Which Way With Russia?

An Imaginary Campaign Debate

             President Putin took “the high road” in response to President Obama’s new sanctions, saying he would not respond in kind and that he’s waiting for President Trump to try to improve Russian-US relations. Is that a ploy or might there be a possibility for better relations? While currently there is public debate about US intelligence reports on Russian cyber attacks on our election, during the entire election campaign, there never was a serious policy debate about the issues facing our two countries. So, here’s an imaginary one with timely, tough questions by a journalist seriously interested in informing us, rather than simply entertaining us. Sometimes, we learn more and our thinking is challenged more by a serious journalist’s questions than from any candidate’s answers.  Instead of using actual names of candidates, I’m naming them “Way Out” and “Old Way,” and using the initials “S.J.” to represent the serious journalist.

           

            S.J.: WELCOME to tonight’s debate on relations between the United States and Russia. Welcome “Old Way” and welcome “Way Out.” Please, just call me “SJ.” To begin, I invite each of you to make a brief opening statement. Way Out, you go first.

            Way Out: Very briefly, I would ask all Americans the question, wouldn’t it be a good thing if we had friendly relations with Russia? I’ve had a lot of experience doing business with the Russians, and, after all, Vladimir Putin is a smart guy and I’m a smart guy, so why can’t we get along. That would be SOO Good.

            Old Way: That’s nice, Way Out, but SOO naive. Russia’s goals and methods, and our goals and methods are very different. Putin wants to keep regimes in power or put regimes in power that serve Russia’s interests, and, as we’ve witnessed in Syria and Ukraine, he’s willing to lie and use military power to accomplish his goals. Our goal is to support democracy. Realistically, I do believe, sometimes, we need to use military force to defend or advance democracy.

            S.J.: Well, I suppose it’s not surprising, in limiting you to brief statements, that both your statements sound sort of simplistic. Let’s dive deeper into the key issues between our countries, starting with Syria and Ukraine. In Syria, failed Russian-US diplomatic cooperation has compounded the catastrophic civil war and led to a doubling of the number of Syrian deaths and refugees in the last three years.

            I imagine from what you’ve said Way Out that you think the US should cooperate with Russia in Syria and, maybe even after events in Aleppo, should still cooperate against our common enemy, ISIS. Do you think US support for regime change in Syria was a mistake?

            Way Out: Yes, that’s right. I think Obama’s policy in Syria was stupid, SOO stupid, and pushing for regime change in Syria was stupid. Just like in Iraq and Libya, It was not only stupid, it was a DISASTER.

            S.J.:  I know, Old Way, you supported the goal of getting rid of President Assad in Syria. I want to ask you about a missed opportunity early in 2014, when the numbers of Syrian deaths and refugees were half what they are today. After months of diplomacy by highly respected UN special envoys, the UN Secretary General issued invitations to all the countries involved in the conflict, including Iran, to attend a conference to negotiate an end of the war and a political transition process. The conference never happened, in part because the US absolutely rejected Iran’s participation and insisted that Assad’s ouster had to be a goal of the conference. Looking back, do you think the US was right and realistic in taking these positions? 

            Old Way: Yes, I do. Getting Assad out was an essential US priority and inviting Iran to participate in the conference was a big mistake. As an alternative, I was urging President Obama to use limited US air power against Assad’s forces, including creating “no fly zones,” to protect civilians and support the democratic opposition. 

            S.J.: As I’m sure you are aware, what you advocated carried some serious risks. Several military experts argued at the time that US airstrikes on Syria, defended by Russian radar and missiles, would run the risk of US pilots being killed or captured and risk major escalation of the war, including direct military confrontation between the US and Russia.. Way Out, what is your view of the UN’s diplomatic efforts in Syria?

            Way Out: The UN is a kind of club where members talk a lot, it costs us a whole lot of money, and it never accomplishes anything. The idea of inviting the rogue, terrorist state of Iran to help end the war in Syria was crazy – almost as stupid and crazy as the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by Obama. That’s the worst deal ever. As President, one of the first things I’ll do is cancel that deal.

           

            S.J.: So you would cancel the Iran nuclear deal even though the deal delays Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons for at least ten years and despite the fact that independent verification to date confirms that Iran has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement.

            Way Out: You can count on it. I will cancel the Iran deal.

