Among the first world leaders
to congratulate President-elect Donald Trump was Vladimir Putin. And why
shouldn’t he?
Just when relations between
Russia and the West are at their most precarious point since the Cold War, Mr.
Trump has been Russia’s defender and the beneficiary of Moscow’s efforts to
influence the presidential campaign. At times he has seemed almost intoxicated
by the Russian president, praising Mr. Putin’s firmness and insisting that the
two could resolve any differences if they met. Meanwhile, he has shown little
concern that Russia poses a major strategic challenge.
Few experts believe that
Russia wants war with the West, but many worry that Mr. Putin’s aggressive
behavior as he tries to revive Russian greatness (thus masking problems at
home) could result in the kind of dangerous miscalculations that often lead to
armed conflict.
Russia’s hacking of the
Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to interfere in the
election was brazen. Even worse were actions that threatened human life and
global stability, like Mr. Putin’s airstrikes against civilians in Syria, his positioning
of nuclear-capable weaponry near Poland and the Baltic States, his annexation
of Crimea and the war he waged in eastern Ukraine. He violated the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by producing a ground-launched cruise
missile and canceled a 16-year-old accord on reducing stockpiles of
weapons-grade plutonium.
Despite this behavior, despite
the obvious need for the next president to be alert to Mr. Putin’s mischief and
to be willing to resist it, Mr. Trump has so far been Mr. Putin’s apologist.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the
intelligence community’s finding that Russia was behind the hacking, displaying
a disrespect for the facts and for the security institutions that compile them.
On Thursday, a senior Russian official admitted that the Kremlin had been in
contact with Trump allies during the campaign. While it’s not unusual for
presidential campaigns to be in touch with foreign leaders, the situation
raises heightened concerns given the hacking and the connections between a
former senior Trump campaign official and the pro-Russia former president of
Ukraine.
Since Mr. Trump has refused to
criticize the Kremlin, it’s important that Mr. Obama figure out, before he
leaves office, how to punish Russia for the hacking in a way that demonstrates
Washington’s determination to resist cyberattacks without further escalating
the conflict. Getting the balance right will not be easy. Mr. Obama should also
keep talking with Russia on mutually acceptable cyber-deterrence guidelines
that set rules for regulating, defending against and deterring malicious
intrusions in cyberspace.
The deteriorating relationship
between Moscow and Washington is a long way from what was envisioned when the
Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and there were high hopes that Russia would
become a democracy integrated with the West. In 2009, Mr. Obama authorized
Hillary Clinton, his first secretary of state, to “reset” relations, aiming to
foster cooperation.
The two sides worked together
on an arms control treaty and the Iran nuclear deal, but on the whole the reset
failed, largely because of Mr. Putin. Restoring Russia to power and to a
central role in world affairs turned out to be more important to Mr. Putin, and
the Russians, than peaceful or profitable ties with the West. His foreign
policy is a fairly consistent continuation of Soviet policy — preventing
Western encirclement by moving into Ukraine; fighting proxy battles to support
Russian interests, as in Syria; and challenging American power wherever
possible.
Mr. Obama was slow to
recognize Mr. Putin’s revanchist mission, as were other Western leaders. Now
that the threat is obvious, America and its allies cannot afford for Mr. Trump
to make the same mistake. What’s needed is a pragmatic review of
American-Russian relations that includes, at a minimum, a reaffirmation of
America’s commitment to NATO, which Mr. Trump disparaged during the campaign,
and to European democracy. Mr. Putin is working to undermine both.
Achieving the right balance
between firmness and conciliation has never been an easy task for the United
States or its Western allies. The alliance has largely been unified in
supporting sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine and in agreeing to
deploy military battalions of 800 to 1,200 multinational troops in Poland, in
Lithuania, in Estonia and in Latvia, in addition to a brigade of four more
battalions to be based in Romania and Bulgaria. Additional moves may be still
be required.
Even so, the relationship between the United States
and Russia cannot be allowed to slip back into a poisonous Cold War-like
rivalry. The Kremlin’s receptivity to working with Mr. Trump could be exploited
to serve a useful purpose. Maybe Mr. Trump will have enough influence with Mr.
Putin to persuade him to adhere to arms control agreements and come back into
compliance with those Russia has breached.
In many ways, Mr. Putin appears strong, but he is
playing a weak hand, as Russia’s oil-dependent economy shrinks, its population
ages and the country remains mired in costly military operations in Syria and
Ukraine. He needs to have no doubt that the United States and its allies will
defend their principles and values even as they remain open to cooperation when
the interests of the two sides overlap. That is the core of Mr. Trump’s
challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment