In the Thick of It

A blog on the U.S.-Russia relationship
Putin in Siberia

The American and Russian press have been full this week of reactions to the July 16 summit between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. We have collected comments here from some of both countries’ most notable analysts of the bilateral relationship. On the U.S. side there has primarily been disappointment. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “It was a meeting that had to take place,” but it was “certainly a missed opportunity,” while Harvard’s Graham Allison saw a bit of a silver lining: “Communicating with your adversaries, even your enemies, even your deadliest enemies, is a good idea,” he said, “because what you don’t want to do is have two parties … stumbling into a war they don’t want.” Many Russian experts likewise welcomed the resumption of high-level dialogue and noted the concrete proposals on the Middle East. The Carnegie Moscow Center’s Dmitri Trenin noted, however, that “what happened in this Helsinki summit—and I think it's very important—is that Putin has not only cast his lot very publicly with Donald Trump but he has involved himself from now on in domestic political strife in the United States.” Others pointed out that this could backfire for Moscow. Andrei Kortunov of the Russian International Affairs Council, for example, said that the Russian establishment’s general feeling that the summit was a success and Trump has prevailed over his domestic opponents may be due to misperceptions about the U.S. political system: “Putin is the ultimate leader in Russia. … He tends to project that on other leaders he meets… It is difficult for him to see that the U.S. system doesn’t work this way.”

U.S. Experts

Russian Experts

Graham Allison

Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, Harvard Kennedy School; Former Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

“Communicating with your adversaries, even your enemies, even your deadliest enemies, is a good idea because what you don’t want to do is have two parties that are competitors or adversaries or even enemies stumbling into a war they don’t want. … We should understand both Americans and Russians. Any day either president decides to kill everybody in the other country, he can do it. That’s a hard, ugly fact. … What they shouldn’t do is stumble into a war… [A] lot of Americans misunderstand … the ways in which failures to communicate … could lead, as they did in 1914, to a bunch of misunderstandings at the end of which you could be in a catastrophic war, which would be crazy for Russia, would be crazy for the U.S.” (RT, 07.19.18)

George Beebe

Director for Intelligence and National Security, Center for the National Interest

“Expectations were low heading into the Helsinki summit, but the United States and Russia still managed to sail their listing bilateral ship directly into the rocks of the Russian cyber-meddling controversy. … Trump’s ambivalence at the summit press conference poured gasoline on America’s simmering domestic political fire and narrowed his already slim room for maneuver with Moscow to almost nothing.” (The National Interest, 07.19.18)

Stephen Blank

Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council

“The criticism directed at President Trump is on target. Trump has given a lamentable demonstration of his own ignorance, willfulness, and failure to understand with whom he is dealing. It is, sad to say, quite understandable that critics in both parties would label such behavior treasonous, imbecilic, and shameful. If the president is not an agent of influence, or a useful idiot to use the Russian terms that would be appropriate here, his performance in Helsinki represented an excellent facsimile of one of these two categories. And therefore it is all too likely that Putin’s probes against the U.S. and its allies will intensify rather than subside and that relations with Russia will grow even more acrimonious.” (The Hill, 07.17.18)

Nikolas K. Gvosdev

Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute; Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs

“When we look back on it, Helsinki will be seen as a major turning point for this president, and for U.S. relations with the rest of the world,” Gvosdev says, adding that Trump lacked credibility and cemented perceptions of his relationship with Putin, “[killing] off any prospect of improving U.S.-Russia relations. … The message not just the Europeans but the Japanese and Israelis and others will take from Trump’s whole trip—and from the uproar that’s followed here at home—is that it’s time to choose a new partner, and maybe Russia is the more stable of the two now.” (Christian Science Monitor, 07.18.18)

Henry Kissinger

Former U.S. Secretary of State
“It was a meeting that had to take place. I have advocated it for several years. It has been submerged by American domestic issues. It is certainly a missed opportunity. But I think one has to come back to something. Look at Syria and Ukraine. It’s a unique characteristic of Russia that upheaval in almost any part of the world affects it, gives it an opportunity and is also perceived by it as a threat. Those upheavals will continue. I fear they will accelerate. … I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident. … I think we are in a very, very grave period for the world. I have conducted innumerable summit meetings… [T]hey didn’t learn this one [Helsinki] from me.” (Financial Times, 07.20.18)

Rolf Mowatt-Larssen

Director, Intelligence and Defense Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

“President Donald Trump demonstrated that he is as much an advocate for Russia’s interests [as] if he were indeed recruited by Russian intelligence and formally responding to Russian tasking. In fact, his handlers would probably exercise a greater degree of subtlety and discretion to ensure he did not go too far in revealing himself as an agent for Russian policies and interests. … For the already diminishing number of die-hard advocates of efforts to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship, the summit was a death blow.” (The Cipher Brief, 07.16.18)

Olga Oliker

Director, Russia and Eurasia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies

"My sense is very little was agreed on other than to keep talking on a number of issues." (CNBC, 07.16.18)

Regarding an extension of the New START treaty, discussions about U.S. missile defense systems and the INF Treaty: ““These are things that they [Trump and Putin] actually could have put together into something of a joint statement because there is enough agreement, even if it’s agreement to talk about the disagreements, to have gotten a ‘get’ out of the summit on these topics. And instead what we have is that the Russians passed over a paper with suggestions.” (NPR, 07.17.18)

Steven Pifer

Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

“President Trump, when given the opportunity, did not name a single Russian misbehavior that has contributed to the decline in U.S.-Russian relations. If that's the message that President Putin is taking back home to Moscow, why should we expect that there are going to be any changes in Russian policy that have caused some of the problems over the last four years?” (NPR, 07.17.18)

"It was not a good summit. It was an embarrassing performance by President Trump. Not only did he take at face value President Putin's denial of election interference, he took that over the judgement of his own intelligence community. … I worry that Mr. Putin goes back to Moscow thinking, 'I got no criticism. I can continue these policies.' And in some cases these policies are very detrimental to American interests." (CNBC, 07.17.18)

