DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian- American Relations in Crisis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Russian- American Relations in Crisis AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY RUSSIA DIRECT BRIEF | #18 | JANUARY 2015 EDITOR’S NOTE Ekaterina Zabrovskaya Editor-in-Chief Since the end of the Cold War, relations between Russia and the United States have never been surrounded by such pes- simism and uncertainty. Bilateral contacts RUSSIAN- in almost all areas are frozen, suspended or stagnant at best. In order to move for- ward, we need to understand what exact- ly happened and what still holds us back. The author of this Brief, Victoria I. Zhurav- AMERICAN leva of the Russian State University for the Humanities, analyzes the main factors that continue to influence the develop- ment of Russian-American relations, in- cluding the so-called ‘war of images’, and RELATIONS suggests possible ways for finding an exit to the crisis. As always, we look forward to your feedback. Please email me directly at IN CRISIS: [email protected]. LESSONS FOR 2015 AP RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN CRISIS | #18 | JANUARY 2015 RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN CRISIS: LESSONS FOR 2015 Victoria I. Zhuravleva, Russian State University for the Humanities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2014, Russian-American relations experienced a drop to their lowest level since the conclusion of the Cold War. The cri- sis was directly precipitated by Moscow’s actions in unifying Crimea with Russia. In the months that followed, the sanctions © VITALY ANKOV / RIA NOVOSTI ANKOV © VITALY war and the information war have become an integral part of the crisis, deepening the level of mistrust between both sides. What’s needed now is a fundamentally new approach to U.S.- Russian relations that takes into account how both sides view the origins of the Ukraine crisis. This includes a more nuanced understanding of the historical “war of images” between both nations that has fed the rhetoric and propaganda surrounding the crisis in Russian-American relations. With that in mind, this Brief focuses on the lessons of this crisis as well as on poten- tial ways for its resolution, including a closer look at the pri- mary factors that will influence the ultimate success or failure of these strategies. 2 RUSSIA DIRECT BRIEF WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORG RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN CRISIS | #18 | JANUARY 2015 AP INTRODUCTION moratorium on Russian- American cooperation will hinder The rapid deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations in 2014 or completely freeze the resolution of fundamentally im- was unexpected by many, even by those in the high- portant international problems, from nuclear non-prolifer- est diplomatic circles. As recently as June 17, 2013 Rus- ation to protecting environmental resources. sian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack A crisis is always a test. Only time will tell what types of Obama made a Joint Statement on Enhanced Bilateral collateral damage will be inflicted on both countries and Engagement, which stated that: “The United States of the rest of the world while Russian and American leaders America and the Russian Federation reaffirm their readi- attempt to pass this test. However, the sooner a serious ness to intensify bilateral cooperation based on the prin- Russian-American dialogue is begun on the causes, the ciples of mutual respect, equality, and genuine respect nature and the lessons of this crisis, the more hope there for each other’s interests.”1 However, by March 2014, the is of their success. By understanding the root causes of United States and European Union had launched an un- the crisis, as well as how they continue to influence the precedented program of sanctions against Russia that policy calculations of top leaders in Moscow and Wash- stimulated a crisis in Russia’s economy that was further ington, we can begin to devise potential exit strategies destabilized by the headlong drop in oil prices. This pro- from the crisis, taking into account its lessons. gram of sanctions eventually led to counter-sanctions be- ing coordinated by Moscow. THE ORIGINS OF THE CRISIS IN Within the United States, the agenda of policy makers RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS in Washington in the following months has raised ques- tions about the prospects for a Cold War II and the return The current crisis cannot simply be explained by Rus- of policies for containing Russia and Russia’s revisionist sia’s actions in Crimea. The reasons for the crisis have plans. In Russia, various conspiracy theories about the their own historical context and are linked by American events in Ukraine have come to the fore, many of which perceptions that Russia is a former superpower that have focused on the central role of the United States in lost the Cold War. leading a universal conspiracy against Russia. As a result, NATO’s policy of