As we approach President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in the White House, it remains difficult to discern U.S. policy toward Russia. The Administration has yet to articulate a clear policy, and its actions and words send mixed messages regarding American intentions toward Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
There is a concept in military operations called commander’s intent. Commander’s intent is a simple and concise expression of objectives, enabling troops to make individual and team decisions in the absence of direct orders. A quote attributed to retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus sums up the concept: "In the absence of guidance or orders, figure out what the orders should have been and execute them aggressively."
In affairs of state, the machine of government can achieve great things if it is aimed toward an agreed goal. A clear policy can also help leverage allies and warn adversaries.
Unfortunately, as the U.S. approaches challenges in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, the U.S. strategy toward Russia is ambiguous at best. Despite Russia’s central place in the 2016 presidential campaign, U.S. foreign policy establishment functionaries seeking commander’s intent on Russia first must discern which commander to follow, the President or his top policymakers. The President and his team seem to be working at cross purposes.
There is a developing consensus among members of the Administration’s senior foreign policy team. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and CIA Director Mike Pompeo have all expressed considerable frustration with Moscow and skepticism about working with Russia in any meaningful way.
Haley recently commented, “We cannot trust Russia. We should never trust Russia.” Tillerson said the U.S. will not lift sanctions until Russia hands Crimea back to Ukraine, an acknowledgement that any real improvement in relations is unlikely for years to come. Similarly, Mattis angered the Kremlin by expressing his support for a permanent U.S. military presence in the Baltic states. He further seemed to throw cold water on the notion that the U.S. can cooperate with Russia in the fight against ISIS, saying, “We are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level.” Additionally, each of these officials has highlighted Putin’s complicity in supporting Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
Trump, on the other hand, has never uttered a negative word about Putin, despite having been repeatedly pressed to do so. He has been unwilling even to acknowledge the obvious Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Trump has instead suggested a radically new approach to Russia. He has expressed a clear and consistent desire to improve relations with Russia, but has never explained why, or what concessions he would be willing to make to secure a new relationship.
Both Trump and Putin have hinted at the desirability of an anti-terror coalition to battle ISIS. As recent events have highlighted, however, it is hard to imagine how a deal with Russia could be of any great benefit to the United States. Russia may have a long list of ‘wants,’ but it can offer few meaningful favors to us in return. As the Trump national security team has articulated, the U.S. doesn’t need Russia’s help with ISIS, terrorism, or much of anything else.
As a businessman, candidate, and now President, Trump has never appeared to hold deep personal convictions, felt the need to stick to consistent principles, or offer coherent policies, yet he has nonetheless persisted in his positive comments about Russia.
Why?
As President, Trump displays comfort engaging with demagogues and autocrats. His overt support for Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi suggests he is willing to buck the foreign policy establishment. He seems to value personal relationships, and is impressed by personal presence, projection of strength, and ability to run roughshod over opponents. His ignorance of history and foreign policy makes it easier for him to embrace those autocrats who are traditionally shunned by Western leaders. Like Rip Van Winkle, he approaches each day with no knowledge or concern of what came before.
As the Administration looks to develop a coherent Russia strategy in the coming months, its task will be complicated by its inability to put to rest allegations of possible collusion with Russian officials. Certainly, the recent missile strike in Syria suggests that Trump’s personal affection for Mr. Putin doesn’t guarantee that he will always side with the Russian President.
Developing a national strategy toward Russia will be difficult, however, as long as members of the Trump team appear to be hiding details of their contacts with Russia. As long as the specter of collusion hangs over their heads, any effort by the Administration to change track at this point will only invite scrutiny from the press, Congress, and our allies. No matter which direction the Administration goes, it will need to do all it can to put the issue behind it. Thus far, however, the Administration has failed to offer a benign explanation for the campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian representatives. Why were they meeting at all? Why would a campaign looking to secure votes in Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania need to meet with Russians? Were they also meeting with Germans, Chinese, Italians, Indians? Why not? Additionally, why are they behaving like they have something to hide? The calculated effort to attack and delegitimize the very institutions meant to hold presidents accountable – the FBI, intelligence community, press, and judiciary – look increasingly like a cover-up.
These allegations and concerns are likely to hang over the Administration and make sound policymaking difficult until they can articulate a clear national interest in aligning with Russia.
So, until the Administration makes clear its policy, our relationship to Russia is more likely to be determined by events we cannot control. When British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan was asked by a journalist in the late 1950s what could derail his government, MacMillan allegedly answered, “Events, dear boy, events.”