“U.S. foreign policy interests would have been better served had Trump stayed home. … Based on the press conference, Vladimir Putin has every reason to be happy. … U.S. allies will likely keep their views to themselves publicly, but they have to be dismayed in private. Contrast Trump’s reluctance in Helsinki to criticize Putin or any Russian misbehavior with his eager readiness to criticize allies [at last week’s NATO summit] in Brussels.” (Reuters, 07.17.18)

Matthew Rojansky

Director, Kennan Institute, Wilson Center

“Putin described something as ‘a very interesting offer’… We don’t actually know of what the offer consisted, but it’s very interesting to me that they discussed Ukraine, and Putin said that there is ‘an interesting offer’ there. … So, when asked whether Putin asked for sanctions relief, Putin … simply says, ‘No, but we talked about the interests of our two business communities in increasing economic ties and how we might do that in the current environment.’ So, that’s code for, ‘Yeah, they talked about how to get around sanctions.’ They actually had … [a] surprisingly substantive conversation. We heard none of it in the press conference.” (CNN, 07.16.18)

Angela Stent

Director, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, Georgetown University

“Trump is clearly playing to his domestic base; they love it. If you look at poll numbers now among his base, their view of Russia and Putin is going up. … Never in the history of U.S.-Soviet or U.S.-Russian relations has an American president essentially said that he doesn’t agree with his own intelligence agencies, criticized them and essentially agreed with a Russian president who is a former KGB case officer. … No one has ever seen something like this before. It is unprecedented and it really does raise questions about what really is going on, why he would possibly say that in a public press conference." (CNBC, 07.17.18)

Andrew Weiss

Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Andrew Weiss said that in his prepared remarks Trump had for the first time managed to explain why he wanted a more co-operative relationship with Russia and was prepared to take the political heat for that. “If that’s all that had come out of this press conference, and there had been this kind of chumminess, I think we would have seen a kind of Singapore Kim Jong Un light. There would not have been a lot of process, there would not have been a lot of deliverables to point to, but it would have looked semi-credible… But due to Trump’s own lack of discipline … it went off the rails.” (Financial Times, 07.17.18)

Alexander Gabuev

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Moscow Center

“Nobody in Moscow who is realistic had any illusions that this one meeting can produce any breakthroughs. … The hope was at least we can start talking to each other.” Gabuev said Putin ably won over his domestic audiences, notably by pushing back at accusations of Russian election meddling with his own accusations against the U.S. Russians welcomed Putin’s offer to allow the FBI to interrogate Russian military intelligence officials accused of hacking the 2016 U.S. election campaign. And they especially welcomed Putin’s insistence on a tit-for-tat deal aimed at discrediting U.S. sanctions against rich and powerful Russians. And unsurprisingly, Russians welcomed Trump’s suggestion that he trusts Putin more than U.S. intelligence agencies. Russian officialdom “will be super-cautious in order not to damage Donald Trump any more than he did himself,” Gabuev said. (AP, 07.17.18)

 

 

 

Igor Ivanov

President, Russian International Affairs Council; Former Foreign Minister of Russia

“There is no point in deciding who ‘won’ and who ‘lost’ at the Helsinki summit: neither leader was expecting his counterpart to make unilateral concessions, and neither intended to make concessions. However, the presidents took a crucial step forward, paving the way for further steps in the future. … After the Helsinki summit, Moscow’s ability to maneuver in both the western and eastern directions will increase. …  An equally difficult and important period begins after Helsinki. How can we maximize the huge positive momentum provided by the summit? How can we prevent the cumbersome and sluggish bureaucratic machines of both countries from dragging us—accidentally or deliberately—back into the quagmire of pointless confrontation? … The Helsinki discussions have shown that security remains the central item on the agenda in U.S.–Russia relations. … This is why the parties should focus their attention on the agreements reached between the presidents of Russia and the United States on the establishment of permanent mechanisms for military and political talks and consultations. This will require the immediate resumption of '2+2' talks between Russian and the US heads of foreign policy and defense ministries, the formation of an agenda for the most pressing problems, and the initiation of relevant talks. Among priority tasks is the prevention of unprovoked military incidents. In the longer term, the agenda could feature negotiations on prolonging the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the future of the INF Treaty. Moscow and Washington urgently need to establish an expert dialogue on cybersecurity issues, given the associated ambiguity and sensitivity.” (Russian International Affairs Council, 07.18.18)

 

 

 

Sergei Karaganov

Dean of the International Economics and Politics Faculty, Higher School of Economics

“It seems Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump did come to some preliminary agreements at the Helsinki summit. … [T]he Russian president mentioned some sort of possibilities for the demilitarization of the Golan Heights on the border between Israel and Syria. … As far as reactions to the summit’s outcome go, America’s and Europe’s were predictable. The losing political elites of the U.S. and Europe have an especially strong hatred for Trump as the symbol of their defeat. The chances that Trump will now be able to overcome this Russophobia that has emerged are practically nil. … Russia has been turned into a coauthor of the domestic [political] battle in the U.S. And although Trump is winning that domestic battle, the old elite will fight him to the end. Because … [he] threatens their position in the most serious way. Now there is a real possibility that Trump will go for a second term and win.” (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 07.17.18, in Russian)

 

 

 

Andrei Kortunov

Director, Russian International Affairs Council

Putin’s apparent complacency about his summit success, and the general feeling in Moscow that Trump must have prevailed over his domestic opponents, may be due to a lack of understanding in the Kremlin of how the U.S. system works, says Andrei Kortunov. Russia policy risks becoming a long-term casualty of Trump’s domestic battles, he says. “Putin is the ultimate leader in Russia. His word is final,” he says. “He tends to project that on other leaders he meets, which is why he does very well with authoritarian leaders, who have similar weight within their own political systems. It is difficult for him to see that the U.S. system doesn’t work this way,” and that anything Trump decides might get canceled out amid public outcry and congressional push-back. “Russia needs to get smarter, and diversify its outreach to various segments of the American establishment. We should be talking to the Democrats, Congress, think tanks, and others, explaining ourselves and forming relationships. It’s just not enough to meet the top guy and decide things with him. We urgently need to realize this.” (Christian Science Monitor, 07.17.18)

 

 

 

Fyodor Lukyanov

Editor, Russia in Global Affairs

Lukyanov told the daily Vedomosti that "Syria, where there are concrete topics, and matters of strategic stability" was the most likely area for next steps. (RFE/RL, 07.18.18)

“It’s hard to say whether anything positive will come from this. It depends on whether they will actually work on any of the issues they discussed." (The Moscow Times, 07.17.18)

“If we were living through normal times, we would be justified in seeing Helsinki as a moderately successful summit… But these are anything but normal times. These days, issues of strategic policy are subordinated to domestic affairs, and any achievements can be derailed by the kind of angry, hostile reactions we are seeing [in the U.S.]… Trump certainly made a mistake by failing to seriously address the meddling issue that Americans are so preoccupied with. He even seemed to be taking sides with Putin… Many people in Moscow appear pleased at how good Putin looked in Helsinki, and may not be aware of the risk that it may have been completely counterproductive” to Russian long-term hopes of rebooting the relationship. “One thing we think was very significant is that Putin, for the first time, publicly spoke about Israeli security as a goal of Russian policy… Americans should join this deal, and it would be a shame if it got ruined by the toxic political atmosphere surrounding Trump.” (Christian Science Monitor, 07.17.18)

Lukyanov said he believes two issues of substance had come out of the summit. First, he believes Putin and Trump’s comments on Syria suggested a concrete agreement had likely been reached to curtail Iran’s presence close to Israel in southern Syria. Lukyanov also said he believes the two presidents' pledges to push to reinvigorate key nuclear arms control treaties meant that could now likely happen. (ABC News, 07.16.18)

“This was not the assertive Trump we saw with NATO or Britain,” said Lukyanov. “Putin led, Trump followed. And that … is likely to cause a tsunami in the United States.” (Independent, 07.17.18)

 

 

 

Alexei Makarkin

Deputy Head, Moscow's Center for Political Technologies

“Russian political institutions are very weak and therefore, as president, Putin felt much more confident [than Trump] during the news conference… Putin is only constrained by his own mind-set. … The meeting was valuable to Putin because it showed that despite the indictments and poison accusations, the West is still compelled to speak to Russia and regards it as an important and respectable country.” (New York Times, 07.18.18)

 

 

 

Yuri Rogulyov

Professor of American Studies, Moscow State University

Rogulyov said that bilateral relations were moving from "megaphone diplomacy to direct negotiations." (RFE/RL, 07.18.18)

 

 

 

Dmitri Trenin

Director, Carnegie Moscow Center

Dmitri Trenin said the talks signaled a new point in relations. “We are exiting a period of 'no dialogue,' and Russia is ceasing to be toxic,” Trenin said. The process will continue if Trump and Putin visit each other's capitals in the near future, he said. (New York Times, 07.18.18)

“I don't think that Mr. Putin's power is so vast, so big that he could have manipulated Donald Trump. Donald Trump has his own reasons, I believe, to say things, [or] not to say things. Donald Trump is involved in a cutthroat competition or even worse than that with the bulk of the U.S. political establishment, including in his own party.

What happened in this Helsinki summit—and I think it's very important—is that Putin has not only cast his lot very publicly with Donald Trump but he has involved himself from now on in domestic political strife in the United States. … When we start playing in other nations' political struggles, things become more complex. And the likelihood of conflict being exacerbated and escalated to a much higher level than before is getting greater.” (NPR, 07.17.18)

 

 

 

Alexei Venediktov

Editor in Chief, Ekho Moskvy Radio

Venediktov said the composition of the delegations at the Helsinki lunch revealed the differing agendas of the two sides. "On the Russian side at that lunch ... there was, of course, [Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov… But further down sat Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov. … Then there was, of course, the ambassador to the United States, [Anatoly] Antonov, and the director of the Foreign Ministry's North America department, Georgy Borisenko. I would draw attention to the fact that none of these people directly deal with security or global strategy, not counting the foreign minister. … Not one person in the Russian delegation did this work full-time. … Now let's take the American delegation. … John Bolton is in charge of global [national] security. Fiona Hill is in charge of security issues between Russia and the United States. And John Kelly is in charge of the interference in the [U.S. presidential] election. … You can see how the delegations are at cross-purposes. Different agendas, differing delegation compositions. On one side, security experts. On the other, people from the Foreign Ministry." Venediktov said the delegations showed that the main U.S. concerns at Helsinki were strategic security and election interference, while Putin's concerns were Syria and "public relations." (RFE/RL, 07.18.18)

 

 

 

Photo: Putin meets with scientists in Siberia, February 2018. Kremlin press service.

Soldiers in Ukrainian military.
Soon after the start of Russia’s official military involvement in Syria, another army, hundreds of miles away, ramped up its activity: Ukraine’s armed forces became emboldened in their war with separatists in the east. Under the radar, they have been retaking control of a narrow strip of contested, crime-ridden no-man’s land in the war-torn Donbas region using a tactic known as “creeping advances.” Between February and May, for example, they managed to advance about 6 miles deeper into the area, deploying small, highly professional units. The slow-paced advances, ongoing since February 2016, have enabled Ukraine to take firmer control over the porous demarcation line with its separatist republics, to improve its military’s tactical capabilities (and, possibly, its morale) and to test Russia’s response—which, so far, has been minimal. For now, Ukrainian troops have focused their efforts mostly on small villages. On one hand, some analysts suspect that attempts to take bigger, strategically important settlements could provoke a large-scale Russian military response; on the other, Russia may be reluctant to deepen its involvement in eastern Ukraine’s grinding war. The paradox seems to be that, whatever Russia’s response to the creeping advances, Ukraine’s leadership—struggling to retain legitimacy and the confidence of citizens and Western donors—stands to reap a net benefit from the tactic.
Read More
Grand Stone Bridge in Moscow

Why did U.S.-Russian relations under Trump deteriorate contrary to the expectations of many? What can we learn from measuring Russia's national power? What is the publicly available evidence for and against Russia's involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election? Find answers to these questions and many more in our wide-ranging top exclusives. Check them out below. 

Top 10 of 2018 (so far)

  1. Measuring National Power: Is Vladimir Putin’s Russia in Decline? by Simon Saradzhyan and Nabi Abdullaev
  2. Russia and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: Laying Out the Publicly Available Evidence by David Filipov, Kevin Doyle and Natasha Yefimova-Trilling
  3. Team Trump on Russia: John Bolton’s Views by Kevin Doyle
  4. Unintended Escalation: 5 Lessons From Israel for the Russia-NATO Standoff by Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky
  5. Putin's Pivot: 4 New Features of Russian Foreign Policy by Daniel Treisman
  6. Russian Strategists Debate Preemption as Defense Against NATO Surprise Attack by Alexander Velez-Green
  7. Blog: Armenia: Why Has Vladimir Putin Not Intervened So Far and Will He? by Simon Saradzhyan
  8. Thomas Graham on Russia: Insights and Recommendations by RM Staff
  9. Contrary to Expectations, US-Russian Relations Deteriorate Under President Trump by Thomas Graham
  10. Kissinger on Russia: Insights and Recommendations by RM Staff

Top 10 of all time

  1. Measuring National Power: Is Vladimir Putin’s Russia in Decline? by Simon Saradzhyan and Nabi Abdullaev
  2. Russia and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: Laying Out the Publicly Available Evidence by David Filipov, Kevin Doyle and Natasha Yefimova-Trilling
  3. Kissinger on Russia: Insights and Recommendations by RM Staff
  4. Yes, Russian Generals Are Preparing for War. That Doesn’t Necessarily Mean the Kremlin Wants to Start One by Simon Saradzhyan
  5. Russian Military Buildup in the West: Fact Versus Fiction by Michael Kofman
  6. Russian Nuclear Forces: Buildup or Modernization? by Hans M. Kristensen
  7. Putin as Bismarck: Ehud Barak on West’s Russia Blind Spots, the Middle East and More by RM Staff
  8. Sen. Sam Nunn: 'We Have a Choice Between Cooperation or Catastrophe' by Mariana Budjeryn
  9. Blog: How to ‘Think Like the Russians’: A Partisan Perception Chart for Improving US-Russian Relations by Bruce Allyn
  10. A Sino-Russian Military-Political Alliance Would Be Bad News for America by Simon Saradzhyan

Photo shared in the public domain.

PONARS Eurasia Point & Counterpoint logo

PONARS Eurasia, a partner of the Russia Matters project, has just launched Point & Counterpoint, a new multimedia initiative for those looking to know more about Russia and Eurasia. Point & Counterpoint features in-depth analysis, research-based debates and informed book reviews by Russia and Eurasia experts, all as part of a non-ideological platform for the study of the region. The chief editors for the initiative are Maria Lipman and Marlene Laruelle.

Posts include:

Rebalancing Russia’s Spatial Development? Infrastructural Transformations Under Vladimir Putin by Jean Radvanyi

Putin’s Reelection: Capturing Russia’s Electoral Pattern, a discussion with Kirill Rogov

Serzh Sargsyan

The resignation of Armenia’s Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan after more than a week of mass protests in Russia’s backyard begs the question: Why has Moscow not intervened so far? The fist-pumping demonstrators bring to mind “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet neighborhood that the Kremlin seems to abhor, like the ones in Georgia and Ukraine. But even genuine color revolutions (which Armenia has not yet seen—more on that below) are not enough by themselves to prompt Russia to stage either a covert or overt intervention. As I have argued before, for Moscow to intervene in one of its Soviet-era satellites at least two conditions need to be present: First, Vladimir Putin has to see an acute threat to Russia’s vital national interests, such as the potential expansion of antagonistic Western-led alliances too close to Russia’s borders; second, the chances for defending or advancing its interests through the use of force have to be relatively high.

The first condition is absent in Armenia because the dominant, pro-Russian wing of the country’s ruling elite continues to retain power. Sargsyan’s Russia-friendly Republican Party and its Dashnak allies control a majority in parliament, which means they can nominate and approve the next prime minister. (This was made possible under the current constitution, which Sargsyan successfully pushed to change in 2015, when he was president, in an ill-thought-out plan to retain power after his second and final presidential term expired this April.) If protest leader Nikol Pashinyan succeeds in ending the party of power’s control of parliament through protests or early elections, then, yes, that would be a revolution. For Russia to intervene, however, Pashinyan would not only have to oust the current party of power, he would also have to show a determination to move Armenia westward, into the EU and NATO. So far, Pashinyan has showed no such intentions, which should come as no surprise: Whatever his personal views, he realizes NATO is in no mood to accept more post-Soviet states in the short to medium term, and Armenia, therefore, has no viable alternative but Russia as its guarantor of security while it faces two hostile bordering states, Azerbaijan and Turkey. That pro-Russian elites have so far remained in control of Armenia in spite of Sargsyan’s resignation explains why Vladimir Putin—who is said to have a much cooler personal relationship with Sargsyan than with ex-President Robert Kocharyan—has not condemned the events in Armenia. Moreover, representatives of the Russian government and parliament vowed support for Armenia and some of them even welcomed the change, for example deputy speaker of the State Duma Igor Lebedev.

