand bargain with
Mr Putin is delusional. No matter how great a negotiator Mr Trump is, no good
deal is to be had. Indeed, an overlooked risk is that Mr Trump, double-crossed
and thin-skinned, will end up presiding over a dangerous and destabilising
falling-out with Mr Putin.
Better than either a bargain or a
falling-out would be to work at the small things to improve America’s relations
with Russia. This might include arms control and stopping Russian and American
forces accidentally coming to blows. Congressional Republicans and his more
sensible advisers, such as his secretaries of state and defence, should strive
to convince Mr Trump of this. The alternative
would be very bad indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment