A few days ago, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at a Security Council meeting that the Cold War is back. And Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Moscow’s relations with the West are even worse than in those days.
The conflict between Russia and the United States has been growing for several years in a row. But it was not always so. Warm and even fraternal periods occurred in the history of the two countries. RTVI remembered these moments.
American Revolutionary War
During the war of the North American colonies for independence from the British Empire, Russia, in fact, supported the rebels, declaring armed neutrality in 1779.
The British wanted to declare the ports of France and Spain blockade, inspect the ships of neutral powers and even seize their goods, but the joint declaration of Russia, Sweden, Denmark and other countries destroyed London's plans. The Russian fleet - including with its weapons - helped the young American republic receive food and other necessary goods.
In the 1860s
During the Civil War, Russia again came to the aid of the Americans. Emperor Alexander II in 1863 sent two Russian squadrons to New York and San Francisco. They kept the Southern fleet from attacking these ports and at the same time prevented England and France from entering into conflict on the side of the Confederates.
Ministers and congressmen visited Russian ships in New York. On one of the ships, young Rimsky-Korsakov, a future composer, arrived in New York.
Here are some American newspaper headlines from that period: “New Alliance Sealed. Russia and the United States are Brotherhood,” “The Russian Cross Weaves Its Folds with the Stars and Stripes,” “Enthusiastic Popular Demonstration,” “The Grand Parade on Fifth Street.”
Shortly after the end of the American Civil War, Russia sold Alaska to the Americans for $7.2 million in gold.
After the February Revolution of 1917
The United States was the first to recognize the provisional government in Russia. Ambassador in Petrograd David Francis personally stated this. The US government perceived the new Russia without a tsar as a great “brotherly” democratic power and offered loans and support. American journalists generally reacted positively to the overthrow of the Tsar in Russia.
But the friendship of the democratic brothers was short-lived. After the Bolsheviks came to power, relations deteriorated sharply. The United States supported the “white army” and even sent troops to the Far East and Pomerania.
Early 1930s
The onset of the Great Depression prompted the United States to restore relations with the Soviets. In 1933, Washington finally officially recognized the USSR, and after that the countries began to actively become friends - at least as far as the economy was concerned. Moscow needed technology and investment, and American companies needed a market.
Stalin's industrialization was helped, in particular, by Ford, Austin Company (built the GAZ plant in Nizhny Novgorod), Albert Kahn Inc. (built the Chelyabinsk and Stalingrad tractor plants) and General Electric (helped with GOELRO, in the construction of power plants and the first electric locomotives).
During the Great Patriotic War
After Germany attacked the USSR and Japan attacked the USA in 1941, the countries (along with Britain and other states) became allies. However, lend-lease support began in the fall of 1941. In 1942, a mutual assistance treaty was signed.
Propaganda in both countries told soldiers and the population that the countries were fighting for freedom. In the USSR, they painted propaganda posters, and in the USA, for example, in 1943, the semi-documentary film “Mission to Moscow” was released, which was forcibly shown in all cinemas in the country: it justified the Stalinist repressions of 1937-1938. Ten years later, during the rampant “McCarthyism,” it was banned as pro-communist propaganda.
The culmination was the meeting on the Elbe in April 1945. Already in the summer of 1945, relations began to rapidly deteriorate, especially after the nuclear bombing of Japan.
Fall of the Berlin Wall
Boris Kavashkin / TASS
After the fall of the Berlin Wall
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR. Along with perestroika and glasnost, he announced a “new thinking” that involved a different view of international relations and a rejection of the class approach.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the former Soviet satellites, one by one, declared democratization and the desire to join a “united” Europe. In the USSR itself, against the background of economic and other difficulties (empty counters, queues, mass protests, ethnic conflicts), the Western model - primarily the American one - is clearly perceived as a role model.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, warm relations continued for several years. In 1992, President Yeltsin gave a speech to the US Congress about the need to move from confrontation to interaction.
In 1992-1994. The United States carried out Operation Provide Hope: 25 thousand tons of humanitarian aid were delivered to 33 cities of the former USSR.
