By David K. Shipler
Imprecise
thinking about Russia has afflicted the United States in the wake of the 2016
election. The lines between fact and speculation have been blurred. The
evidence of Russian misdeeds has been expanded into broad, unproven theories
about Moscow’s motives and the impact on the election results. Legitimate
contacts between Americans and Russians have been clouded with suspicion. And
together, all these parts—both Russian activities and American reactions—have
hobbled the ability of the United States to engage Russia in the kind of fruitful
relationship that would promote American national interests.
The
election interference was only part of a broad deterioration, notes Kenneth
Yalowitz, a veteran diplomat who served many years in Moscow, and then as US
ambassador to Georgia and Belarus. It was preceded by a series of damaging
episodes that broke down dialogue. “The bureaucracies have no connections
anymore,” he said. “There’s no systematic conversation any longer. We don’t know
each other. Given the very difficult state of the relationship, this is the
time we should be talking to each other.” Instead, he said, “Our policy is just
sanctions and breaking agreements.”
The downward slide can be mapped
with landmarks of hostility: the West’s expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders,
which ignited historic Russian fears of close encirclement; the European
Union’s courting Ukraine, the home of defense industries and a Russian naval
base; American support for street protesters’ ouster of Ukraine’s elected,
pro-Moscow president; then Russia’s thinly-disguised invasion of eastern
Ukraine and overt annexation of Crimea, which reanimated Western fears of
aggressive expansionism; a Russian tit-for-tat maneuver in America’s back yard
to help prop up the anti-US regime in Venezuela; Russia’s military intervention
in Syria, which restored Moscow’s foothold in the Middle East; Moscow’s
violations of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and President
Trump’s scrapping the agreement instead of renegotiating; Russian backing for
right-wing racist parties in Europe; Moscow’s cyber intrusions into politics
and elections in Estonia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Germany, France, and Austria; and
Russian money to support Brexit, seen as part of a grand plan by the Kremlin to
break up European cohesion.
It’s a
grim and dangerous list. When the election is added, with the surrounding political
anger, the rigor and clarity required to evaluate what has happened is going to
be hard to achieve. Trump, who campaigned on improving the relationship, has
handcuffed himself by appearing unduly pro-Russia. He has fawned over President
Vladimir Putin, downplayed the election interference, tried to thwart Mueller’s
investigation, and left real policy to such hawks as National Security Adviser
John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Moreover,
the American debate has been muffled, thanks largely to Russia’s having
cemented its standing as an adversary. Unorthodox voices have been marginalized
as they question conventional wisdom and hold Washington at least partly
responsible for the rising tensions.
