The “new normalcy” between the US and Russia — a reflection of “pragmatic” engagement — can certainly rebuff Chinese imperial design and help India access Russian energy and defence equipment at much ease
The July 16 Helsinki Summit between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin can be considered historic for at least five reasons. First, the summit took place when the relation between the two strategic foes is at lowest point. Second, this is first meeting between Trump and Putin after the Russian Presidential election. Third, the intensification of trade war between the US and China is going to have a deeper repercussion on the conduct of international relations. Fourth, bickering within the Western bloc came to fore when the European Union was quite skeptic about American preponderance, especially on trade and tariff issues. Fifth, the imposition of sanctions on Iran and its impact on energy prices by the US.
There is growing skepticism in the US over the future role of the only remnant of Cold War, i.e, NATO, in providing security to the Euro-Atlantic security order.
Some of the above strategic nuances provided the backdrop to the Helsinki Summit which once again confirmed the proposition given by British Prime Minister lord Palmerstone in 1848 in the House of Commons, “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual.” (Edward Heath, “Realism in British Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, October 1969, Pg 39.)
If one treads the path of realist theorist proposition that the so-called notion of “interest” is paramount in governing international relations among the sovereign states then how one can paraphrase the definition of lord Palmerstone in the context of Russia and US relationsij
What are the factors that brought out a “shift” in Trump Administration’s policy towards Russiaij This is more so when various US Governmental reports indicted Russian agencies and individuals for their role in influencing the US Presidential election.
As reported widely in newspapers, a declassified report of US National Intelligence Agency titled “Background to Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” published on January 6, 2017, gave a detailed account of Russian intervention in the US Presidential election process.
However one may add a footnote here that Trump was a major beneficiary of the scandal if it is true. Notwithstanding such polemics, there is a sense of bewilderment among policymakers and analysts regarding what promoted Washington to mend fences with Moscowij One can get an answer to this in the writings of then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
In her memoirs she wrote, there is a growing consensus among the western political elite that “the Russian bear might not remain gentle for long”. (Madam Secretary.
New York: Miramax Books, 2003, p 214)
In hindsight, it appears that despite irritants, strategic compulsions on part of both the countries may have promoted this sort of rapprochement between these two powers. The same was manifested quite aptly in the Helsinki Summit.
As Putin in the aftermath of the Summit stated, “Our expectations are grounded in realism, but our hopes are grounded in Americans’ desire for friendship, cooperation, and peace. I think I can speak on behalf of Russia when I say that.”(transcript of the Helsinki press conference, July 18, 2018, VOX News)
Even Trump, departing from the official positions, stated at the Summit, “A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world.”(Ibid)
The immediate answer to Russia’s “conduct” in bridging with the US can be partly attributed to the recent fallout between Washington and Brussels over trade related issues. The former is also engaged in similar exercises with Beijing. The trade war is aggravating the global geopolitical crisis.
One may recall here that over the last few months the Trump Administration has been declaring higher tariff on goods imported from the EU. This is preventing the accessibility of EU’s commodities in the American market and vice versa. As per the trade statistics published by Office of the United States Trade Representative, the bilateral trade between the two stood at around $1.1 trillion in 2016. Accessibility of goods and services will have a serious repercussion on global trade as well as domestic economy of each other if there are restrictions. For instance, because of restriction by the EU as reported, Washington paid financial assistance to its farmers who suffered immensely because of trade restriction. It is under these circumstances, the EU is slowly slipping from the hands of the US. It has also been argued by analysts that the uneasiness between the EU and the US will also have a growing repercussion on strategic cooperation between these two partners. On the other hand, political pundits are of the opinion simmering trade war between these two will give ample scope to Washington’s foe Beijing to manoeuvre with Brussels. Trade data shows EU’s second largest trading partner is China. However, there are certain limitations to EU’s relations with China. For instance even EU is quite vocal about the Chinese OBOR project. Second, they also clash with each other over certain normative idioms like democracy. Third, there is a shared strategic bonhomie between Russia and China, which makes the EU suspicious.
Trump Administration’s sudden U-turn on Russia can be understood from the fact that the growing isolation at international arena forced the former to mend fences with it. It is noteworthy to highlight here that Russia is also under a spell of sanctions which is harming its economic strength. In such circumstances, Russia is also trying to have a better diplomatic understanding with the US. This will certainly ease relationship between these two and help Moscow to ward off financial crisis. At the same time Kremlin will also reduce its over-dependence on Beijing.
In addition to the above-mentioned strategic developments, the immediate reason which stimulated greater bonhomie between these two strategic foes is the changing US policy towards NATO.
The “encirclement” of Russia and stationing of its troops along with Colour Revolutions posed a major challenge to Russia’s hegemony. NATO’s strategic behaviour towards Russia was aptly summarised by Putin way back in 2015 in his address to the Valdai Club Meeting where he stated, “NATO is a military alliance. We are worried not about democracy on our borders, but about military infrastructure coming ever closer to our borders.” (Kremlin.ru) One may recall here that to tame the Russian challenge, a “Special Operations Command Europe” (SOCEUR) under the aegis of NATO also came up.
A sudden shift in the US policy towards NATO was evident when Trump, just before the onset of trade war with Europe, in a series of tweets gave a stern message to the EU regarding the future of NATO. Accusing the EU countries of not bearing the equal financial burden of NATO, Trump raised a storm by raising the viability of this military bloc. He stated in his personal twitter dated July 11, “The US pays tens of billions of dollars too much to subsidise Europe, and loses big on trade.”
Trump’s comment on the future of NATO at the Brussels Summit just before his meeting with Putin reflected the fault-lines that exist within the trans-Atlantic military bloc. Rumbling within the NATO is going to have a major impact on the nature of interaction between Russia and member states of NATO. This is more so in the context of former Soviet states, who have joined NATO’s bandwagon.
The Helsinki Summit can also be seen in the context of eruption of the US and Iran conflict and sanctions on Russia. Analysts are of the opinion that Washington may waive sanctions on Russia despite stiff domestic opposition. If this happens, then Russian energy will compensate the loss suffered due to the forthcoming sanctions on Iranian energy sector.
This move may also put a hold on the rise of prices of crude and will ensure uninterrupted supply of the same in the international market. On the other hand EU countries which are thinking of diversifying their energy dependence on Iran will also be in a difficult situation.
The significance of Helsinki Summit can be underscored from the fact that it highlighted the fault-line of Euro-Atlantic structure, Russia and the US relations and future of NATO. The declaration of Helsinki Summit is also quite significant for India because if there is a smoothening of relations between Russia and the US, then New Delhi can access Russian energy and defence equipment at much ease. Second, the “new normalcy” between the US and Russia can certainly rebuff Chinese imperial design. This is because greater partnership between Washington and Moscow will have an impact on Russia’s China policy.
In nutshell, one can argue that Russia-US engagement is a reflection of “pragmatic” engagement rather than an ideological rhetoric. However, things are not all well between Russia and the West, considering at the NATO’s behaviour towards Russia as evident from the developments that took place in the aftermath of the Helsinki Summit.
(The writer teaches in School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)