Armenia’s situation stands in stark contrast to cases when former Soviet republics have come under the rule of leaders intent on bringing them into blocs that Russia views as unfriendly competitors, such as NATO and the EU. When Russia intervened in Georgia in 2008 it did so because Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, with strong backing from George W. Bush, nearly succeeded in obtaining a Membership Action Plan from NATO. By that time, Georgia had been growing both friendlier with the West and more democratic for over four years. Yet Putin did not intervene until he saw the Bush administration come close to winning a MAP for Georgia and Ukraine at NATO’s Bucharest summit, which the Russian leader attended personally to head off the efforts. Although the summit ultimately did not offer the MAPs, thanks in part to opposition from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, its final communique did say that “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.” That meant that any of the following summits could give Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, which Putin would have seen as an unacceptable threat to Russia’s interests. At the time, Putin probably thought he could not afford a double intervention into both Georgia and Ukraine. He picked Georgia, as least in part, because Saakashvili gave him a good pretext by taking Russia’s bait and launching a ground assault to establish control over breakaway South Ossetia. Ukraine may have been next, but in 2010 its then-leader Viktor Yushchenko lost the presidency to the more Moscow-friendly Viktor Yanukovych, who made it clear he would not seek membership in NATO. Therefore, the need to intervene in Ukraine subsided until 2014 when a pro-Western faction of Ukraine’s ruling elite came to power again amid expectations it would take the country into the EU and NATO in the wake of the Euromaidan revolution.

It is important to note that Russia does not intervene militarily in its post-Soviet neighbors’ affairs just because they have undergone a revolution and/or become more democratic or because their leaders want to build friendlier relations with Russia’s competitors. A threat to Moscow’s vital interests is the key. Take Armenia: It is ranked as more democratic than Russia and it also has friendly relations with the West. It has recently signed an EU Association Agreement (though it was watered down because of Russia) and it participates in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. It also has troops in the NATO-led campaign in Afghanistan and even had troops in the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq (withdrawn in 2008). Yet Russia has not intervened in Armenia—because, as stated above, its leadership has not displayed any ambition to pursue NATO membership. Likewise, Kyrgyzstan has consistently been ranked more democratic than Putin’s Russia and it even hosted a U.S. base (which Russia reportedly pressured Bishkek to close down). Yet Russia chose not to intervene during Kyrgyzstan’s revolutions of 2005 and 2010, despite then-President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s pleas for such intervention in 2010. Again, the reason is that the victorious opposition did not espouse a desire to remove the country from Russia’s zone of influence to join or ally with a hostile bloc.

 The second condition for Russia to intervene is that the overall situation in question has to be conducive to the use of force. In other words, Russian leaders must be sure they will prevail in a military confrontation or at least ensure a stalemate that would constrain the targeted state’s ability to maintain activities Russia sees as seriously undermining its vital interests. That condition is at least partially present in the case of Armenia. It is true that Russia is already heavily involved in Syria and Ukraine, and recent polls show that Russians aren’t eager for further military engagement absent any clear threat to them or Russian-speaking minorities abroad. However, Russia has a large military base in Armenia, so if Moscow were to decide to use force there, it could theoretically do so more quickly than in Ukraine or Georgia. But the consequences and costs of such an intervention could outweigh the benefits, especially in the absence of a dramatic change in Armenia’s integration preferences, such as its “escape” to NATO. Any attempt to take control of Armenia, especially in the absence of a credible threat to Russia’s vital interests, would seriously undermine Moscow’s efforts to keep other post-Soviet republics in its various international integration projects because it would demonstrate that even membership in Russian-led coalitions—like the Collective Security Treaty Organization and Eurasian Economic Union—does not preclude losses of territory or independence to Moscow. These republics would then probably start looking around for guarantors and patrons other than Russia, forcing Moscow to expend resources on dealing with the consequences.

So if not Armenia, then who (if anyone) could be next?

If Armenia remains a Russian ally, as it likely will, then Moldova, which reluctantly plays host to a large Russian military contingent in its separatist province of Trans-Dniester, could be the next target of Russian intervention—if its efforts to pursue integration with the EU and deeper cooperation with NATO progress to what Putin sees as a point of no return. There’s also a chance that Putin may choose to escalate in Ukraine or Georgia if these two countries manage to somehow convince NATO to grant them MAPs. However, the prospect of such NATO action plans is unlikely for either of the two, and for Moldova as well. Therefore, the probability of Russian intervention in these countries is low, though not negligible.

Simon Saradzhyan is the director of Russia Matters. The views expressed here are his own.

Photo: Serzh Sargsyan during a visit to Moscow as president, March 2017. Courtesy of the Kremlin.

Jim Mattis
Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes, jointly with the U.K. and France, at what U.S. Defense Department officials described as the ''heart'' of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons program came as no surprise. The U.S. leader had spent much of the previous week building momentum, warning Assad’s patrons in Moscow via Twitter “to get ready” for “nice and new and 'smart’” missiles after the suspected use of deadly chlorine gas by the Syrian dictator’s forces in Douma. When announcing the strikes Trump said the main purpose was to establish "a strong deterrent" against future use of chemical weapons. With a total of 105 missiles launched at three suspected chemical-weapons-related targets, Trump declared “mission accomplished.” But is it? And what should this mission be?

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley may have believed it when she said after the strikes that they had “crippled Syria's chemical-weapons program,” but I would be very surprised if the destruction of three CW facilities can put an end to the production of chemical weapons, including chlorine gas, making which, some say, is hardly rocket science . Even if the strikes did not exactly cripple the Syrian regime’s ability to produce chemical weapons, did they deter Assad from using them in the future? My guess is no. The Syrian dictator benefits in at least two ways from continued gassing of his opponents. One is that he intimidates some of them to surrender or leave without sending more of his soldiers into harm’s way. And the second is that each such use of chemical weapons widens the wedge between the U.S. and its allies on one side and Russia on the other, as such attacks have done before. The bigger the wedge, the less the already slim probability that Washington and Moscow would agree to any sort of plan for a peaceful resolution of the Syrian conflict. Assad has good reason to be concerned about any such plan as it would be far less favorable to him then the forceful solution he is trying to impose with Moscow’s and Tehran’s support.
Read More
Russian President Vladimir Putin at his reelection victory speech.
The most recent event hosted by Russia Matters focused on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reelection to a fourth term and what those six years may have in store for U.S.-Russian relations and Russia’s policies toward other countries. Below is a summary of the three speakers’ key points in the order presented (all of them spoke in a personal capacity).

In addition to the remarks below, the speakers raised a number of important questions whose answers were not yet clear. How these questions are answered will shape not only Russia’s policies, but also policies by the U.S. and its allies toward Russia: Will Putin see a prospective successor among the up-and-coming cadre of 40-something Russian officials? How will the questions that concerned his predecessor Boris Yeltsin—namely, guarantees of safety from prosecution and from a loss of assets or privileges after stepping down—play out in the search for that successor? Could the world come a step closer to peace and stability in Ukraine by thinking up a phased approach to deploying peacekeepers along the front lines? Or would Russia be comfortable with the prospect of a “wrecked Ukraine”? And what are other places where Russia has the capacity to use military force to defend its national interests—Belarus? Moldova? Other former Soviet republics?
Read More
putin missile speech

Of all the annual addresses Vladimir Putin has delivered to the Russian Federal Assembly since becoming president of Russia in Dec. 1999, his most recent speech, on March 1, has proven to be the most militarized. Although the Russian leader began by focusing on the need to modernize the Russian economy and reduce poverty, most of the speech and accompanying videos were devoted to guns rather than butter. While the parliamentarians warmly welcomed Putin’s showcasing of Russia’s new military might—offering frequent applause—the rest of the world felt a distinct Cold War chill. While his warning that Russia would respond to a nuclear attack on an ally with a nuclear counter-strike is consistent with the language of Russia’s current military doctrine, many of his other statements broke new ground in post-Soviet Russia’s belligerency toward the U.S. and its allies. His tedious listing of Russia’s new and not-so-new R&D in the strategic attack systems domain were reminiscent of Nikita Khrushchev’s claim that Soviet Russia was producing rockets like sausages, which the Soviet leader made at the height of the Cold War. Putin’s repeated emphasis on the superiority of the newly-developed systems over those of competitors comes as no surprise. The Russian leader—who once remarked to former President George W. Bush that his dog “was bigger, stronger and faster than” his Scottish terrier Barney—is a born competitor. So it was only a matter of time before Putin responded to President Donald Trump’s touting of U.S. military might in what feminists might describe as a missile envy contest.

While it may be reactive, Putin’s loudest saber-rattling thus far is also clearly designed to achieve several objectives. One is to stoke the patriotic mood in Russia to ensure more people show up and vote for Putin in the March 18 elections, with the goal of meeting the reported target of 70 percent turnout and 70 percent of the vote for the incumbent. Prioritizing defense spending has also been explained by some Russian insiders as a way for the Kremlin to help increase GDP. More importantly, the bellicose speech may be intended to not only deter the West from interfering in Russia’s affairs before and after the March 18 elections, but also to respond to Trump’s planned increases in military procurement and the recent release of a batch of strategic documents that shift the U.S. focus from counterterrorism to countering Russia and China. It may be that this saber-rattling is a ploy to convince the U.S. to enter substantive negotiations on various aspects of strategic stability between Moscow and Washington, which have now gone the longest period of time without substantive arms control talks since the height of the Cold War. If this is the case, however, I doubt that the U.S. would respond by elevating a half-hearted dialogue on strategic stability into full-blown arms control negotiations. If anything, Putin’s belligerence would only provide extra ammunition to those pushing for sharper increases in the scale and scope of strategic systems the Pentagon plans to procure. Putin’s speech confirms that, after having seen its attempt last year to reset U.S.-Russian relations fail, the Kremlin is now settling in for a period of protracted confrontation with the U.S.—and that’s bad news not only for the two nuclear superpowers, but for international stability as a whole.

What follows below are selected points from Putin’s nearly two-hour address, compiled by RM staff.

Highlights of Vladimir Putin’s March 1 Address to the Russian Parliament

I. U.S. and Russian priorities for the bilateral agenda

Nuclear security and safety:

  • Vladimir Putin cited the fact that the U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction programs enabled U.S. personnel to visit Russia’s nuclear enterprises in the 1990s as an example of how weak Russia was at the time. “There was a way underway in (Russia’s North) Caucasus, while American inspectors were sitting at our leading uranium-enrichment enterprises,” he said in his address to the parliament. (Russia Matters, 03.01.18)

Sabre-rattling/New Cold War:

