Battlegrounds Page 4

  Fiona, Joe, and I landed in Geneva in the early morning of February 16, 2018. Ted Allegra, an experienced diplomat and gracious host who was the chargé d’affaires ad interim of the U.S. Mission in Geneva, greeted us. We held an informative video telephone conference with the U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman. Huntsman, a wise statesman, politician, and businessman who had served previously as governor of Utah, U.S. ambassador to Singapore, and, most recently, U.S. ambassador to China, worked daily in a difficult and hostile environment. The ambassador was supportive of the Patrushev meeting and the opening of a channel between Patrushev’s Secretariat and the NSC staff. He described how Russian harassment of embassy officials had intensified in recent months. But he took a long view of U.S.-Russian relations and felt that we should lay the groundwork for improved relations. I met Mr. Patrushev outside the U.S. consulate. As he exited the limousine, he evinced the self-assurance one might expect from an old KGB official. Two of his senior staff, a deputy secretary of his Security Council and a senior aide responsible for the U.S.-Russia relationship, along with a staff officer serving as a note taker, accompanied him.

  After introductions, I offered coffee to the Patrushev delegation—none of them touched the light refreshments we had on hand—and we sat down across from one another. I welcomed the delegation and, after mentioning my interest in Russian history and literature, reviewed the purpose of the meeting and the sustained dialogue that was meant to follow it: to develop mutual understanding of our interests. I asked Mr. Patrushev to begin. He spoke for the better part of an hour. His version of the Kremlin’s view of the world revolved around three main points. First, he portrayed Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine as defensive efforts to protect ethnic Russian populations from what he described as Ukrainian far-right extremists and U.S. and European attempts to engineer a pro-European Union and, therefore, an anti-Russian government in Kiev. Second, he described the expansion of NATO countries and the rotation of NATO forces into areas that Russia considered traditional spheres of influence as threatening. Third, he argued that the United States, its allies, and its partners had increased the terrorist threat across the greater Middle East through ill-conceived interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.11 Finally, perhaps in anticipation of my comments, he flatly denied attacking the 2016 U.S. presidential election or attempting to subvert Western democracies. None of what Patrushev said was surprising, and I did not want to waste time rebutting his assertions or denials. Instead, I endeavored to elevate the discussion to generate mutual understanding of our vital interests in four areas.

  First, I noted that both our countries were interested in the prevention of a direct military conflict. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine was particularly dangerous to peace, not only because it was the first time since World War II that borders within Europe were changed by force, but also because Russia’s continued use of unconventional forces in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe could escalate.12 One of the historical parallels to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia in 1914, which triggered World War I. World War I was a powerful analogy because it was a war in which none of the participants would have engaged had they known the price they would pay in treasure and, especially, blood. Many people wanted war, but no one got the war he or she wanted. Moscow and Washington both needed to acknowledge the risk that the next Russian attempt might trigger a military confrontation, even if Russia intended to act below the threshold of what might elicit a military response from NATO. I wanted Patrushev to see the U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea as more than punitive; they were meant to deter Russia from future actions that could lead to a destructive war. I thought that Patrushev might agree that we were in a dangerous, transitional period. Communicating the United States’ vital interests and our determination to counter Russian aggression would disabuse Kremlin leaders of any belief that they could exploit perceived American complacency and wage new-generation warfare without risk.

  I also wanted Patrushev to understand that the United States was awake to the danger of Putin’s playbook and, in particular, RNGW. Russia’s actions in Crimea and Ukraine were analogous to a long-standing Russian military strategy known as maskirovka, or the use of tactical deception and disguise. Like maskirovka, Putin’s playbook combined disinformation with deniability. The new playbook added disruptive technologies and the use of cyberspace to enable conventional and unconventional military forces. And, where possible, the Kremlin fostered economic dependencies to coerce weak states and deter a response to aggression. The parallels to previous dangerous periods, not only in the nineteenth but particularly in the twentieth century, were striking. In recent years, Russia had acted aggressively, counting on American complacency based on the self-delusion that great power competition was a relic of the past. Consider Secretary of State John Kerry’s comments: “You just don’t in the twenty-first century behave in nineteenth-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped-up pretext.”13 I thought it important to let Patrushev know that we were prepared to compete and would no longer be absent from the arena.