In 1994, Russia entered the Partnership for Peace, a cooperation program between the countries of the former USSR and NATO. In 1997, the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed, which stated that Russia and NATO are not rivals.
Everything changed dramatically in March 1999 with the start of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which for the first time in a long time caused a surge of anti-American sentiment at both the government and ordinary levels.
Gulnara Samoilova / AP
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Vladimir Putin was one of the first to call George W. Bush with words of condolences and support.
Russia joined the anti-terrorist coalition created by the United States in 2001. Moscow actively supported the operation in Afghanistan, including providing its airspace.
For some time it seemed that this warming would last for a long time. In 2002, a joint declaration between Bush and Putin appeared, which emphasized that the countries were now partners. It talked about respect for democratic values, expanding ties between countries, joint resolution of conflicts in Afghanistan, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as economic cooperation (and Russia’s accession to the WTO).
But everything turned sour again in the same 2002, when the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty and Russia from START-2. And with the start of the American operation in Iraq in 2003, relations became even more complicated.
The typo about “overload” became prophetic.
PARTNER NEWS
The split in relations between the United States and Russia, if not yet reached its peak, is certainly already somewhere nearby. Last week, the United States announced the closure of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco, as well as two Russian trade missions in Washington and New York. The US State Department said the decision was made “on the basis of parity” in response to . After this, the trade mission in Washington managed , and above the Russian consulate in San Francisco from the chimney - the journalists suspected that something was being burned there.
The Russian side's reaction to the closure of its consular offices in America was quite harsh.
Thus, the official representative of the Russian Foreign MinistryMaria Zakharovain his comment on September 1 called decision of the American authorities "unprecedented measures to limit the activities of Russian diplomatic and consular missions in the United States ».
« This step represents a new flagrant violation of international law, including US obligations under the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations “, says Zakharova’s official statement on the page of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
« In addition to another raider seizure of expensive Russian state property, which we are persistently offered to sell after blocking them, this time the demands of the US authorities pose a direct threat to the safety of Russian citizens ", noted Zakharova.
Russian Consulate in San Franciscoin a statement published onofficial page of the department on social networks , also called the decision of the American authorities “an unfriendly step, which, first of all, will hurt Russian citizens living in the consular district, as well as American citizens, since a significant part of Russians also have American citizenship ».
Meanwhile, the reaction of American experts to the decision varies.
Noted American commentator, author, former diplomat and intelligence analystJames Brunosuggests that the relay of mutual “reductions” and “restrictions” in relation to consular offices will not stop there and we should expect an even greater cooling of diplomatic ties. At the same time, he calls the closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco “an important and necessary response.”
« Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when our diplomatic mission in Kyiv became the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, our countries have maintained an unequal number of consulates. Thursday's decision [to close the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two Russian trade missions in the United States. - Auth. ] corrected this imbalance. With the closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, the US and Russia are left with three consulates, respectively, on a parity basis. However, there remains a risk that Vladimir Putin may order the closure of the US Consulate General in St. Petersburg, since it has been linked to the Russian mission in San Francisco since 1972 on the basis of reciprocity, in accordance with the Consular Agreement between the United States and the USSR . Thus, Washington’s actions may actually lead to an intensification of the “downward spiral” in Russian-American relations ", shared his opinion with ForumDailyJames Bruno.
Served 27 years in the FBIAndrew Bringuelwarns: for the United States itself, retaliatory actions in the logic of the “Cold War diplomatic school” may be fraught with dangerous diplomatic consequences.
« If the situation gets out of control, it can easily develop into a “downward spiral.” The United States imposes economic sanctions, Russia responds by expelling American diplomats, America responds by closing the consulate and several institutions, but at the same time emphasizing its hope for ending the conflict. Obviously, the United States does not want further escalation, but you understand that Russia will have to respond somehow. Bombers flying in support of North Korea may be their answer. “Bringuel fears.
At the same time, a former FBI employee in a commentary to ForumDaily emphasized: “Russian espionage will never diminish to the point where it ceases to be a threat to us. Their tactics and operators may change, but their strategic goals will always remain the same as during the Cold War, which means we must remain vigilant ».
On the right in the photo is the building of the Russian consulate in San Francisco. Photo: Depositphotos
Uneven fight
Former senior CIA officer with nearly 30 years of intelligence experienceJohn Cypherholds a different point of view. In his opinion, Washington’s response is disproportionately small in comparison with Moscow’s actions and cannot offset the damage caused to American intelligence.
« I believe this is not a serious response, and the president's previous comments and obsequious attitude toward Putin are even more troubling. Actually, it's a shame. The people working at our embassy in Moscow are our best people. They spend years preparing and learning the language, and they take their families with them into difficult environments where they are likely to be persecuted. A bad attitude from the Russian government is a completely expected thing for them. And they don't deserve this kind of treatment from their own president. ", he notes.
Regarding the issue of expelling American diplomats from Russia, John Cypher is confident that Washington traditionally loses to Moscow in this area.
« The Russians are stronger than us in this, and much more ruthless. In the past, when we caught Russian spies or tried to expel them, Russia responded immediately. They are obsessed with being treated as equals. However, the problem is that they have four or five times more intelligence officers in the United States than we have in Moscow. When both sides throw away the same number of men, we are left with much less opportunity in Russia than they are in America. In addition, the FSB is much tougher and more intolerable for our diplomats in Moscow than the FBI here ", he adds.
The CIA veteran emphasizes: the main essence of the sanctions imposed by Washington and the expulsion of Russian diplomats that took place at the end of December is to punish Russia. However, if a “parity” approach is adopted, this goal cannot be achieved.
« The bottom line is that the Russians attacked us in a blatant and unjustified manner. They are trying to harm us and weaken us and our allies around the world. Their activities in Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries go beyond the acceptable limits of international norms. Therefore, allowing them to insist on parity and take the lead in expelling diplomats is simply unacceptable. We must not forget that they are the ones who created these problems, and therefore they, not us, must suffer their consequences. It turns out that they treat us as enemies, and we treat them as friends and equals? It does not make sense “- Cypher is indignant.
« Russia attacked us. We tried to make them understand this and punish them, but in the end we lost many more people. We expelled 35 spies, and Russia, in turn, expelled 755 people. We closed a couple of buildings, but allowed their employees to remain in the country, and then accepted Russia's demand for "parity." This is a serious defeat for us “, the former intelligence officer is sure.
John Cypher also notes that closing the consulate specifically in San Francisco only makes sense if the Russians actually leave the building they occupy.
« If they stay there and the FBI can't get in, it will be another loss for us. It looks like the Russians will be able to stay in the building. If so, they can continue to use technical spy equipment on the roof of the former consulate and manage spy operations inside it. The only thing they will do is stop accepting visa applications. Again we lose ", he concluded.
Let us remind you that on July 28, Russia by September 1, reduce the number of employees of its diplomatic missions on Russian territory by more than half - to 455 people, expelling 755 diplomats from the country. In addition, Americans were prohibited from using the embassy dacha in Serebryany Bor and the warehouse on Dorozhnaya Street. The demands on American diplomats were made in response to a law providing for regarding Russia and signed by President Trump on August 2.
Previously, on December 29, 2016, the outgoing US PresidentBarack Obamasigned a decree introducing new anti-Russian sanctions in connection with “Moscow’s interference in the American elections and pressure on American diplomats” working in Russia. US State Department on the same day
stdClass Object ( => 20214 => Editor's Choice => category => vibor-redakcii)
Diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States were established on November 5 (October 24, old style) 1809. After the 1917 Revolution, the United States refused to recognize the Soviet government. Diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA were established on November 16, 1933.
Russian-American relations have undergone a complex evolution in a relatively short period of time - from the readiness of Russia and the United States to cooperate to mutual disappointments and the gradual distancing of countries from each other.
