The arrival of a new U.S. president in the White House will not improve U.S.-Russian relations.
Introduction by Sharon Tennison, President of the Centre for Citizen Initiatives:
The analysis below was written by Dmitri Trenin, a seasoned expert in the field of US-Russia relations. Trenin is quite measured, has been in the field for decades and can be counted on for long-term analysis that is on target. His assessment amid the flurry of immediate news breaking out from multiple corners, is worthy of heeding.
Trenin makes it abundantly clear that this fierce and unpredictable battle going on between current U.S. leaders and Russia’s leadership is a “fight-to-death for dominance” in the new World Order of the 21st century.
The question is,“Can we citizens chart courses of action that can effectively deal with ‘what is.'” “What is” became clear to me after studying “The Wolfowitz Doctrine” in 2010. At that time no one in my circles or reading material was even mentioning that the Doctrine existed. And quite honestly once I read it and understood what it meant to the short–term history in which I had been involved, I was afraid to discuss it in public. But Trenin is very clear about it in the article below, whether or not he mentions it by name.
OUR WORLD IS CHANGING. In all of recorded history, civilizations and nations come up, plateau, and go into decline. Then other nations rise, plateau and decline. It’s built into the nature of our planet thus far.
How do we Americans choose to deal with this inevitable evolution playing itself out in this new century? World history shows that nearly all leaders and countries in decline overextend themselves and begin wars to keep control of people, resources and territories while trying to maintain their hegemony indefinitely.
Civilizations and nations in the past have done precisely what we are doing in the 2000s…. and most all have ended in defeat and ignominy. WE HAVE A CHOICE TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY. We don’t need to follow that pattern. Great Britain eventually chose another path in the twentieth century after much struggle and bloodshed, and even though it was replaced by the U.S. as the world’s dominant power, it survived decline and has remained a fairly productive and respected nation.
I think we can choose even a better version of life and governance following a decline than did Britain. But it will take understanding precisely where we are today and putting our finest minds into searching for and working toward solutions and ideals that at present are nowhere to be seen or talked about. Currently we are facing the inevitable decline but don’t admit it to ourselves. We are still beating our chests and talking about “American exceptionalism.”
How can we American citizens deal with this emerging reality with our eyes wide open? How can we insist that our leaders take note and act accordingly? I eagerly await your thoughts regarding this reality.
FYI: I’m absolutely sure that Russia has NO interest in being a next “unipolar” nation. They learned tragic lessons about this kind of national pursuit from their 70-year Soviet experiment. Russian leadership and Russian people simply want to exist in a multi-polar world where leaders from multiple nations sit down and together hammer out solutions to some of the gargantuan problems ahead.
Russia-U.S. relations have entered the third year of confrontation. The good news is that over the last year, this confrontation has stabilized, becoming a "new normal" for the relationship. The bad news is that the state of confrontation is long-lasting, and, more recently, it has acquired some of the characteristics of military-political confrontation in Eastern Europe, combined with an unfolding arms race.
Despite the partial stabilization of the situation in eastern Ukraine and local cooperation in Syria, the danger of direct confrontation between Russia and the U.S. remains. It should be borne in mind that, in contrast to the Cold War, the current confrontation is clearly asymmetrical. The obvious disparity of forces in favor of the U.S. requires Russia to compensate for its weakness by increasing the stakes, a willingness to take more risks and sudden actions that put an opponent at a disadvantage.
On the other hand, this inequality, combined with a sense of moral superiority, is pushing the U.S. to an underestimation of Russia as being "in a state of increasing decadence," the perception of Russia's actions as a bluff, and a further ratcheting up of pressure. In such circumstances, there is a high risk of incidents. A collision between Russian and U.S. aircraft or an aircraft and a warship in the Baltic or Black Sea regions could escalate the confrontation to more dangerous levels.
Cooperation does not eliminate competition
The hopes that emerged in the last couple of months of easing the tensions between the U.S. and Russia were dashed from the very beginning. The confrontation is fundamental. It is not born of the parties' misunderstanding or specific errors, but of a clash of exceptionalisms between the U.S., which does not see anyone in the world as its equal, and Russia, which insists on equality with the most powerful. It therefore comes to the world order, the role of the U.S. in it, and the status of Russia.
It is clear from this conclusion that even the presence of obvious common interests – such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against Islamist extremism – cannot fundamentally change the situation. The very conditions of cooperation are the subject of intense struggle. There is no point in hoping for a warming of relations as a result of the arrival of a new U.S. president in the White House. Most likely, Barack Obama's successor will act tougher toward Russia than the current president.
It is unlikely that the hopes of those who are awaiting the easing and even the lifting of Western sanctions against Russia will be fulfilled soon. U.S. sanctions are for a very long time, but also the E.U. sanctions, despite the desire of some politicians to cancel them, will remain in force for a lengthy period of time.
This is not just transatlantic solidarity. By linking the lifting of sanctions with the implementation of the Minsk agreements in conditions when Kiev simply cannot do this without fatal damage to the stability of the current government, Berlin and Brussels make the lifting of sanctions unrealistic in the foreseeable future. The blame for the failure of the Minsk agreements will be then laid at the feet of Moscow.
The end of Pax Americana
The mid-2010s saw the end of the quarter-century period of Pax Americana – U.S. global domination which was not seriously contested by anyone. Now, the world powers – the U.S., China and Russia – have entered a period of rivalry.
In response to this change, the U.S. has altered its global strategy. From an emphasis on universalism (the stimulation of globalization, the promotion of democratic values in the world), Washington is moving to strengthen the position of the enlarged West and actively deter countries that challenge the United States.
Under these circumstances, it is too early to look for a way out of the confrontation. The Russian leadership has been active, but the maximum that can be obtained through such tactics is to buy time. The crucial question is whether Moscow is able to use this time to support its bid for the place and the role of one of the leading world powers through a substantial strengthening of its economic, scientific and technical as well as cultural and informational power.
As for relations with the U.S., they will focus on the management of the confrontation in the short and medium term. This is primarily the prevention of incidents involving soldiers of the two countries; an effective freezing of the conflict in the Donbass and, finally, the maintenance of permanent and reliable contacts with influential U.S. officials to avoid the misrepresentation of certain actions by Moscow and Washington.
Source: Russia Beyond the Headlines