expanding eastward has sim- the relationship between Russia and the U.S. has become ply strengthened Russia’s certainty that its national one of tit-for-tat actions and shrill propaganda state- interests are being disregarded. The United States, the ments. Such an approach seems irresponsible. After all, a European Union and Russia have been unable to estab- 1 Joint Statement by the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Enhanced Bilateral Engagement. June 17, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/17/joint-statement-presidents-united-states-america-and-russian-federatio-1 3 RUSSIA DIRECT BRIEF WWW.RUSSIA-DIRECT.ORG RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS IN CRISIS | #18 | JANUARY 2015 The Ukrainian crisis is an indicator of a critical crisis in the relationship between the U.S. and post-Soviet Russia lish a stable European-Atlantic system for security in crisis. As he explains, “following the end of the Cold which Russia could play a real role. It not only could War, the U.S., European countries and Russia failed to give Russia advantages, but also could impose certain build an effective security structure for Europe which obligations. In this sense, the Ukrainian crisis is an indi- included Russia” because some Western policies – in- cator of a critical crisis in the relationship between the cluding NATO’s eastward expansion – have been seen U.S. and post-Soviet Russia, being directly connected by Russians as hostile, even though there were other with the broader crisis of managing global and regional motivations on the Western part. “The idea that Rus- processes in a post Cold War world. sia has been treated as a “defeated” nation has lodged Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Moscow Carnegie in many Russian minds and has been encouraged by Center, is certain that the current confrontation be- unjustified “triumphalism” in the United States – an tween Russia and the U.S. “is the logical result of… the attitude adopted by American politicians more for failure to establish a stable international order following domestic political purposes than from an intent to de- the conclusion of the Cold War.” On one hand, Russia mean Russia,” he said.4 is asserting its right to full sovereignty and its vision of At the same time, Richard N. Haass, President of the the world order. On the other hand, the U.S. is defend- Council on Foreign Relations, while highlighting Rus- ing its leadership of an international system that was sia’s contribution to the unfolding confrontation, does established as a result of the end of the Cold War and not remove responsibility for the conflict from Amer- the disappearance of the Soviet Union.2 ica or the West. “Putin himself chose to consolidate Angela Stent, director of the Center for Eurasian, Rus- his political and economic power and adopt a foreign sian, and East European Studies at Georgetown Uni- policy that increasingly characterizes Russia as an op- versity, who served as an adviser on Russia under Bill ponent of an international order defined and led by the Clinton and George W. Bush, has come to the conclu- United States,” Haass argues. “But U.S. and Western sion that Russia and the U.S. must endure not only the policy have not always encouraged more constructive legacy of the Cold War but also that of the 1990s, when choices on his part... NATO enlargement was seen by the asymmetrical character of bilateral relations was many Russians as a humiliation, a betrayal, or both. established. “The recognition of the reality that Russia More could have been made of the Partnership for is less important per se, that indirectly is a continuing Peace, a program designed to foster better relations source of irritation to Russian officials,” she argues. “In between Russia and the alliance. Alternatively, Russia this sense, the various American resets have represent- could have been asked to join NATO, an outcome that ed attempts to engage Russia productively by persuad- would have made little military difference, as NATO ing it to acknowledge and accept the asymmetries in has become less of an alliance in the classic sense than the relationship and move forward on that basis. Putin’s a standing pool of potential contributors to “coalitions 2001 attempted reset, by contrast, was a bid to estab- of the willing.” Arms control, one of the few domains lish a strategic partnership of equals, acting as if these in which Russia could lay claim to still being a great asymmetries did not exist.”3 power, was shunted to the side as unilateralism and Likewise, former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union minimalist treaties became the norm.”5 Jack F. Matlock has also turned to the legacy of the After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was offered 1990s in his search for the root causes of the current a model for engagement, implemented through the 2 Dmitri Trenin. Russia and the U.S.: A Temporary Break or a New ‘Cold War’? Testimony, State Duma Committee on International Affairs, December 8, 2014.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia's Many Foreign Policies
