Reconciling with Russia: A Shaky State of Diplomatic Relations

Published via Our Divide on September 26, 2021.

212 years have passed since official diplomatic relations were established between the United States and Russia. With the approval of President James Madison and Emperor Alexander I, John Quincy Adams and Andrei Dashkov each received official recognition as the first foreign ministers to the other’s nation.[1] Yet since this initial connection in 1809, the tides of time have seen the U.S.-Russian relationship rise, strain, cease, and resume over and over again. The salty state of affairs since the Cold War leads most to conclude that reconciliation between the two powers is not only improbable, but impossible: each pole sees benefit to mature diplomacy, yet finds fault within their adversary’s institutions. However, the potential for an enduring, secure channel of collaboration between Washington and Moscow still exists, and it cannot be passed over without blatant disregard for global security.

New foundations

The state of affairs between the United States and Russia hinges upon numerous critical concerns; some are unique to the modern age, while others are not. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, and regional disputes – including the Middle East, the Arctic, and Ukraine – all depend upon some resemblance of diplomatic normalcy; these issues dominated at the recent June summit between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. [2] For each leader, the meeting represented much broader, more tantalizing gains than one discussion: for Biden, a détente under his administration; for Putin, the path to fewer economic sanctions. The end results of this particular summit were low-hanging fruits– yet its optics, and prospects, are prized golden apples.

For the rest of the world, U.S.-Russian collaboration would prove an unprecedented yet welcome influence. In the Middle East, for one, a unified front against terrorism, armed conflict, and nuclear weapons could help stabilize Syria and check Iran. A closer relationship with Russia may also aid U.S. interests concerning China. Finally, a semi-alliance on the UN Security Council would bolster the peacekeeping abilities of the organization – if only the ideological priorities of each government could align.

Agree to disagree

Despite the tentative connection re-established in Geneva, the United States and Russia maintain a deeply distrustful stance over three areas: cybersecurity, Ukraine, and human rights. So long as each of these concerns remain prevalent, they turn any aforementioned diplomatic possibilities into feeble utopian dreams.

Hacking threatens the integrity of each state and perpetrates hostile views of the other. Most Americans view Russian cyberattacks as vicious assaults on democracy, and this perspective is not inaccurate. The Senate Intelligence Committee reported that preceding the 2016 presidential election, “[Russian] government-affiliated cyber actors conducted an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure.”[3] In the same report, the Committee recommended that election interference should be considered a “hostile act” for which the United States has a prepared “escalation ladder” of responses. Yet, American counter-attacks – coupled with a healthy dose of state propaganda – appear unprovoked and malicious to the common Russian. Even in the interest of improving relations with Russia, American institutions cannot relax their stance against technological warfare: this lock-step is the first critical barrier to a peaceful future of affairs.

The second area of friction between Washington and Moscow is Ukraine. In 1954, Soviet authority granted Ukraine control of the Crimean Peninsula; in 2014, Russia attempted to annex the region again.[4] For the past seven years, Russian interference in Crimea has troubled NATO and tempted war. Most recently, the Putin administration has facilitated the distribution of Russian passports across the peninsula with a promise to “protect” Russian citizens abroad.[5] Despite the region’s ethnic ties to Russia, and Ukraine’s lack of NATO membership, the United States and its allies resent Putin’s activities and must remain prepared to resist any further violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

The third stopping point, as reiterated by President Biden at the Geneva summit, is human rights.[6] According to the Human Rights Watch, the state of human rights in Russia is “more repressive than it has ever been in the post-Soviet era.”[7] Both within the country and around the world, the Russian government is guilty of suppressing individual rights and supporting leaders with similar tendencies. Specifically, however, President Biden was referring to Alexei Navalny.

Navalny, a Russian national, has become the face of public opposition to Vladimir Putin. In addition to a stint as an anti-Putin mayoral candidate, Navalny operates the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), which works to expose government corruption in Russia.[8] Infamously, Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent in August 2020 and sought treatment in Berlin, Germany. On January 17, 2021, Navalny returned to Russia; on February 2, he was arrested on the grounds of violating the requirements of a suspended and disputed sentence for embezzlement – even though he only failed to comply due to his poison-induced coma. Since his arrest, internal and Western supporters have rallied against the Kremlin’s attempt to suppress Navalny’s movement.

Despite his ability to unite the Russian people against corruption, Navalny is not necessarily the flawless saviour some Western institutions portray him as. While imprisoned, Amnesty International rescinded his status as a “prisoner of conscience” due to xenophobic comments made, and never disavowed, by Navalny in 2007.[9] Regardless of personal shortcomings, one fact is certain: Navalny threatens Putin, and that cements him in the good graces of the Biden administration.

Learning from the past

The journey to a productive, peaceful relationship between the United States and Russia will be lengthy, if not arduous. Sour sentiments stemming from the post-Soviet era still plague today’s diplomats. For example, the Clinton administration’s failure to offer NATO membership to Russia established a distinct divide between European democracies and the former Soviet powerhouse.[10] According to Michael Mandelbaum, author of The Rise and Fall of Peace on Earth, this “blunder” founded Russia’s sense of animosity towards the West and allowed anti-American objectives to become the state’s default foreign policy.

Working towards reconciliation in the modern era is thus an upward, yet necessary, climb. The meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin does suggest a new era of cooperation between their respective nations; however, official diplomacy can only go so far whilst animosity over cyberattacks and human rights persists. A true partnership between the United States and Russia will only occur with the democratization of Moscow, whether it spawns from Alexei Navalny or not. Until then, U.S.-Russian relations will remain fallible, and global affairs all the more unsteady for it – such a state demands skilled, intentional American diplomacy that can balance problems with possibilities.

Citations

“Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC, 19 Apr. 2021, bbc.com/news/world-europe-16057045, 2021.

Mandelbaum, Michael. The Rise and Fall of Peace on Earth. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Peter, Laurence. “Is Russia Going to War with Ukraine and Other Questions.” BBC, 13 Apr. 2021, bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589, 2021.

“Russia.” Human Rights Watch, hrw.org/europe/central-asia/russia#, 2021. Accessed on 20 Jul. 2021.

U.S. Department of State. “A Guide to the United States’ History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Russia.” Office of the Historian, history.state.gov/countries/russia, 2021. Accessed on 22 Jul. 2021.

U.S. Senate. Select Committee on Intelligence. Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Election, Volume I: Russian Efforts Against Election Infrastructure with Additional Views, intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf. (S. Rpt. 116–XX). 2019. Accessed on 21 Jul. 2021.

“Why Crimea Is So Dangerous.” BBC, 11 Mar. 2014, bbc.com/news/world-europe-26367786, 2021.

“Worth the Air Miles.” The Economist, 19 June 2021, economist.com/leaders/2021/06/19/joe-bidens-summit-with-vladimir-putin-yielded-only-mode st-gains, 2021.