S.J.: Now, turning to Ukraine, was the US right in supporting the popular uprising against the corrupt, Russian-allied government in Kiev? As a result, things have gotten quite complicated, including formation of a new, very corrupt Western-oriented coalition government in Kiev. In response to the toppling of its ally, Russia took control of Crimea and is exerting effective military-political influence in Eastern Ukraine. And there’s a lot of nervousness in the Balkans and other former Soviet republics. What should the US do – Way Out?

            Way Out: We should have stayed out of this mess.  Russia’s not going to take over other countries. I know Putin and he’s too smart a guy for that.

           

            Old Way: I disagree. I think it’s very important that the US actively and strongly support the new democratic government in Kiev and, along with our NATO allies, stand up against aggressive moves by Russia.

S.J.: The Minsk Ceasefire Agreement in Ukraine is complicated and pretty shaky. It calls for confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty, but provides a degree of autonomy for the eastern provinces where Russian influence is strong. According to the non-profit International Crisis Group, a key factor in 2017 will be challenging corruption in the Kiev government. Conditioning US aid could certainly help meet that challenge. 

 Your responses about Ukraine so far lead me to ask each of you about your view of NATO today. To put my question in historical context, I would remind all of us that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO expanded eastward, taking in countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. With several of these countries right on its border, Russia viewed this development as aggressive and threatening. After its ally was toppled in Kiev, Russia feared that Ukraine, which hosts a homeport for a Russian naval base, would be the next country to join NATO. So, what are your views of NATO?

Way Out: Old Way has accused me of wanting to pull the US out of NATO. That’s another big lie.  I do know that NATO is costing our country a fortune and that’s not fair. Just like what I will do on trade deals, as President, I’ll be tough and insist that other member countries of NATO pay their fair share of the costs.

Old Way: I believe we were right to encourage and support NATO’s expansion and right to support the uprising in Ukraine. NATO continues to be essential to our national security and the security of Europe, even more so now with Putin reasserting Russian influence and power. Given changes in the global context I also believe NATO needs to be modernized.

S.J.: There’s not time now to go deeper into this, but I would simply comment that when the Soviet Union collapsed, expanding NATO, rather than disbanding it or revising its mission, seemed to be missing an opportunity to start a new, more positive relationship with Russia. President Putin has suggested the possibility of a positive relationship. That certainly is worth exploring, but it’s complicated and risky too.

We need to turn now to one other very urgent topic in US -Russia relations that is the issue of nuclear weapons and the threat of a new nuclear arms race.  When Barack Obama became President in 2009, he declared US commitment to work for “a world without nuclear weapons.” While the Iran nuclear deal is viewed by many as a singular achievement, as Obama leaves office, it’s not clear the world is any closer to the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. What is your evaluation of President Obama’s record on this issue, including his consideration of committing the US to “no first use” of nuclear weapons?

Way Out: Like I said, the Iran nuclear deal is the worst deal ever and, as soon as I’m President, I will cancel it. On the issue of “first use” of nuclear weapons, of course, I don’t want to be the first to strike with nuclear weapons, but we’ve got to keep all our options on the table.

Old Way:  I'm very pleased we got that nuclear agreement with Iran. It puts a lid on their nuclear weapons program, but we have to enforce it, there must be consequences attached to it. And that’s not our only problem with Iran. We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Of course, I support the goal of getting to zero nuclear weapons, but now may not be the time to debate about the option of “first use.” More important right now, we have to make sure we don’t turn over control of our nuclear weapons to someone with Way Out’s temperament.

S.J.: On May 4, 2016, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and two national associations of evangelicals called on President Obama to cancel plans to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, including smaller, faster, deadlier weapons, many experts fear may make using nuclear weapons more thinkable. It’s estimated that the program will cost the US a trillion dollars over ten years. The religious leaders urged Obama to challenge Russia (and China) to reciprocate. What’s your view about this new nuclear arms race?

Way Out: The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses about nukes.  (At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin told an audience, “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces.”)  Way Out: Let have an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.

Old Way: About having a new arms race and spending a trillion dollars to build a whole new generation of nuclear weapons, I’ve heard about that. I’m going to look into that.

S.J.: Thank you for participating in this debate. Which way US-Russian relations go in the next few years will have a big influence on which way the world goes, i.e. toward greater inequality, more terrorism and violent conflict or toward more global cooperation, creative diplomacy and larger scale effective efforts to address climate change, poverty, and the elimination of nuclear and all weapons of mass destruction.

Order Ron Young’s memoir, Crossing Boundaries in the Americas, Vietnam and the Middle East. $25, plus $3 postage.

Contact Ron at ronyoungwa@gmail.com