As confrontation between the US president and the US-establishment continues to unfold with regard to the US’ Russia policy, the outcome of this confrontation seems nothing but a revival of a sort of cold war rhetoric. Clearly, Donald Trump has been forced to up the anti-Russia ante in the US to not only to ‘prove’ his legitimacy but also to appease the establishment into silence. As some recent developments have indicated, the Trump administration is slowly picking up the Obama administration’s extremely rugged anti-Russia rhetoric and is gearing up to start a new era of confrontation with Russia or at least potentially continue what the Obama admin left for him. Perhaps, that is how the Trump presidency seems to think it can politically survive domestically. According to local polls, about half of Americans now feel that Congress should investigate whether Trump’s campaign team kept contact with the Russian government in 2016.
Reports have also emerged claiming that the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into the allegations of Russian interference “is shaping up as an unexpectedly bipartisan effort that could take months to complete”, forcing Trump to utilise the period to re-engineer popular perceptions about his Russia policy by taking one fundamental step: upping the anti-Russia ante.
The ante was clearly upped on last Sunday when Washington brusquely demanded that Moscow “and the separatist forces it backs” in Donbas, Ukraine’s eastern region, should “immediately observe the ceasefire, withdraw all heavy weapons, and allow full and unfettered access to the OSCE monitors.”
The State Department statement warned that Washington is “closely watching the growing violence in eastern Ukraine” and stressed the “imperative” need for the “combined-Russian separatist forces” to honour the ceasefire stipulated under the Minsk agreements and “halt their attacks on civilian infrastructure.”
While the statement was forthright in holding Moscow responsible for violence, it was also in marked to contrast to what Donald Trump had previously said about Ukraine and Russian involvement there. This assertion is indeed nothing short of a clear rejection of Russian narrative, leaving little to no scope for moderation or what Trump had previously called “co-operation” with both Russia and Kiev.
Interestingly enough, forces now being labelled as “Russian” were, hardly a month ago, “unknown” actors in Ukraine and Trump was walling enough to engage Russia to help restore order along the border. Last Sunday’s statement clearly puts the responsibility of all violence squarely on Russia and portrays it as the ultimate villain. The Trump has administration is clearly tapping into the Obama administration’s (un-real) rhetoric to stay political alive domestically and keep resolution of the artificially manufactured conflict(s) a part of its external policy.
This ante is likely to remain up in the future as well. This is evident from another policy statement given by Trump with regard to maintaining absolute nuclear supremacy vis-à-vis Russia. While this statement reflects a jump back to cold war nuclear politics, it is also one of the most aggressive and extraordinary statements given by the new president with regard to his future policies towards Russia. Indeed, Trump’s statement reflects America’s strategic shift from a balance of power to unilateral strategic advantage vis-à-vis Russia, and it could seriously complicate relations between the two world powers.
Accordingly, while Trump has set in motion policies that reflect the way the US would be dealing with Russia, he is also going to give an identical message with regard to his relations with Russia’s Putin. This is evident from the co-option of Fiona Hill, who is known for her hard-hitting biography of Putin, as a senior director for Europe and Russia at the White House.
Within her field, Hill commands as much respect as the new National Security Adviser Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, also brought in by Trump after the resignation of Mike Flynn. While Flynn was seen as uncomfortably ‘close’ to Moscow, the new arrivals are likely to recommend a tougher stance. McMaster reportedly described Russia during his first meeting as NSA as “a country that wants to upend the current world order.”
Their positions are similar to former US marine and current Defense Secretary James Mattis, who made a point of reassuring allies in Europe that he, too, favoured a strong approach towards Putin.
Clearly, Trump’s election-rhetoric has suffered an astonishing defeat. Given the statements issued in the last week and the new appointments made thereafter, what becomes crystal clear is that co-operation between the US and Russia in conflict-ridden and terror-infected states is not forthcoming. According to a report of Associated Press, “President Donald Trump is telling advisers and allies that he may shelve, at least temporarily, his plan to pursue a deal with Moscow on the Islamic State group and other national security matters.”
While the apparent reason given for this is the so-called “Russian provocations” in Ukraine, the actual reason according to this report is that the Trump administration is sensing “growing political risks in forging closer relations with Russia.”
On Trump’s part therefore, any contact with the Kremlin under the given circumstances will remain too “toxic” for a foreseeable future. Yes, a bi-lateral meeting is yet to take place between Trump and Putin, it might fail to make a material difference to the realities of US politics where the existence of a real or imagined external enemy is essential for political survival both at home and elsewhere i.e., Europe and Asia, particularly the Middle East.
Therefore, due to the immense pressure being put on Trump to prove himself as not “pro-Russia”, he may find it both suitable and feasible to follow the Obama administration in its footsteps with regard to its policies vis-à-vis Russia.
Whereas this option would reflect a clear absence in the US of a new policy or vision to engage with Russia, it will also reflect how week the US presidency actually is in front a much more powerful deep-state, forcing the president to prefer confrontation and tension over co-operation.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Source