Elisa Massimino
By Elisa Massimino
These days, friction between Russian President Putin and the West is the norm, and with good reason. Russia-US relations don’t need another “reset.” Instead, the US must carry out an honest recalculation of what it can expect to obtain from Putin — and at what price.
Conventional wisdom holds that Russian cooperation on a range of issues is so valuable — and US leverage over Putin so minimal — that antagonising officials in Moscow over human rights isn’t worthwhile. The US should rethink that assumption, not because Putin’s approach to democracy and human rights is worse than expected, but also because he has failed to deliver on critical national-security issues, such as Iran, North Korea and Syria.
On Iran, Russia voted for UN sanctions in 2010, but has since cosied up to the Tehran regime.
On Syria, Putin has used Russia’s UN Security Council veto to give President Bashar Al Assad diplomatic cover. He has enabled the Syrian government’s continuing atrocities by supplying fuel, ammunition, mortar shells, spare parts for attack helicopters and financial services.
Russian officials would have us believe that the world would be a safer place if the US would stop reacting to gross violations of universal rights and “meddling” with their country’s sovereignty. Yet suppose the US were to capitulate to Moscow by repealing the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials involved in heinous human-rights abuses, and promising not to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Would Putin prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons and delivery systems, persuade North Korea to warehouse its missiles, or force Assad to leave Syria? It’s doubtful.
True, Russia has helped the US in Afghanistan, and Russian hostility could make withdrawal more difficult. But President Barack Obama will bring that conflict to a close in any case. Russia proved that counterterrorism cooperation with the US is in its interest when officials in Moscow warned their US counterparts about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers.
Why would the Russian people like or respect the US more if it stands silent while Putin crushes his opposition, abandoning the values America championed for five decades during the Cold War?
There are better options. First, as the administration implements Magnitsky sanctions, it should also begin imposing penalties on Russian and other international banks that finance exports to Syria. This would require US financial institutions to cut off the bank accounts of Syria’s financiers. That would enrage Putin. But it would hasten an end to the killing, and send an important signal to Russian oligarchs that arming Assad has financial consequences.
Second, the administration should re-impose sanctions on Rosoboronexport, the Russian state-owned arms exporter. Some members of Congress are calling for it.
The US lifted a ban in 2010, and the Pentagon immediately started buying Russian helicopters for Afghanistan — the cheapest and fastest way to rebuild an Afghan air force whose pilots were familiar with Russian aircraft. It’s time to stop relying on the Russian defence industry and invest in a Western helicopter that could be used in “hot and high” environments, including Afghanistan and other places where they are likely to be needed.
Finally, the US shouldn’t stand by and shrug while Putin kicks out the Agency for International Development, raids non-governmental organisations and intimidates election-monitoring groups. Congress should release the $50m reprogramming request for a Civil Society Fund for Russia held over from the George W Bush administration.
The money could be held offshore, providing technical help and Internet training to democracy advocates who travel abroad, if such assistance isn’t possible on Russian territory. It isn’t a violation of Russian sovereignty to support citizens who seek to bring about peaceful democratic change by exercising their universal rights to expression, assembly and association. And it is in the US national-security interests.
Putin could retaliate by using his UN veto to thwart further action against Iran, North Korea or Syria, or by strengthening ties with China, imposing financial sanctions against US entities, or pressuring neighbours such as Uzbekistan to impede the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
These are serious hurdles, but manageable.
Retaliation by Putin would only isolate Russia, trigger further ire in the US Congress and erode Putin’s support among his international business elite, who want access to Western capitals and markets.
By taking such steps, Obama would signal that a Russia that violates basic human rights cannot be a strategic partner.
WP-BLOOMBERG
By Elisa Massimino
These days, friction between Russian President Putin and the West is the norm, and with good reason. Russia-US relations don’t need another “reset.” Instead, the US must carry out an honest recalculation of what it can expect to obtain from Putin — and at what price.
Conventional wisdom holds that Russian cooperation on a range of issues is so valuable — and US leverage over Putin so minimal — that antagonising officials in Moscow over human rights isn’t worthwhile. The US should rethink that assumption, not because Putin’s approach to democracy and human rights is worse than expected, but also because he has failed to deliver on critical national-security issues, such as Iran, North Korea and Syria.
On Iran, Russia voted for UN sanctions in 2010, but has since cosied up to the Tehran regime.
On Syria, Putin has used Russia’s UN Security Council veto to give President Bashar Al Assad diplomatic cover. He has enabled the Syrian government’s continuing atrocities by supplying fuel, ammunition, mortar shells, spare parts for attack helicopters and financial services.
Russian officials would have us believe that the world would be a safer place if the US would stop reacting to gross violations of universal rights and “meddling” with their country’s sovereignty. Yet suppose the US were to capitulate to Moscow by repealing the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials involved in heinous human-rights abuses, and promising not to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Would Putin prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons and delivery systems, persuade North Korea to warehouse its missiles, or force Assad to leave Syria? It’s doubtful.
True, Russia has helped the US in Afghanistan, and Russian hostility could make withdrawal more difficult. But President Barack Obama will bring that conflict to a close in any case. Russia proved that counterterrorism cooperation with the US is in its interest when officials in Moscow warned their US counterparts about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers.
Why would the Russian people like or respect the US more if it stands silent while Putin crushes his opposition, abandoning the values America championed for five decades during the Cold War?
There are better options. First, as the administration implements Magnitsky sanctions, it should also begin imposing penalties on Russian and other international banks that finance exports to Syria. This would require US financial institutions to cut off the bank accounts of Syria’s financiers. That would enrage Putin. But it would hasten an end to the killing, and send an important signal to Russian oligarchs that arming Assad has financial consequences.
Second, the administration should re-impose sanctions on Rosoboronexport, the Russian state-owned arms exporter. Some members of Congress are calling for it.
The US lifted a ban in 2010, and the Pentagon immediately started buying Russian helicopters for Afghanistan — the cheapest and fastest way to rebuild an Afghan air force whose pilots were familiar with Russian aircraft. It’s time to stop relying on the Russian defence industry and invest in a Western helicopter that could be used in “hot and high” environments, including Afghanistan and other places where they are likely to be needed.
Finally, the US shouldn’t stand by and shrug while Putin kicks out the Agency for International Development, raids non-governmental organisations and intimidates election-monitoring groups. Congress should release the $50m reprogramming request for a Civil Society Fund for Russia held over from the George W Bush administration.
The money could be held offshore, providing technical help and Internet training to democracy advocates who travel abroad, if such assistance isn’t possible on Russian territory. It isn’t a violation of Russian sovereignty to support citizens who seek to bring about peaceful democratic change by exercising their universal rights to expression, assembly and association. And it is in the US national-security interests.
Putin could retaliate by using his UN veto to thwart further action against Iran, North Korea or Syria, or by strengthening ties with China, imposing financial sanctions against US entities, or pressuring neighbours such as Uzbekistan to impede the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
These are serious hurdles, but manageable.
Retaliation by Putin would only isolate Russia, trigger further ire in the US Congress and erode Putin’s support among his international business elite, who want access to Western capitals and markets.
By taking such steps, Obama would signal that a Russia that violates basic human rights cannot be a strategic partner.
WP-BLOOMBERG
