AN ETERNAL WAR?

The US-Russian relations have reached the lowest level since the last 80s, when the Cold War was still in full swing. The confrontation is active on all fronts including the military (mainly in Syria), economic (sanctions), ideological and information spheres. Given the global significance of both countries, as well as their impact on the post-Soviet territory, predictions regarding possible development and consequences of a multifaceted conflict between Moscow and Washington has never stopped to exist. Mainly, the analyses boil down to two scenarios discussed below.

In the first scenario, the confrontation will continue to grow together with the ensued costs to the international community. Meanwhile, a direct military confrontation, especially with the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is still unlikely. The US will continue putting economic pressure on Russia and speeding up the arms race that reminds the old same tactics leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump will demonstrate that he is not “pro-Russian”, as it seemed at first, and will bring into his administration people who have explicitly negative views against Russia.

In the second scenario, it will be possible to find common ground for the sake of common goals, i.e. the national interests of each party and the fight against terrorism. The USA under the Trump administration will renounce a possible risk of war with Russia for the sake of protecting allies, such as in Eastern Europe. Trump will also keep his campaign promise to end the use of American troops abroad. The Syrian bottleneck will be solved finally. On the other hand, Russia is too weakened economically to engage in a new arms race, and therefore, will become more compliant.

Soft War

At first glance, both scenarios leave much less room for optimism. Apparently, Russia was a good student and was able to learn about the American way of using the soft power, meaning its Wikipedia definition. On the eve of the presidential elections in the US, the Democratic Party, the National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency claimed that Moscow was trying to reformat the “sympathy” of US citizens using unfair methods. Allegedly, it was done to “mislead the American voters” and the Russians used hacker attacks against American political organizations, published letters obtained illegally, propagated false news in the media. Thus, the article “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election “ published in The Washington Post claims that about 200 American websites were distributing Russian propaganda, namely false news serving the interests of Donald Trump, hence “undermining faith in American democracy.” As is known, the notions of American democracy, human rights and various charitable programs form the mainstream of American soft power. So, the aim, which is “to undermine faith” in these values, is quite logical. It is therefore, noteworthy that the Americans not only recognize Russia's ability to intervene in the election process, but are actively complaining about it.

On January 6, CIA, FBI and NSA published a joint report on the Russian intervention in the US presidential election campaign. The paper reveals that the cyberattacks on the Democrats were undertaken by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces and initiated by Vladimir Putin himself. A week earlier, on December 29, the US imposed sanctions against a number of Russian agencies and organizations including the FSB, GRU, and expelled 35 Russian diplomats accused of espionage from the United States. It seems the decision has long been discussed, as the US Congress voted for a bill that limits the movement of the Russian diplomats in the country (no more than 40 km from their office buildings) a month before the event. Incidentally, the House of Representatives adopted the Intelligence Authorization Act for year 2017, which implies the establishment of a special interdepartmental commission on “counteracting hidden influence of Russia in foreign states.” Back in June, it was reported that the US Congress was considering the revival of the committee operative during the Cold War and engaged in the disclosure of the activities of Russian spies in the United States and the investigation of financing channels of organizations acting on behalf of Moscow.

It is noteworthy that Brussels is also a part of the game: the European Parliament adopted a similar resolution on counteracting foreign propaganda (including from Russia) hostile to the European Union, aimed at providing false information, splitting ties between the EU countries and the European Union and the USA, forming a distrust of EU citizens in institutional power, etc. To achieve these purposes, the Russian government allegedly applies a wide range of tools such as analytical centers, TV (Russia Today), news agencies (Sputnik), social media, hackers and Internet trolls. In addition, some political parties, especially the extreme right and populist ones, are being funded.

Vladimir Putin called the resolution of the EU Parliament “the degradation of democracy.” He then signed a new doctrine of information security in Russia, which is focused on the need to confront information and psychological pressure from abroad, aimed at destabilizing the political and social situation. According to the doctrine, in recent years, foreign media is “stepping up information on the impact of Russia’s population, primarily young people, with the aim of blurring the traditional spiritual and moral values”. Also, there is a trend to increase the amount of material in foreign media that contains biased assessment of the state policy of the Russian Federation, and the Russian media is often subject to “blatant discrimination” abroad. At the same time, the IT is being used for military purposes - foreign countries exercise “technical intelligence with respect to Russian government agencies, research organizations and enterprises of the military-industrial complex”.

