To say the relationship is frosty would probably be an understatement. Formal meetings between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin are few and far between, and when they do happen, both men appear tense and uncomfortable. Most of their contact comes at the sidelines of international gatherings or on the phone.
At the Group of 20 summit in Turkey earlier this month, in the corner of a huge room crowded with other leaders mingling, Obama and Putin huddled for about 30 minutes discussing the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. Although aides described the meeting as positive, the disagreements are ever apparent.
The U.S. opposes Russia’s recent intervention in the Syrian conflict, claiming the Kremlin’s bombing campaign is targeting American supported rebels instead of Islamic State forces. At a news conference on Sunday, President Obama said he had a clear message for Putin at their meeting. “He needs to go after the people who killed Russian citizens, and those aren't the groups that they were currently hitting with strikes,” Obama said, “So, they're going to have to make an adjustment in terms of what they're prioritizing." Obama was referring to the Islamic State bomb that is believed to have destroyed a Russian passenger plane flying over Egypt, killing all 224 people on board.
Russia criticizes the U.S. for its support of rebels opposed to Syrian President Bashar Assad and for demanding Assad step down. In September, Putin told CBS News that American actions in Syria are “counter to the principles” of international law. But after the latest Obama/Putin meeting, Putin foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov simply told reporters that, “Strategic objectives relating to the fight against Islamic State, are in principle, very similar, but there are differences on the tactics side.”
The U.S. and Russia remain at loggerheads over Ukraine policy, with little progress in resolving the conflict. U.S.-led Western sanctions imposed against Russia for the annexation of Crimea and for its military involvement in Ukraine remain in place, further straining Russia’s reeling economy. Plummeting prices for oil and gas have wreaked havoc on Russia’s energy dependent economy, as have declines in the ruble and high inflation.
The dire economic situation calls into question Putin’s emphasis on rebuilding his military and his more aggressive actions abroad. However, Putin is more popular than ever with the Russian public. His approval ratings after the annexation of Crimea and the intervention in Syria soared, nearing 90 percent approval.
And Putin continues to tighten his grip on the country. His authoritarian regime has clamped down on humanitarian organizations, muzzled the press, and stifled political dissent, calling into question the viability of democracy in Russia.
This spring, the Duma, which generally walks in lockstep with Putin, passed a law that labels any Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) registered outside of Russia as an “undesirable organization” if its activities are considered “a threat… to the Russian Federation, the country’s defense capability or the security of the state.” The legislation comes on the heels of a 2012 law requiring NGOs considered politically active to register as “foreign agents” if they receive international funding.
Putin has previously accused Western intelligence services of using NGOs to “destabilize” and encourage regime change in Russia.
Memorial Human Rights Center, an organization that investigates human rights violations and political prisoners, was accused by the Russian Justice Ministry this month of “undermining” the constitutional order of Russia and advocating “a change of political regime.”
And the MacArthur Foundation, which awards grants to promote higher education, human rights, and limit weapons proliferation, decided to close its office in Moscow this year. In a written statement, MacArthur President Julia Stasch wrote the new laws “make it all but impossible for international foundations to operate effectively and support worthy civil society organizations in that country.”
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch referred to the measures as part of “an ongoing draconian crackdown which is squeezing the life out of civil society.”
Former CIA operative Rob Dannenberg wrote in The Cipher Brief that a paranoid Russian government was “looking for western conspiracies under every rock.” He went on to say, “They are really empowering the FSB, the Russian internal security service, to be able to do almost anything it wants on national security grounds against western enterprise in Russia—whether targeting NGOs, business, or individuals.”
A free press is faring no better. Independent television stations have been taken over by state controlled entities or Putin supporters. Authorities pulled the plug on the popular online TV station Dozhd, which is now operating out of an apartment. A new law prohibits advertising on private and satellite channels, and websites critical of the government have been banned.
As of January first, another new law limits foreign ownership of media to 20 percent, directly impacting two of the biggest media outlets in Russia: Forbes’ Russia edition and Vedomosti, a joint publication of the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times.
Political opposition seemed to thrive in 2011, with large rallies held in Moscow. But after Putin won the Presidency in 2012, dissent was no longer tolerated. Protesters were arrested, fined and threatened with years in jail. Reformers were blamed for everything that went wrong in the country. Harassment and threats prompted some political leaders to go into exile.
And the shocking, unresolved murder of popular opposition leader Boris Nemtsov near the Kremlin earlier this year has some critics fearing a return to the suspicious deaths of journalists, business leaders and others critical of the Russian regime that plagued the country in the early days of the Putin administration.
Putin promised his citizens stability and prosperity. And although he remains extremely popular with a nationalistic population, the loss of international prestige brought on by his military exploits overseas and his tanking economy could lead to change. As former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin told The Cipher Brief, even though Putin’s popularity leaves him “little incentive to change dramatically what he is doing, I don’t think this can last indefinitely.”
Pam Benson is the Managing Editor for News at The Cipher Brief.
