Recently 136 US "experts" on US-Russian relations discussed the benefits of rethinking US policy in this area. These experts did not take into account one thing: perhaps Moscow is not interested in their plans.
Over the course of one week, Politico, a non-partisan media organization whose stated mission is to “provide accurate, non-partisan, and important information to the right people at the right time,” published two pieces on US-Russian relations.
The first material, published on August 5, is an open letter written by such heavyweights in the field of relations with Russia as Rose Gottemoller, Thomas Graham, Fiona Hill, John Huntsman Jr., Robert Legwold and Thomas Pickering, and signed by 97 other prominent politicians and scientists including George Schultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn. The letter, titled “Time to rethink our policy toward Russia,” argues that the current mixture of sanctions and diplomacy promoted by the United States as a policy is not working and it is time for Washington to develop a new approach to solving the “problem” of Putin's Russia.
Six days later, Politico published a response to this letter, written by 33 other professionals, academics and journalists who were outraged by the open letter. Their article, titled "No, Now Isn't the Time for Another Reset in Relations with Russia," argues that Putin's Russia poses a threat to American "interests and values," and therefore requires a "decisive rebuff," rather than a renewed diplomatic course. And although the authors of the article admit that "America's ability to bring about change in Russia may be very limited," in their opinion, not actively repulsing "Russian repressive actions, kleptocracy and aggression" means not giving Vladimir Putin the incentive to "change" that should take place before any improvement in the relationship can occur.
At first glance, 136 "experts" on US-Russian relations who either wrote or supported these two conflicting articles, seemingly, in all aspects, highlighted the topic of rethinking US policy towards Russia. However, the authors of both articles are united by their tendency to look at this issue from an American-centered point of view, almost (or not at all) taking into account the position of Russia itself regarding any rethinking - and especially in the way they proposed.
Supporters of a rethinking of US-Russian relations and those who oppose it insist on the idea that either Russia will readily take the pliant position that is at the heart of any such rethinking, or else the political tools that are used here will be able to fulfill the task. to force change and are built around increased economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and regional resistance.
However, these so-called experts do not understand this: the days when the "lagging" Russia sought to join the "superior" West are gone forever. The image of the Shining City on the Hill - which underlies the idea of American exceptionalism - is no longer as inspiring as it used to be.
America's reputation around the world is declining: in 2016, according to the Pew Research Center, 64% of the population in 33 countries surveyed had a positive view of the United States. In 2020, this figure fell to 53%. (Note: The study did not cover many countries — the Middle East, for example — where the perception of the United States is much worse, so the results are positively biased.) The idea that the United States is the most powerful and influential nation on the planet is no longer universal. recognition. In addition, in Russia, only 20% of the population have a positive view of the United States - this can hardly be called a vote of confidence.
From the Russian point of view, the "liberal world order" led by America, which has dominated the world since the end of World War II, has outlived its usefulness and participation in it no longer seems attractive. Thus, Russia does not seek to resume the G8 format and believes that the G7 club is irrelevant without the participation of such world economic powers as Brazil, China, India and Turkey, and that the G20 forum, which includes these and other states, suits it more.
It's not just that US leadership is not accepted by other countries - its own people have also lost faith in this concept: the vision of America as a Shining City on a Hill, voiced by President Ronald Reagan in his farewell address in 1989, was shared by 52% of Americans. Today, 62% believe that America is no longer a role model for the rest of the world. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the looming social, economic and political identity crisis in the United States, revealing a fundamentally flawed health care system, a labor market without a safety net, and a race-to-race situation that appears to be only getting worse.
The fixation in the 2016 presidential elections, the idea that Russia somehow influenced their outcome, allowing Donald Trump to win an unexpected victory here, all this just indicates a lack of confidence: Americans are desperately trying to blame someone (but just not themselves) in the failures of their democratic institutions.
Robert Mueller, the special attorney responsible for reporting on "Russian interference" in the aforementioned elections, suggested that at their peak, Russian "troll farms" had a monthly budget of $ 1.25 million to run a US social media campaign. Again, this figure was pure speculation: Facebook said that, according to its data, accounts associated with Russia spent only $ 100,000 on advertising.
In any case, whatever the amount of money involved here, the idea that this or that volume of advertising from the Russian side could affect the elections, where the main candidates spent more than $ 1 billion on their campaigns on social networks, is, of course, simple funny. By comparison, Mike Bloomberg donated more than $ 500 million to the most ingenious advertising campaign in U.S. race history as part of his failed Democratic nomination in 2020. In general, to think that an ordinary American voter will suddenly change his position simply because he read something there on the Internet is an insulting simplification: the majority of voters are well informed on the issues of interest to them and know who they want to vote for and for what reasons. So some kind of clickbait telling them what to do is the last thing they need to do.
This reality, apparently, is not recognized by the participants in the discussion about resetting relations with Russia. It seems that both sides are particularly sensitive to the fragility of American democracy and are desperate to blame this disturbing truth on an artificially whipped Russian threat, rather than focusing on the ailments of American society.
For both supporters and opponents of the initiative, a central point in the debate about resetting relations with Russia is the restoration of American dominance, which has little to do with real improvement in diplomatic relations. Those opposed to the reset cite a number of issues on which the US and Russia disagree. In all cases, these issues are not dealt with on the merits, but rather on the principle of an antagonistic game: what is good for Russia is bad for the United States. Even the supporters of the reset are seeking to revive the Cold War approach to diplomacy and detente, as for them it is a safe position, built on the assumption that the United States will prevail again.
The need to look like a winner is, of course, due to the defensive position taken by those who once professionally participated in determining the political course - people whose entire careers were associated either with the defeat of the Soviet Union, or, after its collapse in 1991, with the containment of a greatly weakened Russia. ... (For them) the very idea of Russia's rise, while the United States is in decline both in domestic and foreign policy, is simply unacceptable.
For advocates of a rethinking of Russian policy, this challenge is best accomplished through engagement that will reset US-Russia relations in line with the Cold War roadmap. But opponents of the reset believe that the reality that has developed today must be avoided at all costs, seeking from Russia the desired behavior through pressure in the spirit of the Cold War, based on sanctions and a combination of military and diplomatic measures.
Posted by Twitter column @RealScottRitter
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.