Daily Times

Atop Wisconsin Avenue in Washington DC, on one of the city’s highest points sits the Russian Federation embassy. Guarded by thick, high, white brick walls and double steel gates at the main entrance, the embassy resembles a fortress. And while this fortress may not be under siege, it certainly has been isolated and rendered off limits by the American government.

The new ambassador, Dr Anatoly Antonov, replaced Dr Sergey Kislyak, who was nicknamed Sergey the Spy. Aside from pro form a meetings, Ambassador Antonov has found himself in the diplomatic equivalent of Coventry and a virtual persona non grata. Senior officials of the administration refuse to meet. And members of Congress are reluctant to be seen entering either the embassy or the residence.

From the US and Western sides, Russian actions since Vladmir Putin’s excursion into Georgia in 2008 have driven relations down to levels perhaps only seen during the Cold War. Moscow’s assault into Ukraine in 2014 and the annexation of Crimea brought the post-Cold War era of well-defined international boundaries to an end. Saving and supporting Syria’s Bashar al Assad have further exacerbated the Syrian civil war, killing tens of thousands and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee.

Russia’s interference in American elections and domestic politics, as well as those of other countries, are the actions of a hostile power. The attempted assassination of a former Soviet intelligence agent living in Salisbury, England violates international law and can’t be considered the actions of a civilised state. The aggressive use of cyber-attacks, propaganda and provocative military exercises including unsafe manoeuvres while spying on NATO ships and aircraft in international waters reflect Moscow’s true intentions.

The continued expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War was viewed by Moscow as an attempt to surround Russia with potentially unfriendly states

To complete this trifecta of tensions, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) and New Start treaties are in great jeopardy. The prospect of another nuclear arms race is real and yet unnecessary. However, from the American perspective, Russia has indeed become a major danger to international peace and stability.

Of course, Russia has its grievances. In today’s pernicious environment, none of these is likely to be appreciated or understood, especially by a Congress that can only agree on one issue — the magnitude of the Russian threat.

This column has reported and assessed Moscow’s actions and reactions towards the West and Washington well after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Beginning in 2001 with George W. Bush’s abrogation of the centrepiece of US-Soviet relations, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, not all America’s policies and actions have been viewed favourably by Moscow. President Vladimir Putin warned President Bush not to invade Iraq in 2003. Turns out he was right.

The continued expansion of NATO after the end of the Cold War was viewed by Moscow as an attempt to surround Russia with potentially unfriendly states. Establishing missile defences in Poland and Romania against a distant danger of North Korean and Iranian ballistic missiles was strongly disputed by Moscow. And President Barack Obama’s ‘leading from behind’ in the 2011 Libyan intervention that produced a civil war that is still ongoing. This was the last straw as far as Putin was concerned. The US was no longer just untrustworthy. It was dangerous.

Few Americans will accept this alternative explanation of the Russian view. Not that most Russians don’t regard Western sanctions and other punishments levelled against their country as unfair, unwarranted and malicious. To quote Lenin, what — if anything — can be done? Especially as the Special Counsel continues the investigation into whether the Trump campaign broke any laws regarding its involvement with Russia. The answer is, perhaps nothing.

Here are three ideas. First, President Donald Trump has met extensively with Chinese President Xi Jinping and may do so with North Korea’s Kim Jung Un. He and President Putin should have a summit meeting of sufficient length to work through the issues that divide both countries.

Second, serious arms control discussions must be re-initiated immediately.

Third, restrictions on US-Russian military to military meetings should be lifted to improve confidence building measures. The current US law precludes such meetings other than to de-conflict possible force on force encounters, particularly in Syria. Arms control, counter-terror operations and military exchanges are possible agenda items.

Talks and meetings should not be held hostage to the divisive issues and growing mutual animosity that is only likely to worsen. Bridges, not walls, are needed to make the future safer and more secure.

The writer has served on the Senior Advisory Group for Supreme Allied Commander Europe (2004-2016) and is currently Senior Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council, chairman of two private companies and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. A former naval person, he commanded a destroyer in the Persian Gulf and led over 150 missions and operations in Vietnam as a Swift Boat skipper. His latest book is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Has Lost Every War It Starts. The writer can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman

Published in Daily Times, May 23^rd 2018.