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

Nuclear security:

• No significant commentary.

Iran and its nuclear program:

• No significant commentary.

New Cold War/Sabre Rattling:

• No significant commentary.

NATO-Russia relations:

• No significant commentary.

Missile defense:

• No significant commentary.

Nuclear arms control:

“'It All Looks as if the World Is Preparing for War,'” Mikhail Gorbachev, Time, 01.26.17: Former leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev urges world leaders to take action to reduce the threat of nuclear warfare. With increasingly bad relations between major world powers, militarized politics and a new arms race, “the nuclear threat once again seems real.” The author suggests that the U.N. Security Council meet and “adopt a resolution stating that nuclear war is unacceptable and must never be fought.” This resolution should come from U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, as the U.S. and Russia “hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenals.” Acting now to prevent war, phase out the arms race and reduce weapons arsenals will be a step towards freeing people from fear.

Counter-terrorism:

• No significant commentary.

Conflict in Syria:

“The Kremlin’s Moves on Syria Are About Seeking Superpower Parity With the US,” David Gardner, Financial Times, 01.25.17: The author, international affairs editor at the Financial Times, writes that Turkey’s shift towards Russia and Iran has altered “the strategic equation in Syria.” Turkey is no longer looking for the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed long-term leases for air and naval bases in Syria. As a result, U.S. President Donald Trump will have to contend with the new reality these facts present. A tilt toward Moscow is possible, but it would come with “collateral costs, not least in Europe and within NATO.”

Cyber security:

• No significant commentary.

Energy exports from CIS:

• No significant commentary.

U.S.-Russian economic ties:

• No significant commentary.

U.S.-Russian relations in general:

“Trump Must Avoid a False Start With Russia,” Zalmay Khalilzad, The National Interest, 01.23.17: The author, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, writes that it is possible for U.S. President Donald Trump to succeed in establishing better relations with Russia. This should be done from a position of strength and should target areas “where deals are most feasible: Islamic terrorism, Europe and arms control.” However, Trump should meet with European allies and begin a program for strengthening U.S. defense capabilities prior to engaging with Moscow. Any deal will require “significant concessions” by Russian President Vladimir Putin, putting Trump’s negotiating skills to the test. Russia would need to remove forces from and establish “an enduring ceasefire” in eastern Ukraine and relieve pressure from the Baltics. The Trump administration could then work towards broader cooperation in three areas: eliminating the Islamist terror threat, establishing an agreement between Moscow and Kiev and furthering arms control and nonproliferation efforts.

“How Donald Trump Can Work With Russia and Not Give Away the House,” Jeffrey H. Smith and Kenneth Yalowitz, The National Interest, 01.26.17: The authors, an attorney specializing in national security and the director of Georgetown University’s Conflict Resolution Program, write that the U.S. needs to “examine its national-security goals and objectives, assess its hard- and soft-power assets and shortcomings, reaffirm its alliances and determine what the major threats are and how to deal with them.” In dealing with Russia, this means cooperating where possible, as well as identifying and managing areas of disagreement. Communication, not containment, is the strategy for dealing with Russia. Improved military communications are especially necessary. American “democratic values and principles” need to be reaffirmed, as they are the foundation of “American greatness.” “It is often said that being responsible makes one act responsibly. Let us hope that happens with Trump.”

 “America’s New President Is Not a Rational Actor: Whether by Accident or Design, Donald Trump Is Isolating Himself and Erratically Unraveling the World Order,” Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy, 01.25.17: The author, a professor of international relations at Harvard University, writes that for many, U.S. President Donald Trump’s behavior leading up to his inauguration and during his first week as president have been appalling and, for the author, “baffling from the perspective of Trump’s own self-interest.” While some elements of Trump’s foreign policy make sense, others contradict each other. For example, Trump is averse to nation-building in the Middle East, but also wants to destroy Islamic extremism, something that would involve “invading, occupying and nation-building in the areas where [Islamic State] and other extremist movements live and recruit.” Trump also appears to be “blithely unaware” of the U.S.-China geopolitical competition, a rivalry that has more at stake than just jobs, currency values and trade balances. The new U.S. President’s “near-silence” on Russia is also concerning, as there is “a perfectly sensible” argument for bettering relations with Moscow.” The author imagines Trump sitting down with a journalist and explaining that warmer relations with Russia are in the U.S.’s national interest, but since the fall of the Soviet Union, Washington’s actions have alarmed and snubbed Russia: “I’m going to show the American people that I can get a better deal from Russia working with them than working against them. Trust me, it’s gonna be TREMENDOUS.” Explaining the logic behind a push for better relations with Russia would help dispel concerns that Trump is in Moscow's pocket. For Trump and advisers like Stephen Bannon, operating from a “clash of civilizations” framework means that Russian President Vladimir Putin becomes “a natural ally.” However, this idea “rests on a fundamental misreading of world politics,” one that confuses “civilizations” for political entities and sets up a reality in which clashes between “abstract cultural groupings” are “a self-fulfilling prophecy.” The author notes that foreign and defense policies going forward will likely be “a train wreck” due to inadequate expertise and disagreement among the people in charge. Many “unexpected developments and unintended consequences” can also be expected if the U.S. pursues an “America First” policy.

II. Russia’s relations with other countries

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

• No significant commentary.

China:

• No significant commentary. 

Ukraine:

“The US Election and the Ukraine Connection,” Samuel Charap and Timothy J. Colton, Project Syndicate, 01.24.17: The authors, a Russia expert and a professor of government and Russian Studies, write that in the furor surrounding Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the question of why it happened is often lost. While Russian interference in the U.S. election was unthinkable three years ago, things changed in February 2014 with Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution. The switch in Kiev from pro-Russia to anti-Russia leadership aligns with Russia’s suddenly “much more bellicose” foreign policy. Russia’s behavior since then shows that Moscow sees Ukraine’s rush toward the West as a threat to Russian national security. “Russia wants to make clear that it will do whatever it takes to have its interests taken into account. But the West hasn’t cooperated.” Seeing that Western leaders were not likely to budge on the issue, “the Kremlin apparently decided to try to replace them.” To prevent further Russian aggression in Ukraine, “an inclusive settlement there may well be necessary.” Russia’s interference in the U.S. elections illustrates that the Ukraine conflict has far-reaching consequences and should be resolved as quickly as possible.

Russia's other post-Soviet neighbors:

• No significant commentary.

III. Russia’s domestic policies

Domestic politics, economy and energy:

• No significant commentary.

Defense and Aerospace:

“Russia's Master Plan to Crush the Pentagon's Third Offset Strategy,” Dave Majumdar, The National Interest, 01.24.17: The author, defense editor of The National Interest, writes that a new report from the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS) argues that Russia has responded to the Pentagon’s Third Offset Strategy by prioritizing the development of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. Looking ahead, Russia will likely focus on developing the following: robotic and remotely controlled systems, expanded cyber-warfare capabilities, advanced command and control systems (battlefield internet), “advanced long-range and ultra-long-range air defense and missile defense systems with ASAT capabilities” (for air superiority as well as defense), new generations of electronic warfare systems and armored vehicles, advanced fighter aircraft, hypersonic weapons and directed energy weapons programs.

Security, law-enforcement and justice:

“Russia’s Blow to Women,” Editorial Board, The Washington Post, 01.28.17: The Washington Post writes that Russia’s parliamentary vote to decriminalize certain kinds of domestic violence “sends a message that brutality in a family is legitimate.” This action “fits a larger drive by Mr. Putin and some of his allies to instill what they call traditional family values.” While data is hard to find, domestic violence remains a problem in Russia. According to an estimate by the Interior Ministry, 12,000 women are assaulted and killed by their partners each year. The authors write that the law’s broader message—“that a domestic assault that doesn’t break bones or result in a concussion” but could leave other kinds of lasting damage—will not be punished by the law is most objectionable. “It is hard to see how a healthy society and healthy families benefit when the most vulnerable are left exposed.”