Day: March 22, 2018

Opportunity or trap

Pantelis Ikonomou, a former IAEA nuclear safeguards inspector, writes: 

US President Trump suddenly decided to accept a meeting with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un. Was it an erratic reaction to a long-lasting deadlock?  Or was it conscious cutting of the Gordian knot, a well-planned move towards the solution of the nuclear crisis?

Whichever, it undoubtedly represents a fundamental change in the basic US prerequisite “no dialogue without promise of complete denuclearization.” This now turns into “dialogue to achieve denuclearization.

This change will be understood, at least by North Korea, as US policy tuning toward reality: recognizing the fact that military elimination of the country’s nuclear capabilities would be a tragic operation with no winner. Nuclear deterrence, which North Korea has long struggled for and finally achieved, has become Kim Jong-un’s strongest negotiation card.

Fifteen years after North Korea left the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the US, as the leader of the six-party effort to solve the constantly escalating nuclear crisis, is now facing an unprecedented challenge: to negotiate a lasting end to this grave nuclear crisis. The road is not short and presents crucial obstacles, quite different from those encountered in the Iran deal. It is worth anticipating a few of them:

  • While North Korea will seek recognition as a Nuclear Weapons State with a status equivalent to that of India and Pakistan, the US will call for North Korea to terminate all its nuclear tests and related nuclear activities with a possible military dimension.
  • Agreement on waiving of UN and US sanctions in exchange for a verifiable and irreversible implementation of the agreed outcome.
  • Accomplishing a new balance between two basic theses: “denuclearize the Korean Peninsula” and “removing the threat (US nuclear umbrella included) until Pyongyang feels secure.”

However, if president Trump’s sudden decision was just an erratic reaction distant from any rational concept or strategy, then he is walking into a risky trap, even a dangerous situation with a deeply uncertain outcome.

Tags : , ,

More pushback needed

This weekend, after winning a campaign against no serious opponents, Vladimir Putin celebrated winning his fourth term as President of Russia. With another six years leading Russia, what course will Putin follow? Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive tone since the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, will this continue with regard to Russia’s neighbors?

To explore that question, an American Enterprise Institute group of experts on post-Soviet states drafted To Have and to Hold: Putin’s Quest for Control in the Former Soviet Empire. The project focuses on six post-Soviet states that remain vulnerable to Russian influence: the Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia, Southeastern European states of Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova, and a lone state in Central Asia, Kazakhstan. The report includes two chapters on each of the six states, the first describing that nation’s importance to Russia, while the second describes the likely means by which Russia could press its interests.

On Wednesday, March 14, AEI debuted its report at an event featuring five of its authors: Leon Aron, resident scholar and director of Russian studies at AEI; Agnia Grigas of the Atlantic Council, who wrote a chapter on Estonia; Michael Kofman of the CNA Corporation and the Wilson Center, writer of a chapter on Ukraine; Mihai Popsoi of the University of Milan, author of two chapters on Moldova; and Paul Stronski from the Carnegie Endowment, whose chapter centered on Kazakhstan. Joining the authors was Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who opened the panel by speaking to his own observations on the Russian threat to the United States and allies in Eastern Europe, with Leon Aron acting as moderator. A video recording of the event can be seen here:

Takeaways:

Russia seeks to extend its regional influence by any means possible. Despite the nearly three decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Putin views the USSR’s successor states as indisputably within Russia’s sphere of influence. Putin’s grand project is to reestablish Russian control over its former territories – anything less is inadequate. As in Ukraine, Russia approaches any state moving away from its hegemony as a Western-sponsored provocation. Though Grigas argued that Putin’s government doesn’t truly believe its own rhetoric, the effect is the same. Kofman warned that Putin still has not given up on Ukraine; he predicted the possibility of a larger Russian war against Ukraine if its attempts to manipulate politics there fail.

Russian overreach in Ukraine has hindered its influence across the region. Russia’s seizure of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 opened a new chapter in Russia’s relations with its neighbors. The increased tension between Russia and the West has soured relations with even Russia’s closest allies. Belarus, whose president Alexander Lukashenko is Putin’s closest foreign ally, has sought to carve out a moderate role between Russia and Europe. To this Putin has responded coldly, introducing restrictions on trade and passport control on Belarussian travelers to Russia. With Putin’s aggressive reputation and Russia’s economic slowdown dragging on the social contract in Belarus and Kazakhstan, Stronski suggested that their respective governments are now searching for alternatives.

When Putin cannot win subservience, he seeks to destabilize. In Moldova, which holds only small symbolic or economic importance for Putin, Russia has instead achieved its aims by fracturing the small nation politically. Russian sponsorship of select Moldovan political parties and media companies has enabled Putin to engineer a Moldova that exists in a gray zone internationally – too chaotic to be a full Russian ally, too corrupt to be an EU member. As Popsoi noted, in Putin’s eyes, cultivating weakness in Russia’s neighbors is an alternative to building international friendship. Despite legal requirements, the Eurasian Union has not stopped Russia from blocking dairy products from Belarus and dumping cheap products in Kazakhstan.

What happens in Eastern Europe also affects America. Congressman Moulton described the Russian threat to America as “very, very real,” calling AEI’s monograph “required reading” for US policymakers. In Moulton’s assessment, the American government’s measures to defend its Eastern European allies have not kept up with Russian strategies – American money is going to buy too many tanks and missiles where cybersecurity is needed. Congress has started a few clear-sighted initiatives – Moulton spoke approvingly of the bipartisan Countering Foreign Propaganda Act, in particular – but those efforts have been too much “tinkering around the edges” to be effective.

Without decisive American pushback, Russian attempts to undermine its rivals will likely only grow bolder in the near future.

Tags : , , , ,
Tweet