Russia’s Foreign Ministry has demanded a cut in the number of United States diplomats in the country and said it will seize two U.S. diplomatic properties in Russia. These actions come as a response to the U.S. Congress passing a wave of new sanctions against Moscow Thursday afternoon.
Both chambers of Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation to impose tough new sanctions and codify existing sanctions against Russia into law, placing limits on any possible efforts by the president to try to lift sanctions against Moscow,
Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Friday it would shutter the U.S. embassy’s dacha compound, as well as end access to a warehouse space, in retaliation for the sanctions. The U.S. must also reduce the number of its staff in the country to 455, the same number of personnel Russia’s Foreign Ministry says it has in the U.S., by September 1.
The sanctions package targets Iran and North Korea as well as Russia for its interference in the 2016 presidential election and its military aggression in Ukraine and Syria. President Donald Trump will now have to decide whether to sign the bill into law.
Under the legislation, Trump would have to submit a report to Congress on whether any actions he takes, including easing sanctions, would be intended to “significantly alter” foreign policy related to Russia. A mandated congressional review of the proposed changes would then take place.
Former Acting Director of the CIA John McLaughlin said the provision in the bill giving Congress the power to prevent Trump from easing sanctions “is indicative of great uncertainty in Congress, presumably crossing party lines, about where the White House stands on relations with Russia.”
“This is yet another sign that the United States at present has no clear Russia policy other than these sanctions enacted by Congress,” he said.
Former CIA Acting Director Michael Morell said allowing Congress to disapprove of any attempt by the president to waive or ease sanctions is “not a good thing” given that presidents “need to have a free hand to manage foreign policy.” But, in this case, it showcases the lack of faith in the president to make the best decisions for the U.S. when dealing with the Kremlin, he said.
"In terms of tying the president’s hands, it’s really bad. Presidents need to have a free hand to manage foreign policy and to have your hands tied by Congress is not a good thing, but it’s also a sign of how little they trust him, trust the President of the United States to make the right decisions,” Morell said.
The legislation is aimed at restricting the Trump administration’s flexibility on sanctions on Russia, codifying existing Obama administration sanctions against Moscow into law, and adding new sanctions on Russia, North Korea, and Iran on national security grounds.
According to a declassified U.S. intelligence agencies’ report on Russian hacking and efforts to meddle in the 2016 election, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a cyber and influence campaign aimed at interfering in the United States election and boosting candidate Trump’s chances.
Trump has repeatedly challenged the Intelligence Community’s conclusion on the 2016 election and has called for warmer relations with Moscow.
In response to Russia’s interference in the U.S. election, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian government operatives, imposed sanctions on Russia's intelligence services and several senior intelligence officials, and closed two compounds in the U.S. owned by the Russian government. Russia has also been hit by an array of U.S. and EU sanctions over its annexation of Crimea and its actions in Ukraine.
With the bill’s proposal to codify new and existing sanctions into law, Russia would face tough economic costs, Daniel Hoffman, a former CIA chief of station whose assignments included a tour of duty in the former Soviet Union, noted — but Putin will be looking for ways to make it an advantage in other ways.
"From the Kremlin, President Putin would not only track but seek through covert means to exacerbate any tension between the legislature and executive branches, because Putin’s goal is to drive a wedge between them in order to hamper and discredit our governing process,” he said. “The sanctions would result in an economic cost on Russia, but Putin might seek to exploit some of the benefits to Russia as well.”
As Morell said, the Russians are likely to view this congressional action on sanctions in two ways. “One is they don’t like the sanctions, obviously, they don’t like Congress having a say in getting rid of them. On the other hand, if you’re Vladimir Putin, anything that causes division in the United States is a really good thing,” he said.
In addition to imposing tough, targeted sanctions on the Kremlin for its malign actions, the bill could lead to a few potential areas of unintended collateral damage for the U.S. and its allies. There have been some concerns in Europe over how the new sanctions on Russia could possibly impact the energy sector, for instance.
“Europe is divided over how to view the new sanctions, because some of them would hurt European companies involved in a new pipeline project to bring natural gas from Russia to Europe,” McLaughlin said. “The West Europeans in particular think they can do this without increasing dependence on Russia, whereas some of the East European countries, who once were satellites of the Soviet Union, fear that this will give Russia greater leverage on the continent.”
“There is a chance the European Union would try to retaliate against American energy companies, but frankly I believe they would have trouble getting a consensus to do this,” he added.
With Germany, for instance, there are worries new sanctions could impact German firms who are involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is being built to bypass Ukraine. "Russia’s preeminent focus, going back to Soviet days, was driving a wedge between the United States and Germany,” Hoffman pointed out.
“It is worth noting, Germany is particularly concerned about its project with Gazprom on the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would deliver Russian gas to Eastern Europe. Sanctions might impact that project as well, and if they do, then we can be sure the Kremlin will try to drive a wedge between the United States and Germany, and we need to be prepared for that,” he said.
Trump will now be faced with either signing or vetoing the bill. If the president does reject it, lawmakers could override his veto with enough support — and it passed both houses overwhelmingly.
But if he signs the measure, the U.S. must be prepared for Russia to go beyond Friday’s actions and enter the fray with its covert influence capabilities — whether human or cyber-based — “to inflame whatever tensions might result from the sanctions bill,” Hoffman said.
“They will try to expose and inflame tensions between the legislative branch and the executive branch, between our European allies and the United States to drive a wedge between us, while seeking to highlight any economic damage to our private sector,” he said. “Russia would use attributable media like Russia Today, non-attributable press placements, and cyber operations as well. It will be important for U.S. national security to have a plan for countering Russia’s information war against us on these issues.”
The U.S. must be ready with a plan that makes it clear why sanctions hitting the Kremlin are so essential, Hoffman recommended.
“There’s some public diplomacy worth doing here where we make it clear why some of the costs to us as a result of the sanctions — we’re going to pay a price for this, too — why it’s worth it because we are targeting Russia for their nefarious interference with our election process, in elections in Western Europe, as well as their recent military incursions in Ukraine and in Syria, as well as their annexation of Crimea,” he said.
“Cognizant we do not have many foreign policy, economic, or other, quivers in our national security bow to influence Russia’s malicious behavior, sanctions may ultimately be the least costly,” Hoffman added. “Russia will seek to take advantage for their own purposes by highlighting and exaggerating whatever the sanctions associated economic and other costs might be, in the interests of their national security strategy to compete against their ‘main enemy’, the United States.”
Pam Benson contributed to this report.
This report was updated Friday, July 28th.