  Second, both our nations sought to preserve our sovereignty or the ability to shape our relationships abroad and govern ourselves at home. Russia’s sustained campaign of disinformation, propaganda, and political subversion was a direct threat to our sovereignty and that of our allies. I suggested that it was in the Kremlin’s interest to stop this activity because Russian actions would unite Americans and other Western societies against Russia. Their recent efforts to influence election outcomes had failed or backfired. For example, Russian disinformation aimed against Emmanuel Macron in France during the 2017 presidential election increased support for the candidate and probably helped Macron win the presidency. Another example of Russia’s heavy-handed tactics backfiring was the failed October 2016 coup in Montenegro that intended to prevent that country’s accession to NATO. Russia’s meddling actually accelerated Montenegro’s admission to NATO and its application for membership in the European Union. Finally, Russian efforts to convince the Trump administration to lift economic sanctions in 2017 failed as the administration instead sanctioned more than one hundred individuals and companies in response to Russia’s continued occupation of Crimea and aggression in Eastern Ukraine. More sanctions would follow under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.14 During my conversation with Patrushev, I joked that Russia’s efforts to divide Americans and meddle in our election made the imposition of severe sanctions on Russia the only subject that united Congress. In fact, the first major foreign policy legislation to emerge from the U.S. Congress after President Trump took office was a sanctions bill on Russia, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which passed in the Senate in a 98–2 vote after flying through the House by a 419–3 margin.15 At this, Patrushev cracked a smile, perhaps to acknowledge that we both were very much aware of Russia’s subversive activities.

  Third, both nations must protect our people from jihadist terrorist organizations. That is why it did not seem to be in Russia’s long-term interests to provide weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan or to spread disinformation that the United States supported terrorist groups. Such actions strengthened organizations that posed a common threat to both our countries. Moreover, Russia’s support for Iran, Iran’s proxy militias, and Bashar al-Assad’s forces in their brutal campaign in Syria not only perpetuated the humanitarian and refugee crisis, but also fueled a broader sectarian conflict that strengthened jihadist terrorists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. These terrorist organizations draw strength from the fear that Iranian-backed Shia militias generate among Sunni communities, allowing them to portray themselves as patrons and protectors of those communities. I hoped that Patrushev might see that Russia’s support for Iran only reinforced jihadist terrorist recruitment and support among Sunni Muslim populations.

  Finally, I raised the
subject of how Russia seemed to act reflexively against the United States even when cooperation was in its interests. I used the case of Russia’s circumvention of UN sanctions against North Korea as an example. In addition to the direct threat of North Korean nuclear missiles to Russia itself, a nuclear-armed North Korea might lead other neighboring countries like Japan to conclude that they needed their own nuclear weapons. Moreover, North Korea had never developed a weapon that it did not try to sell. It had already tried to help Syria develop an Iranian-financed nuclear program in an effort that was only thwarted by a September 2007 Israeli strike on the nuclear reactor under construction near Dayr al-Zawr, Syria. Ten North Korean scientists were reportedly killed in the strike.16 What if North Korea sold nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations? What nation would be safe?

  Patrushev listened but showed no discernible reaction. After a break, we agreed to charge our teams with mapping our interests and preparing materials for presentation to Presidents Trump and Putin in advance of their next meeting. I departed Geneva convinced of the importance of our work. I realized, however, that relations were unlikely to improve due to Putin’s motivations, his objectives, and the strategy he was pursuing.

  When he assumed the presidency at the turn of the century, Putin worked to strengthen the system that had put him there. His overarching goal was to restore Russia’s status as a great power. He would be patient, estimating that Russia would need fifteen years to build strength before it was ready to challenge the West.17 Indeed, approximately fifteen years later, he annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine, and intervened in the Syrian Civil War.

  * * *

  OUR EFFORT to map Russian and U.S. interests as a way of managing our relationship addressed only one dimension of the challenge before us. That is because Putin, Patrushev, and their colleagues in the Kremlin are motivated as much by emotion as by calculations of interest. As the Athenian historian and general Thucydides concluded twenty-five hundred years ago, conflict is driven by fear and honor as well as interest.18 President Putin and those, like Patrushev, whom he brought with him into the Kremlin were shaken by the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (aka USSR, aka Soviet Union) and feared the possibility of a “color revolution” in Russia. They were proud men whose sense of honor had been insulted by the West’s victory in the Cold War and whose livelihoods depended on the Soviet system. Putin described the breakup of the empire and the end of Soviet rule in Russia as “a major geopolitical disaster of the century,” one that not only was a “genuine drama” for those who suddenly found themselves outside Russia, but also caused problems that “infected Russia itself.”19 The breakup resulted in the loss of half of the former Soviet population and almost a quarter of its territory. At the height of Soviet dominance, Russian influence extended as far west in Europe as East Berlin. Since the USSR’s collapse, Russia had lost control of nearly all of Eastern Europe. Ethnic Russians were scattered across the newly independent successor states of the USSR, such as Ukraine, Georgia, and Estonia. Russians who remember Soviet greatness, including Putin, Patrushev, and their KGB colleagues, watched as their former vassal states, unshackled from Communist authoritarian control, liberalized and eagerly joined other free and open societies under the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

  The Soviet Union had a truly global reach, penetrating into Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Throughout Communist states, Russians were often looked up to as big brothers in an ideological war—or at least that was how many Russians imagined their Communist brethren viewed them. But then men like Putin and Patrushev saw their mighty empire, one of two global superpowers, fall to the status of a struggling regional power—and it stung. Once Putin achieved the presidency, he set about restoring Russia’s lost grandeur, a process that is still under way. Above all, Putin fears an internal threat to the kleptocratic political order he has built with the oligarchs and his cronies in the KGB. To allay fear and restore honor, he has consolidated his base of power internally and gone on the offensive against Europe and the United States.

  By the time Putin became president, the cheerfulness associated with the prospect of transforming post-Soviet Russia into a successful state with a booming economy had given way to gloom. In the 1990s, Russian efforts to transition to a market economy proved unable to overcome the complete collapse of the Communist system. Greedy apparatchiks, members of the Soviet bureaucratic political apparatus, were empowered in the wake of that collapse. Because market reforms threatened their grip on power, Russian politicians led a backlash against free-market reformers. The failure to either establish an adequate legal framework or to eliminate Soviet-era bureaucracy made the transition to a market economy even more difficult. The final straw was the financial crisis of 1998, when the Russian ruble lost two thirds of its value. The failure of market reforms and the rise of the oligarchs created a system that was not only fragile, but also ideal for Putin and those who retained political control through the post-Soviet transition to consolidate their power. As journalist (and later Canadian foreign minister) Chrystia Freeland observed, Russia was “an ex-KGB officer’s paradise.” Under Boris Yeltsin’s government, the Siloviki (hard-line functionaries of the Soviet-era Ministry of the Interior, the Soviet Army, and the KGB) comprised only 4 percent of the government. Under Putin, it grew to 58.3 percent. Fear of losing control as the post-Soviet economy and social structure were collapsing propelled the Siloviki into power. And Putin, Patrushev, and their Siloviki colleagues wanted Russia to be feared again.20

  Putin, Patrushev, and the Siloviki did not view U.S. assistance in the post-Soviet period as it was intended. The United States wanted to assist Russia with the traumatic transition and reduce dangers and complications. Under the Freedom Support Act, the United States aimed to increase security by dismantling nuclear weapons through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, provide food aid, and support Russia’s transition with $2.7 billion in appropriated funds and technical assistance. However, Putin and the Siloviki viewed U.S. assistance as an affront to Russian sovereignty and an effort to exploit Russian weakness. In their telling, their former enemy lorded its Cold War victory over Russian heads, insisting on reforms that left their nation in economic meltdown. In a 2015 speech to leaders of the FSB, Putin stated that “Western special services continue their attempts at using public, nongovernmental and politicized organizations to pursue their own objectives, primarily to discredit the authorities and destabilize the internal situation in Russia.”21

  Putin made a strong debut as president. Recognizing the connection between foreign policy and popularity at home, he ferociously prosecuted a war in Chechnya against separatists and terrorists who had conducted a series of attacks against Russian civilians. That war, which caused an estimated twenty-five thousand civilian deaths between 1999 and 2002, inspired only praise in Russia and weak statements of disapproval from the West. But Putin’s fears and suspicions of unrest and opposition grew as he witnessed the so-called color revolutions in Georgia in 2003, in Ukraine in 2003 and 2004, and in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, which toppled undemocratic regimes and led to the election of new presidents. He vowed that protests like those would never hit Russia: “For us, this is a lesson and a warning, and we’ll do everything so it never happens in Russia.” But they did. His anxiety may have peaked in 2012–2013, during widespread protests sparked by a rigged election in which he “won” 63.6 percent of the vote, according to Russian media.22 Protests returned in 2017 and 2018, concerning corruption and an increase in the retirement age. Then, in the summer of 2019, massive protests erupted in Moscow following the removal of opposition candidates from the ballot in the Moscow city Duma elections.

  Although the color revolutions and the protests in Moscow were based on the populations’ desire for freedom and improved governance, Putin saw U.S. and European hands behind them.23 Fear and the sense of lost honor were mutually reinforcing and would continue to drive his foreign ambition. To protect himself from inter
nal opposition and restore Russia to greatness, Putin revived Russia’s nationalist mission. He portrays Russia as unafraid and designs his foreign policy to intimidate neighbors and subvert Western democracies.

  * * *

  RNGW BECAME Putin’s playbook for surviving while weakening competitors. Russia does not have the power to compete directly with the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia. By all measures, the combined economies of the United States and European nations dwarf Russia’s economy. The European Union and the United States had a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $36.5 trillion in 2017; Russia’s GDP was a meager $1.5 trillion. Russia’s GDP per capita in 2017 was approximately $10,750, roughly one sixth of the U.S. GDP per capita and ranking below far less powerful countries such as Chile, Hungary, and Uruguay. Russia’s economy is also woefully undiversified, with oil and gas products comprising 59 percent of all exports, leaving it vulnerable to shifting oil prices in a year that saw a 48.1 percent decline in crude oil prices. That same year, in 2014, the Russian ruble declined 45.2 percent relative to the U.S. dollar. Though the Russian economy improved under Putin, with real income doubling between 1999 and 2006 due in large measure to rising oil prices, Putin’s creation of institutions and a system to maintain his exclusive control impeded economic growth and modernization. Sanctions in response to Russian aggression did not help. But corruption is the greatest impediment to investment and economic growth; Russia ranks 135th globally on the Corruption Perceptions Index.24