    Russia’s Many Foreign Policies MICHAEL MCFAUL hat are Russian foreign policy objectives? It depends on whom you ask. W In making assessments of Russia’s behavior in the world, it is absolutely critical that we recognize that Russia today is not a totalitarian state ruled by a Communist Party with a single and clearly articulated foreign policy of expand- ing world socialism and destroying world capitalism and democracy. That state disappeared in 1991. Rather, Russia is a democratizing state—a weakly institu- tionalized democracy with several deficiencies, but a democratizing state nonetheless. Russia’s foreign policy, in turn, is a product of domestic politics in a pluralistic system. In democracies, “states” do not have foreign policy objectives. Rather, indi- vidual political leaders, parties, and interest groups have foreign policy objec- tives. Under certain conditions, these various forces come together to support a united purpose in foreign affairs. At other times, these disparate groups can have conflicting views about foreign policy objectives. They can even support the same foreign policy objective for different reasons.1 Russia today is no different. Although Russian leaders share in supporting a few common, general foreign policy objectives, they disagree on many others. They also disagree on the means that should be deployed to achieve the same for- eign policy objective. The foreign policy that eventually results is a product of debate, political struggle, electoral politics, and lobbying by key interest groups. Because Russia is undergoing revolutionary change internally, the foreign policy that results from Russian domestic politics can change quickly. This article makes the case for the centrality of domestic politics in the artic- ulation and implementation of Russian foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Soviet States: People, Power, and Assets Oral History Archive
    Post-Soviet States: People, Power, and Assets Oral History Archive Interviewee: Mark O. Henry Interviewer: Rebecca Adeline Johnston Date: December 9, 2019 Location: Woburn, MA Abstract Mark O. Henry is co-founder and Chief Financial Officer of Boston-based Bach Pharma. An accountant by training, he has worked as a CPA for Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., a vice president at State Street Bank in Boston, and in numerous business ventures. Much of his career in the pharmaceutical industry has been aimed at establishing a market in the United States for Russian therapeutics. Most prominent in his work is a monosodium luminol product marketed as Galavit in Russia and as GVT in the United States. In this interview, Mr. Henry discusses his experiences working with the Russian and American medical communities beginning in the late 1990s and which remain ongoing. This transcript is lightly edited for clarity. Audio for this interview is not available. Redacted portions are marked as such. Interviewer questions and remarks are presented in bold. Interview Transcript I wanted to start with asking a bit about yourself—where you're from, some of the highlights of your very varied and rich career in accounting and business, up to the point where you started working in Russia. I graduated with a bachelor of science degree in accounting, became a CPA for KPMG. One of my first assignments that I ever had was in South America, specifically in Columbia, South America. I was helping United Fruit Company at the time sell bananas to Russia, which was prohibited from the United States because of the 1947 ban on trade with Russia that the Congress of the United States had passed.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Mcfaul
    Michael McFaul Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the Freeman Spogli Institute and the Woods Institute Political Science Curriculum Vitae available Online Bio BIO Michael McFaul is Director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Ken Olivier and Angela Nomellini Professor of International Studies in the Department of Political Science, and the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1995. Dr. McFaul also is as an International Affairs Analyst for NBC News and a columnist for The Washington Post. He served for five years in the Obama administration, first as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council at the White House (2009-2012), and then as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014). He has authored several books, most recently the New York Times bestseller From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia. Earlier books include Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should, How We Can; Transitions To Democracy: A Comparative Perspective (eds. with Kathryn Stoner); Power and Purpose: American Policy toward Russia after the Cold War (with James Goldgeier); and Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin. His current research interests include American foreign policy, great power relations, and the relationship between democracy and development. Dr. McFaul was born and raised in Montana. He received his B.A. in International Relations and Slavic Languages and his M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • S:\FULLCO~1\HEARIN~1\Committee Print 2018\Henry\Jan. 9 Report
    Embargoed for Media Publication / Coverage until 6:00AM EST Wednesday, January 10. 1 115TH CONGRESS " ! S. PRT. 2d Session COMMITTEE PRINT 115–21 PUTIN’S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JANUARY 10, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations Available via World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 28–110 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:06 Jan 09, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\COMMITTEE PRINT 2018\HENRY\JAN. 9 REPORT FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER seneagle Embargoed for Media Publication / Coverage until 6:00AM EST Wednesday, January 10. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico TODD YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey TODD WOMACK, Staff Director JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate Mar 15 2010 04:06 Jan 09, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\COMMITTEE PRINT 2018\HENRY\JAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Launching a New Institution: PACIFIC COUNCIL on INTERNATIONAL POLICY
    Launching A New Institution: PACIFIC COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL POLICY 1995-1996 Launching a New Institution: The Pacific Council on International Policy 1995-1996 Established in cooperation with the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. To the Members of the Pacific Council 1 on International Policy Launching a New Institution 2 Programs and Meetings 15 Visiting Scholars and Fellows Program 24 Board of Directors 25 Corporate sponsors 26 Individual Contributions 27 General and Program Support 29 Membership Policy 30 Membership Roster 31 Staff 36 Pacific Council on International Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90089-0035 (phone) 213-740-4296 (fax) 213-740-9498 (e-mail) [email protected] To the members of the Pacific Council on International Policy n two years, the Pacific Council on International Policy has moved from a compelling vision to a vigorous and extraordinarily promising organization. We have made rapid progress in Iestablishing a leadership forum which will attract the participation of thoughtful and concerned leaders from throughout the western region of North America and around the entire Pacific Rim. The Pacific Council’s founding and charter members believe that there is a clear and urgent need for an international policy organization rooted in the strengths of the western United States — its leaders, resources and diversity — but which will consistently and creatively look outward to the kinds of relationships that should be developed with our neighbors to the west in the Asia Pacific region and south in Latin America. It is essential to bring together a broad based group of leaders from around the Pacific Rim to consider the challenges that face us all and to make recommendations for policies that would contribute to growth and stability.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhodes Scholar Magazine
    EDITION 2 • 2015 Democracy and the City How where we live can foster innovation Rhodes House Tel: +44 (0)1865 270905 facebook.com/RhodesTrust South Parks Road Email: [email protected] @rhodes_trust An insight into... Oxford OX1 3RG Web: rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk Voices from the LGBTQ Rhodes community United Kingdom Rhodes Scholarships Global Community RhodesTrust Unexpected Oxford 21st century leadership How the city of dreaming spires can continue to surprise Admire Kamudzengerere (Zimbabwe), My Other Mask, Lithograph 6 Democracy and the City Looking at urban spaces in new ways 9 Guns and What? African Contemporary Art on the Rise An evocative look at new African Art 12 Oxford Remembered: Duet amongst the Dreaming Spires 14 Rhodes Retreat The new Service & Leadership Programme at Rhodes House 16 A Cane Do Attitude SmartCane technology innovations 9 Editorial information 18 Insight into... the Rhodes LGBTQ community Artistry in Africa The Rhodes Magazine is published annually in print format by the Rhodes Trust in Oxford and supplemented each year by two electronic 22 Oxford News updates. News from the University of Oxford and The Mandela Rhodes Editor: Babette Tegldal, Communications Manager Foundation Tel: +44 (0)1865 270905 Email: [email protected] 24 Unexpected Oxford Design: Jamjar Creative Cover image: By current Scholar Vinesh Rajpaul How Oxford manages to surprise, inspire and confuse (South African College School, Newlands & Merton 2013); his work can be viewed at vineshrajpaul.com. He and his fiancée (also an 26 Rhodes Scholars in Research award-winning photographer and Oxford student) have been documenting life in and around the University, with a view to publishing 28 Try, Try, Try Again a collection of their photographic work.
    [Show full text]
  • L:\Hearings 2018\09-06 Zzdistill\32635.Txt
    S. HRG. 115–376 OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES ON RUSSIA SANCTIONS: CURRENT EFFECTIVENESS AND POTENTIAL FOR NEXT STEPS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SANCTIONS PROGRAM CURRENTLY IN PLACE AGAINST RUSSIA AND THE EFFECTS OF THOSE SANCTIONS SEPTEMBER 6, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs ( Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 32–635 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama SHERROD BROWN, Ohio BOB CORKER, Tennessee JACK REED, Rhode Island PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey DEAN HELLER, Nevada JON TESTER, Montana TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MARK R. WARNER, Virginia BEN SASSE, Nebraska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts TOM COTTON, Arkansas HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID PERDUE, Georgia BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii THOM TILLIS, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JERRY MORAN, Kansas DOUG JONES, Alabama GREGG RICHARD, Staff Director MARK POWDEN, Democratic Staff Director JOHN O’HARA, Chief Counsel for National Security Policy KRISTINE JOHNSON, Economist ELISHA TUKU, Democratic Chief Counsel LAURA SWANSON, Democratic Deputy Staff Director COLIN MCGINNIS, Democratic Policy Director DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk CAMERON
    [Show full text]
  • The Ambassadorial Series a Collection of Transcripts from the Interviews
    The Ambassadorial Series A Collection of Transcripts from the Interviews COMPILED AND EDITED BY THE MONTEREY INITIATIVE IN RUSSIAN STUDIES MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES MAY 10, 2021 ii Introduction At a time when dialogue between American and Russian diplomats is reduced to a bare minimum and when empathy and civility fall short of diplomacy between major powers, we are pleased to introduce the Ambassadorial Series. It is a compilation of conversations with eight outstanding American diplomats who served at various points of time as U.S. ambassadors to the Soviet Union and, after its dissolution, to the Russian Federation. The Series provides nuanced analyses of crucial aspects of the U.S.-Russia relationship, such as the transition from the Soviet Union to contemporary Russia and the evolution of Putin’s presidency. It does so through the personal reflections of the ambassadors. As Ambassador Alexander Vershbow observes, “[t]he Ambassadorial Series is a reminder that U.S. relations with Putin's Russia began on a hopeful note, before falling victim to the values gap.” At its heart, this project is conceived as a service to scholars and students of American diplomacy vis-à-vis Russia. The interviews, collected here as transcripts, form a unique resource for those who want to better understand the evolving relationship between the two countries. We would like to express gratitude to our colleagues who collaborated on this project and to the Monterey Initiative in Russian Studies staff members who supported it. Jill Dougherty is the face and voice of this project – bringing expertise, professionalism, and experience to the Series.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1998 - June 30,1999 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-•1789 TTele . (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www.cfr.org E-mail communications@cfr. org Officers and Directors, 1999–2000 Officers Directors Term Expiring 2004 Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 2000 John Deutch Chairman of the Board Jessica P.Einhorn Carla A. Hills Maurice R. Greenberg Louis V. Gerstner Jr. Robert D. Hormats* Vice Chairman Maurice R. Greenberg William J. McDonough* Leslie H. Gelb Theodore C. Sorensen President George J. Mitchell George Soros* Michael P.Peters Warren B. Rudman Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Term Expiring 2001 Leslie H. Gelb Officer, and National Director ex officio Lee Cullum Paula J. Dobriansky Vice President, Washington Program Mario L. Baeza Honorary Officers David Kellogg Thomas R. Donahue and Directors Emeriti Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Richard C. Holbrooke Douglas Dillon and Publisher Peter G. Peterson† Caryl P.Haskins Lawrence J. Korb Robert B. Zoellick Charles McC. Mathias Jr. Vice President, Studies David Rockefeller Term Expiring 2002 Elise Carlson Lewis Honorary Chairman Vice President, Membership Paul A. Allaire and Fellowship Affairs Robert A. Scalapino Roone Arledge Abraham F. Lowenthal Cyrus R.Vance John E. Bryson Vice President Glenn E. Watts Kenneth W. Dam Anne R. Luzzatto Vice President, Meetings Frank Savage Janice L. Murray Laura D’Andrea Tyson Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2003 Judith Gustafson Secretary Peggy Dulany Martin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Ambassador Michael Mcfaul1
