What a real Russia policy would look like

By Jennifer Rubin 

President Obama, when confronted with criticism of his foreign policy blunders, likes to claim that his critics have no alternative. Well, it’s not their job to have a successful policy; it’s his. Right now there is failure as far as the eye can see. (Just today Obama conceded that his big diplomatic initiative to involve Russia on Syria has gotten him nowhere.)

Contrary to the president’s feeble excuse, critics have a basket full of constructive ideas on Iran, the Islamic State and Russia. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is just the latest to offer a well-reasoned approach to Russia.

He writes:

Even with new Russian strikes on ISIS-controlled areas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks and the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, Russian forces have trained the large majority of its bombs on coalition-backed opposition fighters. 

[Russian President Vladimir] Putin has also explicitly stated that he wants to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, which directly contrasts with stated U.S. policy. 

Turkey, a NATO ally, has suffered repeated violations of its airspace as Russia pursues its offensive against Syrian opposition forces.

Putin, as Cotton notes, has been remarkably successful, in large part due to the administration’s passivity. 

Cotton recommends increased military and intelligence assistance to NATO and our other allies and more:

First, as always, comes security. With its partners, the United States should establish a no-fly zone and safe haven at least in southern Syria near Israel and Jordan, for which former CIA Director David Petraeus, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates—all former Obama cabinet officials—have called. Washington should also increase its support for Syrian opposition forces.

In Ukraine, the United States should have provided anti-armor and other advanced weapons requested by the government long ago; and it should do so now. The United States should also provide Ukraine with the intelligence it needs to anticipate attacks originating in Russian territory.

Cotton also urges the United States to get tough over “Russia’s flagrant violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a bedrock of stability in Europe for nearly three decades. New, non-compliant Russian missiles threaten virtually all of Asia and Europe, particularly if they are stationed in Kaliningrad. U.S. allies may soon have to account for these Russian nuclear capabilities when dealing with—and perhaps making concessions to—the Kremlin.” Cotton calls for the United States to pressure Putin diplomatically but also upgrade our own defenses. (“United States Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has laid out options that include active defenses, counter-force capabilities, and countervailing strike capabilities. All three capabilities warrant a program of record and robust funding in Obama’s 2017 budget request.”)

Cotton also proposes upping the economic pressure on Russia:

Individualized sanctions against regime cronies should reach many more Russian elites, as well as their spouses and children. Furthermore, the United States should enact direct and secondary sanctions against Russia’s energy sector, especially its refining industry, which is antiquated and dependent on a steady flow of spare parts from Western nations. Sanctions affecting other industry sectors should also be seriously considered, with their possibility clearly communicated to the Kremlin and foreign investors alike. Additional sanctions should be given a deterrent quality by making them contingent on destabilizing actions by Russia. For instance, sanctions could extend to individuals and entities involved in Russia’s sale of the S-300 air-defense system to Iran or the inking of new major weapons deals with Assad.

Finally, Cotton recommends we deploy “prosecutorial resources on Putin’s worldwide corruption racket”; “craft laws in the tradition of the Helms-Burton Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act to open U.S. courts to victims of Russian aggression, theft, and war crimes”; and utilize “public diplomacy and information strategies … [including taking] the lead in funding translation services to make Western media available in Russia.”

You can hear the cries from the White House: This will put us in a new Cold War. That would be laughably wrong and very revealing. We are already in a Cold War, but unlike previous Democratic presidents (Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy Jr., Lyndon Johnson) who responded to Soviet aggression and acted in defense of the West without setting off World War III, this president simply capitulates again and again to Russia.

The Congress should listen to Cotton and move on legislation to accomplish many of these ideas. GOP presidential candidates should consider his policy suggestions. That still leaves us with questions for Hillary Clinton:

Did she envision this kind of conduct when she initiated Russian reset?

Does she still think it is a success?

What is her policy alternative to passivity?

It seems the most prominent person who is not giving an alternative to Obama’s failed Russia policy is his former secretary of state. It’ll be interesting to see what she comes up with, if anything, to redesign a losing policy she helped devise.

Original