The third scenario

Apart from a cyber-war, there are traditional conservative methods of confrontation. Another disturbing moment of the Russian-American confrontation is the war in Syria, which has been going on for six years, as well as the clash of interests in Eastern Europe. Russia views the latter as “geopolitical expansion” of NATO, the US, and the EU, and the activities of the West as “aggressive actions, which threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and NATO members.” To minimize this risk in the future, NATO plans to increase its budget four times. The American army is planning to increase the scale and difficulty level of military trainings in Europe. The German city of Bremerhaven already hosts 2,800 units of military equipment and 4,000 troops.

In addition, the US budget for 2017 excludes funding of military cooperation with Russia and includes restrictions on cooperation in various technological fields (exception is made only for the rocket engine suppliers). Also, the ban on exchange of information with Russia on missile defense was extended until 2027. The American (NATO) missile defense system in Europe continues to be an essential aspect of mistrust between the two parties. For Moscow, it is an obvious threat to Russia’s security. Therefore, Moscow constantly expresses its readiness to respond to these and other risks adequately.

But Russia is obviously cautious waiting for concrete steps from the Trump administration and sometimes even showing peacefulness. Russia believes that the leaving Obama administration is in haste of creating a new legal framework for the conflict with Russia and seeks to make Trump’s life as difficult as possible. In general, the Kremlin’s stance is to ensure "no contacts" with the outgoing administration of Obama, considering all statements as "hysteria at sunset." Putin refused to "give in to provocation," and even invited them and their children to the Christmas tree celebrations in Kremlin in response to expel the American diplomats from Russia.

However, Moscow sent the most interesting signals at the end of 2016. For example, despite the danger of a serious crisis between Russia and the West highlighted in the new foreign policy doctrine of Russia, Putin said that Russia “does not look for enemies,” but, “on the contrary, wants to be friends.” As some media reports, some Russian journalists were even warned to change the rhetoric against the West. Meanwhile, the Russian defense budget for 2017 is reduced by about a quarter compared to the budget for 2016, and it is expected to increase this amount in 2018. It is planned that up to 50% of the Russian defense industry will refocus on the development of civil and dual-purpose high-tech products by 2030. The main reason of this shift from defense to social needs is most likely a rather difficult economic situation in Russia, which is expecting elections in 2018. The Russian government is instructed to prepare and adopt a comprehensive action plan for 2017-2025 to ensure the growth of national economy no later than by 2019-2020, which should exceed the growth rate of the world economy. Thus, the Kremlin may sacrifice its foreign policy ambitions for some time partly to manage the situation within the country. This can also contribute to the normalization of relations with the West.

Incidentally, Trump had repeatedly emphasized in his campaign speeches a need that the White House should focus on the internal situation. As a successful businessman, he should be able to have a contingency in advance. Since the sanctions have actually failed to make Moscow change its policy, it seems reasonable to change the tactics demonstrating exactly the opposite. It is going to be a pragmatic step forward that can reinforce the dependence of Russia from the West. For example, in the new Russian doctrine of information security, Putin has acknowledged Russia's dependence on foreign IT, which, in turn, leads to a dependence of Russia’s socio-economic development on geopolitical interests of other countries. Improving the economic situation in Russia, at least, will contribute to the growth and strengthening of the middle class, which will then put pressure on the Kremlin to ensure that economic interests are above political interests. That is precisely what is happening now, when Moscow’s military spending is cut in favour of social benefits.

Only time will show the real motives of Trump’s statements, who has publicly praised Putin’s decisions but in fact he can support a different point of view. Also, many in Washington are opponents to the so-called pacification between Trump and Putin. This majority includes congressional representatives and senators, members of the national security agencies, leading experts and journalists. As far as the Russian issue is concerned, the American establishment is split in two and perhaps the best finale of this situation amidst the ongoing situation may be an attempt to restart the relations from scratch.

There is an increasing trend of analytical articles in the Western media, which actually call for leaving Russia alone - that is, not to try to turn Russia into a docile partner, not to expect Russia’s collapse similar to the USSR. Despite tangible cooling of relations, one can find supporters of such a dialogue on both sides. They propose to analyse both positive and negative aspects of possible trade-offs and to develop a realistic approach as much as possible. Therefore, one can hardly expect a peaceful coexistence between Russia and the Western countries led by the US (this has never happened before and is unlikely ever). On the flip side, it is also unlikely to expect that the confrontation will reach a point of no return. The same is true for complete cessation of any wars (hot, cold, soft), because they motivate the development of both parties (although they can strongly disagree with this statement).