    Testimony of Ambassador Michael McFaul1 Hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence Putin’s Playbook: The Kremlin’s Use of Oligarchs, Money and Intelligence in 2016 and Beyond March 28, 2019 When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the worldwide ideological struggle between communism and liberalism – in other words, freedom, democracy, capitalism – also ended. Thankfully, the ideological contest between Moscow and Washington that shaped much of world politics for several decades in the twentieth century has not reemerged. However, for at least a decade now, Russian president Vladimir Putin has been waging a new ideological struggle, first at home, and then against the West more generally, and the United States in particular. He defines this contest as a battle between the decadent, liberal multilateralism that dominates in the West and his brand of moral, conservative, sovereign values. I define this contest as one between autocracy, corruption, state domination of the economy, and indifference to international norms versus democracy, rule of law, free markets, and respect for international law. This new ideological struggle is primarily being waged not between states, but within states. At home, Putin has eroded checks and balances on executive power, undermined the autonomy of political actors, regional governments, the media, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and strengthened state ownership throughout the Russian economy. To propagate his ideas and pursue his objectives abroad, Putin has invested in several powerful instruments of influence, many of which parallel those used for governing within Russia, including traditional media, social media, the weaponization of intelligence (doxing), financial support for allies, business deals for political aims, and even the deployment of coercive actors abroad, including soldiers, mercenaries, and assassins.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in Russia: Trends and Implications for U.S
    Order Code RL32662 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Democracy in Russia: Trends and Implications for U.S. Interests Updated January 28, 2005 Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Democracy in Russia: Trends and Implications for U.S. Interests Summary U.S. attention has focused on Russia’s fitful democratization since Russia emerged in 1991 from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many observers have argued that a democratic Russia with free markets would be a cooperative bilateral and multilateral partner rather than an insular and hostile national security threat. Concerns about democratization progress appeared heightened after Vladimir Putin became president in 2000. Since then, there has been increased government interference in elections and campaigns, restrictions on freedom of the media, civil as well as human rights abuses in the breakaway Chechnya region, and the arrest of businessman Mikhail Khodorkovskiy as an apparent warning to other entrepreneurs not to support opposition parties or otherwise challenge government policy. Following terrorist attacks in Russia that culminated in the deaths of hundreds of school-children in the town of Beslan, President Putin on September 13, 2004, proposed restructuring all three branches of government and strengthening federal powers to better counter the terrorist threat to Russia. The proposed restructuring included integrating security agencies, switching to party list voting for the Duma (lower legislative chamber), eliminating direct elections of the heads of federal subunits, asserting greater presidential control over the judiciary, and mobilizing social support for the government by strengthening political parties and eliciting the views of non-governmental organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Global Reach: a Security and Statecraft Assessment
    Russia’s Global Reach: A Security and Statecraft Assessment Edited by Graeme P. Herd About the Marshall Center The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies is one of five U.S. Department of Defense Regional Centers and the only bilateral Center. It is also the only regional center for the Federal Republic of Germany. The mission of the Marshall Center is to enable solutions to regional and transnational security challenges through capacity building, access, and a globally connected network. An instrument of German-American cooperation, the center addresses regional and transnational security issues for the U.S. Department of Defense and German Federal Ministry of Defense, and maintains contact with a vast alumni network of security professionals. The legacy, goals, and ideals of the Marshall Plan continue through the security education initiatives of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. The Marshall Center, dedicated in 1993, is a renowned international security and defense studies institute that promotes dialogue and understanding among the nations of North America, Europe and Eurasia. The Marshall Center is committed to carrying Marshall's vision into the 21st century. Supported bilaterally by the governments of the United States and Germany, the Marshall Center boasts an international faculty and staff with representatives from ten partner nations. In addition to supporting the European theater security cooperation strategies and objectives, the Marshall Center supports five South and Central Asian States: Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The Marshall Center also has a supporting relationship with Mongolia and Afghanistan. For reprint permissions, contact the editor via [email protected].
    [Show full text]