The first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, visited the United States for the first time on January 31 - February 1, 1992. A summit was held at Camp David with the participation of the Russian leader and American President George H. W. Bush. The parties agreed to continue the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons, cooperate in the field of arms trade, the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), etc. As a result of the meeting, the Camp David Declaration was adopted, which established a new formula for Russian-American relations, the end of the Cold War was officially declared for the first time .
On November 7-16, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin made his first state visit to the United States. The main topic of the Russian-American consultations was the coordination of joint efforts in the fight against terrorism. The general international situation and the situation in certain regions of the world were discussed - in Central Asia, Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict zone and the Balkans. As a result of the negotiations, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush adopted joint statements on the situation in Afghanistan and the situation in the Middle East, the fight against bioterrorism, countering drug trafficking, new relations between the United States and Russia, and economic issues.
Currently, relations between Russia and the United States are going through a difficult period due to different approaches to resolving a number of important international problems. In the context of the internal Ukrainian crisis, largely provoked by Washington, since March 2014, the Barack Obama administration has taken the path of curtailing ties with Russia, including stopping interaction through all working groups of the joint Presidential Commission and, in several stages, introducing sanctions against Russian individuals and legal entities . The Russian side has taken reciprocal steps, both mirror and asymmetric.
In these conditions, the ongoing political dialogue at the highest and highest levels is of particular importance.
On September 29, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin and United States President Barack Obama held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
On November 30, 2015, Vladimir Putin met with US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the UN climate change conference in Paris. A detailed exchange of views took place on Syrian issues, and the situation in Ukraine was also discussed.
On September 5, 2016, the leaders of Russia and the United States met on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou (China). Current issues on the international agenda were also discussed, in particular the situation in Syria and Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama also spoke on the phone several times.
On January 28, 2017, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump. Vladimir Putin congratulated Donald Trump on his official assumption of office and wished him success in his upcoming activities. During the conversation, both sides demonstrated a commitment to active joint work to stabilize and develop Russian-American interaction on a constructive, equal and mutually beneficial basis.
On April 4, 2017, the leaders of Russia and the United States spoke again by telephone.
Regular contact was maintained by the heads of the foreign policy departments Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry, who held more than 20 meetings and dozens of telephone conversations in 2015-2016.
In 2015-2016, John Kerry visited Russia four times on working visits (May 12 and December 15, 2015, March 23-24 and July 14-15, 2016).
On February 16, 2017, the meeting took place between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Negotiations between Lavrov and Tillerson took place in Bonn on the eve of the G20 ministerial meeting.
An intensive exchange of views continues on current international and regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula, countering international terrorism and other challenges. With the leading role of Russia and the United States, an agreement was developed to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, the work of the International Syria Support Group was launched, and a ceasefire regime was put into effect in this country.
The intensity of discussions on arms control and nonproliferation was sharply reduced by Washington in 2014, along with its curtailment of military-to-military contacts. At the same time, the implementation of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague, continues (came into force on February 5, 2011, valid for 10 years with the possibility of extension). One of the most problematic issues in the military-political sphere remains the deployment of US missile defense. The dialogue on it was suspended by the Americans, who do not want to take into account Russian concerns, even before the events in Ukraine.
Over the past few years, the dynamics of inter-parliamentary relations have decreased significantly due to the negative attitude towards cooperation with Russian parliamentarians on the part of members of Congress. After the Americans imposed sanctions against a number of representatives of the Federal Assembly, only isolated episodic contacts have taken place.
In conditions of unfavorable economic conditions and sanctions, a decrease in bilateral trade turnover has been observed. According to the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation, the foreign trade turnover of Russia and the United States at the end of 2016 amounted to 20,276.8 million dollars (in 2015 - 20,909.9 million dollars), including Russian exports - 9,353.6 million dollars (in 2015 - 9456.4 million dollars) and imports - 10923.2 million dollars (in 2015 - 11453.5 million dollars).
In terms of share in Russian trade turnover in 2016, the United States took fifth place, in terms of share in Russian exports - 10th place, and in terms of share in Russian imports - third place.