  • Putin said Moscow would regard a nuclear attack on its allies as a nuclear attack on Russia itself and would immediately respond. This statement is consistent with the language of Russia’s current military doctrine, which says the Russian Federation “reserves the right” to use nuclear arms if either Russia or its allies are subjected to aggression with nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.  He also singled out a new U.S. nuclear-strategy document as threatening to lower the threshold for using the weapons, and he delivered a stern warning to the U.S. that Russia has a series of new high-technology nuclear weapons that he said can overcome any defenses. “No one has managed to restrain Russia,” Putin said in the nearly two-hour address, which he illustrated with video clips of the new arms that he said were developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Russian president devoted nearly thirty minutes of his two-hour long address to discussing and showing off Russia’s newly improved military capabilities. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18, The Moscow Times, Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Kremlin.ru, 03.01.18) Among the systems developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union were:
    • The Sarmat multiple-warhead ICBM, which will be equipped with a broad range of powerful nuclear warheads, including hypersonic warheads. He claimed that Sarmat practically had no range restrictions and it could attack targets both via the North and South Poles. Putin said the liquid-fuel missile is being mass-produced. (Russia Matters, 03.01.18)
    • A miniature nuclear propulsion unit that can be installed on Russia’s air-to-surface Kh-101 missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. He claimed that installation of that unit turns the Kh-101 “into a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries.” Putin said the nuclear-powered missile, which has not been previously reported in open sources, was tested in 2017 and that can bypass existing missile defenses, rendering them “useless.” (Russia Matters, 03.01.18)
    • A high-speed underwater drone that was tested in 2017 and that has "intercontinental" range and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that could target both aircraft carriers and coastal facilities. He said it has "very big" operational depth and a speed that is at least 10 times faster than any other vessel, which would make it immune to enemy intercept. A computer video showed the drone being launched by a submarine, cruising over the seabed, hitting an aircraft carrier and also exploding near the shore. Russia has been previously reported to have been working on a Status-6 underwater nuclear attack drone.  (AP, 01.03.18, Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Russia Matters, 03.01.18)
    • The Avangard strategic missile system with fundamentally new combat equipment—a gliding wing unit, which has also been successfully tested. This system, development of which has been previously reported, is capable of intercontinental flight at supersonic speeds in excess of Mach 20, according to Putin. “It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire,” he said. (Russia Matters, 03.01.18)
    • A high-precision hypersonic aircraft missile system that can fly at 10 times the speed of sound and that can maneuver during all phases of its flight trajectory, Putin said. The Kinzhal (Dagger) system is carried by Soviet-designed MiG-31 interceptors and it has a range of more than 2,000 kilometers, according to chief of Russia’s aerospace forces, Sergei Surovikin. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Financial Times, 03.01.18, Russia Matters, 03.01.18)
    • A new laser weapon was shown on video preparing for operation, and Putin said Russian troops have been “armed with laser weapons” since 2017. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Russia Matters, 03.01.18)

Missile defense:

  • “I hope what was said today will sober any potential aggressor or unfriendly gestures towards Russia, like the deployment of an ABM system and the development of NATO infrastructure close to our borders. That should be seen from the military point of view as inefficient, financially costly and simply useless. Nobody listened to us before. Listen to us now,” he said. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18)

Other bilateral issues:

  • “We are interested in normal and constructive cooperation with the United States and the European Union. We hope that common sense will prevail and our partners will opt for honest and equal work together,” Putin said. (Kremlin.ru, 03.01.18)

II. Russia’s domestic news

Politics, economy and energy:

  • Russia must not only gain a firm foothold as one of the world’s five largest economies by the middle of the next decade, but increase our GDP per capita by one and a half times,” Putin said. “Falling behind in technology is the main threat and enemy to our country. If we do not change the situation, it will inevitably intensify.”  (Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Bloomberg, 03.01.18)
  • Putin said Russia had to double spending on road infrastructure by committing over 11 trillion rubles (141.44 billion pounds) to improve the country's road network. He also told lawmakers that a bridge being built between Russia and Crimea, which was annexed from Ukraine in 2014, would start operating in the next couple of months. (Reuters, 03.01.18)
  • Putin told lawmakers that Russia had to halve the poverty rate within six years and provide jobs for people. Putin said that as many as 20 million Russians were living in poverty and that the government had to ensure that real incomes grew. (Reuters, 03.01.18, Reuters, 03.01.18, Bloomberg, 03.01.18)
  • “This trend will continue in the coming years and will become a serious obstacle to economic growth,” Vladimir Putin said in reference to Russian demographics. Over the next six years, Russia will allocate at least 59.9 million dollars for demographic development, he said. “Life expectancy needs to exceed 80 years by the end of the next decade,” he added. All in all Russia will spend 3.4 trillion rubles ($60.07 billion) to support families and demographic growth in the next six years, he said. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18, Reuters, 03.01.18)
  • Russia must lower mortgage rates and get them down towards 7 percent in order to solve the country's housing problem, Putin said. (Reuters, 03.01.18)
  •  “It is important to make it easier to get Russian citizenship. The focus should be on people that the country needs — young, healthy, well-educated people,” Putin said. (Bloomberg, 03.01.18)

Defense and Aerospace:

  • “The operation in Syria has proved the increased capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces. In recent years, a great deal has been done to improve the Army and the Navy the Armed Forces now have 3.7 times more modern weapons. Over 300 new units of equipment were put into service,” Putin said. (Kremlin.ru, 03.01.18)
  • No significant developments.

Security, law-enforcement and justice:

  • No significant developments.

III. Foreign affairs, trade and investment

Russia’s general foreign policy and relations with “far abroad” countries:

  • “Our policies will never be based on claims to exceptionalism. We protect our interests and respect the interests of other countries. We observe international law and believe in the inviolable central role of the UN. These are the principles and approaches that allow us to build strong, friendly and equal relations with the absolute majority of countries. Our comprehensive strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China is one example… We will also continue to work on a greater Eurasian partnership,” Putin said.  (Kremlin.ru, 03.01.18)

Photo credit: Russian Presidential Press Office

U.S. cyber

On Feb. 13, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats was joined by CIA chief Mike Pompeo and FBI Director Christopher Wray in presenting to a Senate committee the intelligence community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment—a document in which Russia figures prominently. Russia Matters has compiled a selection Russia-related excerpts, divided into categories similar to those in our news and analysis digests.

I. U.S. and Russian priorities for the bilateral agenda

Military issues, including NATO-Russia relations:

  • Russia will compete with the United States most aggressively in Europe and Eurasia, Moscow will employ a variety of aggressive tactics to bolster its standing as a great power, secure a “sphere of influence” in the post-Soviet space, weaken the United States, and undermine Euro-Atlantic unity. However, Moscow will also seek cooperation with the United States in areas that advance its interests.

Nuclear arms control:

  • Russia has developed a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) that the United States has declared is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Despite Russia’s ongoing development of other Treaty-compliant missiles with intermediate ranges, Moscow probably believes that the new GLCM provides sufficient military advantages to make it worth risking the political repercussions of violating the INF Treaty.

Conflict in Syria:

  • The Syrian opposition’s seven-year insurgency is probably no longer capable of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad, but rebels probably retain the resources to sustain the conflict for at least the next year, .Russia and Iran are planning for a long-term presence, securing military basing rights and contracts for reconstruction and oil and gas exploitation.

