Challenges for American-Russian Strategic Cooperation
United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov engaged in high-level talks in Reykjavik on 19 May. Blinken raised areas of concern for Washington, including the treatment of Alexey Navalny, concerns over Russian troop mobilisations near the Ukrainian border, and the release of US citizens held by Russia. He stated that the world would be safer if each state cooperated. Lavrov highlighted how American-Russian relations have significant reverberations internationally. He further elaborated that Russia is willing to discuss any issue to increase strategic stability so long as discussions are “honest, factual, and with mutual respect.” Each side described the talks as productive. Subsequently, Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin have agreed to meet on 16 June to further discuss possible areas of cooperation, but there are several challenges to possible cooperation.
The Biden administration has contextualised its foreign policy as autocracies versus democracies in response to perceptions of backsliding American leadership. This statecraft is an attempt to reassert America’s global leadership on a variety of issues, strategically compete with China, and impose costs on Russian actions. For Russia, its foreign policy seeks to keep Moscow highly influential in its “near abroad,” a consulted partner regarding international matters, and a nuclear peer of the United States. The Kremlin has long argued the United States does not take their security sensitivities seriously, and Moscow’s relative resurgence has allowed for a more active foreign policy.
Diplomatic Balancing Act
On the one hand, the United States has a democracies versus autocracies foreign policy framework, hence sanctions on Russia in March and April. On the other hand, the political realities of events in real-time necessitates cooperation with those on the very opposite side of this dichotomy. The United States waived sanctions on the company and CEO behind the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in acknowledgment of the reality that the pipeline is nearly complete, and that Germany is an integral European partner. Those sanctions that have been leveled are relatively mild. They are enough to say a cost has been imposed, but not enough to poison the well of possible strategic stability.
Russia must balance between its efforts to change realities on the ground with its desire for strategic partnership. Russia has a history of changing events on the ground even during times of decreased strategic tensions. Russia has used economic, political, and hybrid warfare operations to change “facts on the ground” in places like the Donbas, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia while intervening in Syria and maintaining an unofficial presence in Libya. These are areas of deep disagreement, and Russia’s commitment to cooperation will be tested when these issues are broached by Western governments.
There are several challenges to high-level re-engagement. First, each state will have to agree to a definition of strategic stability. The Cold War once made such conceptions somewhat easier, but the geopolitical blocs of that bipolar world no longer define relations between Russia and the US, and NATO countries showno interest in resurrecting spheres of influence. Second, there will have to be an agreed upon agenda for strategic cooperation. The US believes cooperation is possible on fronts like theArctic region,COVID, climate change,Iran, and Afghanistan, and Russia’s goal to be relevant on international matters provides incentive for Moscow’s participation. Third, each state must navigate sub-strategic competition while it discusses strategic cooperation. Disagreements over crises in geopolitical flashpoints will occur, and their impacts will reverberate at the strategic level. Lastly, strategic competition between the US and China will impact Russian geopolitical calculations.Russia and China have pledged to strengthen relations, but uncertainty is likely when Beijing, Moscow, and Washington disagree over what each considers core security concerns.