In the structure of Russian exports to the United States in 2016, the main share of supplies fell on the following types of goods: mineral products (35.60% of the total volume of Russian exports to the United States); metals and products made from them (29.24%); chemical industry products (17.31%); precious metals and stones (6.32%); machinery, equipment and vehicles (5.08%); wood and pulp and paper products (1.63%).
Russian imports from the United States in 2016 were represented by the following groups of goods: machinery, equipment and vehicles (43.38% of the total volume of Russian imports from the United States); chemical industry products (16.31%); food products and agricultural raw materials (4.34%); metals and products made from them (4.18%); textiles and footwear (1.09%).
In the sphere of bilateral relations, there are several dozen intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements on various issues, including transport, emergency response, etc. In September 2012, an agreement on visa facilitation came into force. Russia is raising the question of further liberalization of the mutual travel regime.
In the field of cultural relations, tours of Russian performers of classical music, theater and ballet take place in the United States with great success. Significant efforts are being made to preserve and popularize Russian cultural and historical heritage in the United States, including a museum on the site of Fort Ross in California.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
Diplomatic relations between Russia and the United States were established on November 5 (October 24, old style) 1809. After the 1917 Revolution, the United States refused to recognize the Soviet government. Diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA were established on November 16, 1933.
Russian-American relations have undergone a complex evolution in a relatively short period of time - from the readiness of Russia and the United States to cooperate to mutual disappointments and the gradual distancing of countries from each other.
The first President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, visited the United States for the first time on January 31 - February 1, 1992. A summit was held at Camp David with the participation of the Russian leader and American President George H. W. Bush. The parties agreed to continue the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons, cooperate in the field of arms trade, the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), etc. As a result of the meeting, the Camp David Declaration was adopted, which established a new formula for Russian-American relations, the end of the Cold War was officially declared for the first time .
On November 7-16, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin made his first state visit to the United States. The main topic of the Russian-American consultations was the coordination of joint efforts in the fight against terrorism. The general international situation and the situation in certain regions of the world were discussed - in Central Asia, Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict zone and the Balkans. As a result of the negotiations, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush adopted joint statements on the situation in Afghanistan and the situation in the Middle East, the fight against bioterrorism, countering drug trafficking, new relations between the United States and Russia, and economic issues.
Currently, relations between Russia and the United States are going through a difficult period due to different approaches to resolving a number of important international problems. In the context of the internal Ukrainian crisis, largely provoked by Washington, since March 2014, the Barack Obama administration has taken the path of curtailing ties with Russia, including stopping interaction through all working groups of the joint Presidential Commission and, in several stages, introducing sanctions against Russian individuals and legal entities . The Russian side has taken reciprocal steps, both mirror and asymmetric.
In these conditions, the ongoing political dialogue at the highest and highest levels is of particular importance.
On September 29, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin and United States President Barack Obama held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
On November 30, 2015, Vladimir Putin met with US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the UN climate change conference in Paris. A detailed exchange of views took place on Syrian issues, and the situation in Ukraine was also discussed.
On September 5, 2016, the leaders of Russia and the United States met on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou (China). Current issues on the international agenda were also discussed, in particular the situation in Syria and Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama also spoke on the phone several times.
On January 28, 2017, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump. Vladimir Putin congratulated Donald Trump on his official assumption of office and wished him success in his upcoming activities. During the conversation, both sides demonstrated a commitment to active joint work to stabilize and develop Russian-American interaction on a constructive, equal and mutually beneficial basis.
On April 4, 2017, the leaders of Russia and the United States spoke again by telephone.
Regular contact was maintained by the heads of the foreign policy departments Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry, who held more than 20 meetings and dozens of telephone conversations in 2015-2016.
In 2015-2016, John Kerry visited Russia four times on working visits (May 12 and December 15, 2015, March 23-24 and July 14-15, 2016).
On February 16, 2017, the meeting took place between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Negotiations between Lavrov and Tillerson took place in Bonn on the eve of the G20 ministerial meeting.
An intensive exchange of views continues on current international and regional issues, including the situation in the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula, countering international terrorism and other challenges. With the leading role of Russia and the United States, an agreement was developed to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem, the work of the International Syria Support Group was launched, and a ceasefire regime was put into effect in this country.
The intensity of discussions on arms control and nonproliferation was sharply reduced by Washington in 2014, along with its curtailment of military-to-military contacts. At the same time, the implementation of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague, continues (came into force on February 5, 2011, valid for 10 years with the possibility of extension). One of the most problematic issues in the military-political sphere remains the deployment of US missile defense. The dialogue on it was suspended by the Americans, who do not want to take into account Russian concerns, even before the events in Ukraine.
Over the past few years, the dynamics of inter-parliamentary relations have decreased significantly due to the negative attitude towards cooperation with Russian parliamentarians on the part of members of Congress. After the Americans imposed sanctions against a number of representatives of the Federal Assembly, only isolated episodic contacts have taken place.
In conditions of unfavorable economic conditions and sanctions, a decrease in bilateral trade turnover has been observed. According to the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation, the foreign trade turnover of Russia and the United States at the end of 2016 amounted to 20,276.8 million dollars (in 2015 - 20,909.9 million dollars), including Russian exports - 9,353.6 million dollars (in 2015 - 9456.4 million dollars) and imports - 10923.2 million dollars (in 2015 - 11453.5 million dollars).
In terms of share in Russian trade turnover in 2016, the United States took fifth place, in terms of share in Russian exports - 10th place, and in terms of share in Russian imports - third place.
In the structure of Russian exports to the United States in 2016, the main share of supplies fell on the following types of goods: mineral products (35.60% of the total volume of Russian exports to the United States); metals and products made from them (29.24%); chemical industry products (17.31%); precious metals and stones (6.32%); machinery, equipment and vehicles (5.08%); wood and pulp and paper products (1.63%).
Russian imports from the United States in 2016 were represented by the following groups of goods: machinery, equipment and vehicles (43.38% of the total volume of Russian imports from the United States); chemical industry products (16.31%); food products and agricultural raw materials (4.34%); metals and products made from them (4.18%); textiles and footwear (1.09%).
In the sphere of bilateral relations, there are several dozen intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements on various issues, including transport, emergency response, etc. In September 2012, an agreement on visa facilitation came into force. Russia is raising the question of further liberalization of the mutual travel regime.
In the field of cultural relations, tours of Russian performers of classical music, theater and ballet take place in the United States with great success. Significant efforts are being made to preserve and popularize Russian cultural and historical heritage in the United States, including a museum on the site of Fort Ross in California.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
The material was prepared with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation grant No. 15-03-00728.
Senior Lecturer, Department of Applied Analysis of International Problems I.A. Istomin - about Russian-American relations in 2016
Narrowing the front of interaction
The agenda of bilateral relations between Russia and the United States in 2016, in fact, was reduced to one issue - finding a compromise on the Syrian settlement. Significant forces were thrown at it - just remember the hours-long negotiation marathons of S.V. Lavrov and J. Kerry (the September meeting, which lasted more than thirteen hours, was a record).
Despite our efforts, the problem could not be resolved. Differences over Syria's political future, mutual distrust among bureaucracies (most clearly demonstrated by the US Department of Defense) and sabotage by local players have proven to be stronger than the general interest in countering extremist forces. It was not possible not only to agree on a joint front against ISIS or to launch a negotiation process between the government of B. Assad and his opponents, but also to ensure any lasting ceasefire.
By the end of the year, the differences between the parties on the Syrian issue even intensified. Under these conditions, Russia began to look for more negotiable settlement partners. The result of this search was a trilateral format with Turkey and Iran, in which it was able to occupy a convenient central position as a mediator between the key sponsors of the direct participants in the conflict. In turn, the United States shifted the main focus in the fight against ISIS to the Iraqi front, temporarily abandoning the fight for the initiative in the Syrian issue.
Badly forgotten old
In the context of the ongoing drama in the Middle East, Ukrainian issues were increasingly established as background for Russian-American relations. It repeatedly appeared in public rhetoric, but the parties had no realistic options for compromise, which means there was no subject for dialogue. The format of the meetings between Presidential Assistant V.Yu. Surkov and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, to which the domestic media paid much attention, remained an advisory platform for preventing escalation. In fact, the relatively low level of American representation indicated an initial lack of serious hopes for it in Washington.
Moreover, the United States has maintained its policy of delegating the main concerns regarding the Ukrainian settlement to its European allies. Despite the active efforts of P.I. Poroshenko’s team to attract additional attention, Washington kept its distance, content with regular denunciations of Moscow and praise for the Kyiv reformers (accompanied, however, by small material investments).
In general, in 2016, Russia and the United States tried to deal with the agenda that was formed the previous year. The areas along which interaction was carried out earlier (before the slide into direct confrontation) remained “frozen” in the absence of progress on the most pressing issues. The search for new topics was complicated by the lack of certainty regarding the future policy of the United States in anticipation of the expected change in the ruling administration.
Foreign component of domestic policy
A new phenomenon in 2016 was the assertion of Russia in the discourse of US domestic policy, and in a central role. It reflects not only the contradictions within American society itself, but also the consequences of the transformation of the international system.
To be fair, during the previous election campaign in 2012, Republican candidate Mitt Romney was remembered for his vivid statement that Russia was the “geopolitical enemy number one” of the United States. At the same time, both this statement and the previous discussions between Barack Obama and John McCain regarding Russian actions in Georgia during the 2008 presidential race remained purely peripheral topics of the electoral process.
The last time the Russia debate occupied a significant place in American politics was the 1990s. But then they took place in the context of a discussion of the optimal parameters of the course of the United States in the international arena, as well as the relationship between foreign and domestic policies in the activities of the ruling administration.
In 2016, the significance of Moscow in the US political discourse changed fundamentally - it began to be seen not just as an object of the American “democratization” strategy, and not even as a counterparty in the international arena, but as a direct player in the electoral struggle. At first cautiously, but then more and more confidently, American commentators, and then administration officials, began to associate hacker attacks on Democratic Party servers with Russian interference in American politics.
Going beyond your comfort zone
Regardless of the truth of these accusations, they become an important symptom in the context of the redistribution of the ratio of potentials in the modern world. The most insightful and intellectually honest American commentators point out that there is nothing new in the practice of interference by a foreign state in the internal affairs of another country.
The United States itself has extensive experience in this regard. At the same time, they are accustomed to acting as a subject, and not an object of influence. The idea of interference in the American electoral process under these conditions turns out to be not just a trick of the elites aimed at delegitimizing the outsider who beat them. They become a reflection of Americans' growing uncertainty about their position in the world.
Under conditions of overwhelming dominance in the 1990s, the United States felt largely invulnerable. The psychological trauma of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was compensated by the defeat of al-Qaeda and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The final overcoming required the elimination of the organizer and inspirer of the attacks, Osama bin Laden, but, in general, the United States understood from the very beginning how to respond to the emerging threat.
The difference in the current situation is that the concern in the United States is not a specific challenge to cybersecurity (as was the case with terrorist activity used by openly fringe political actors in the early 2000s), but the alignment of its own potential and the capabilities of other powers. Under these conditions, a convergence of the security agenda is taking place. Previously, Washington might have scoffed at concerns from Russia, China or Iran about the potential for outside interference in their internal affairs. Today, he himself experiences very similar fears.
Inversion of the “flat world”?
As a result, the “flat world” metaphor, which emerged in the 1990s to describe the current state of the international environment, is becoming more valid than before. True, this is not so much a space of equal opportunities as a world of similar threats. Paradoxically, the convergence of concerns can create a new field of interaction for agreeing on the rules of the game. This could lead, in particular, to the resuscitation of Russian proposals to harmonize collective regimes for ensuring information security.
However, such an effect will occur only after the parties have exhausted the possibilities to solve the problem on their own. Only then will mutual vulnerability become the basis for an awareness of interdependence. The path to it, apparently, will run through increased competition.