Cyber security:

  • [The U.S. intelligence community expects] that Russia will conduct bolder and more disruptive cyber operations during the next year, most likely using new capabilities against Ukraine.
  • Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea will pose the greatest cyber threats to the United States during the next year. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are testing more aggressive cyber attacks that pose growing threats to the United States and U.S. partners.

Elections interference:

  • Influence operations, especially through cyber means, will remain a significant threat to U.S. interests as they are low-cost, relatively low-risk, and deniable ways to retaliate against adversaries, to shape foreign perceptions, and to influence populations. Russia probably will be the most capable and aggressive source of this threat in 2018 … [and] the 2018 U.S. mid-term elections are a potential target for Russian influence operations.

II. Russia’s domestic news

Politics, economy and energy:

  • In his probable next term in office, President Vladimir Putin will resort to more authoritarian tactics to maintain control amid challenges to his rule. He is likely to increase his use of repression and intimidation to contend with domestic discontent over corruption, poor social services, and a sluggish economy with structural deficiencies.

Defense and Aerospace:

  • In 2018, Russia will continue to modernize, develop, and field a wide range of advanced nuclear, conventional, and asymmetric capabilities to balance its perception of a strategic military inferiority vis-a-vis the United States.

III. Foreign affairs, trade and investment

Russia’s general foreign policy and relations with “far abroad” countries:

  • In his probable next term in office, President Vladimir Putin will rely on assertive and opportunistic foreign policies to shape outcomes beyond Russia’s borders. … Moscow will use a range of relatively low-cost tools to advance its foreign policy objectives, including influence campaigns, economic coercion, cyber operations, multilateral forums, and measured military force. Russia’s slow economic growth is unlikely to constrain Russian foreign policy or by itself trigger concessions from Moscow in Ukraine, Syria, or elsewhere in the next year.

China:

  • China and Russia will seek spheres of influence and to check U.S. appeal and influence in their regions. The leading state intelligence threats to U.S. interests will continue to be Russia and China, based on their services’ capabilities, intent, and broad operational scope. Both Russia and China continue to pursue antisatellite (ASAT) weapons as a means to reduce U.S. and allied military effectiveness. … Russian and Chinese destructive ASAT weapons probably will reach initial operational capability in the next few years.

Ukraine:

Russia’s other post-Soviet neighbors:

  • Tension over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh could devolve into a large-scale military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which could draw in Russia to support its regional ally. Both sides’ reluctance to compromise, mounting domestic pressures, Azerbaijan’s steady military modernization, and Armenia’s acquisition of new Russian equipment sustain the risk of large-scale hostilities in 2018.
  • Russia views Belarus as a critical buffer between itself and NATO and will seek to spoil any potential warming between Minsk and the West.
  • Moldova’s ostensibly pro-European ruling coalition—unless it is defeated in elections planned for November—probably will seek to curb Russian influence and maintain a veneer of European reform while avoiding changes that would damage the coalition’s grip on power.
  • Russia will pressure Central Asia’s leaders to reduce engagement with Washington and support Russian-led economic and security initiatives, while concerns about ISIS in Afghanistan will push Moscow to strengthen its security posture in the region.

Photo credit: U.S. Navy

The United States Marine Corps provide fire support to the SDF during the Battle of Raqqa.

International press keeps digging up additional details of the Feb. 7 clash between the U.S. and its allies in Syria’s Deir el-Zour region and what has reportedly turned out to be a group of private military contractors, most of whom were reportedly Russian nationals, but also included some Ukrainian nationals. Apparently, these contract soldiers, some of whom may have belonged to a Russian private military company known as the Wagner Group, tried to advance on a base located east of Deir el-Zour held by U.S. and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The formation that tried to advance was no smaller than a battalion supported by artillery, tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems and mortars, according to chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White. SDF commander Gen. Hassan told The Washington Post’s David Ignatius that he called his regular Russian liaison contact in Deir el-Zour, hoping to avoid a battle with the advancing unit. In response a Russian liaisons officer reportedly assured coalition officials that they would not engage coalition forces in the vicinity However, in spite of the assurances, the mercenary battalion still attacked, prompting the targeted site to fire back, according to the U.S. and SDF version of events. As a result, as many as 200 members of that battalion-sized unit were killed in U.S.-led air and artillery strikes. It was then that the Russian liaison officer contacted the SDF again, asking for a pause to collect those killed in the U.S. strikes, according to Hassan’s account as narrated by Ignatius. Most of the fatalities were attributed to an American airstrike on enemy columns, according to the New York Times. Russian nationals killed in the U.S.-led counter-strike include Vladimir Loginov, Kirill Ananyev, Alexei Ladygin, Stanislav Matveyev and Igor Kosoturov, some of whom had earlier fought in Donbass, according to the Conflict Intelligence Team. Both Kurdish commander Hassan and Washington Post columnist Ignatius interpreted the incident as a breach of faith by the Russian military. However, it is possible that the Russian military was not aware of the attack planned by the Russian contract soldiers acting on orders of the Assad regime. As Bloomberg’s story points out, “The Russian assault may have been a rogue operation.” The proposition that the attempted assault was not cleared with Russia’s “official” military is also supported by the Kremlin’s muted reaction to the event. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment on the incident, in which the death toll of private Russian soldiers may have been five times greater than the Russian Defense Ministry’s official count of servicemen who have died in Syria. “We only handle the data that concerns Russian forces servicemen,” Peskov was quoted as saying by the New York Times. “We don’t have data about other Russians who could be in Syria.” Given such a reaction, chances are that the Kremlin will choose not to escalate over the incident. Nevertheless, the incident serves as a grim reminder of the complexities of the multi-party (and multi-proxy) conflict in Syria, in which there’s always a chance that rogue players’ actions may end up dragging great powers into a direct conflict in spite of their continued deconfliction efforts.

Photo credit: U.S. government work in the public domain.