Russia’s revisionist foreign policy began to take shape long before its low-level war against Ukraine, or even its invasion of Georgia in 2008. As Donald N. Jensen, resident fellow of the Center for the Transatlantic Studies argues, Russia’s global aspirations are a challenge to liberal democracy. The West has refused to accept Russia as a great power, leaving it no alternative but to become an affiliate of the more sympathetic regimes of Eurasia.
This year the seventieth anniversary of D-Day coincided with the G7 summit in Brussels. For the first time since 1997, world leaders met as the G7 rather than as the G8 following the exclusion of Russia from the group as a result of its invasion of Crimea. However, as Paris-based journalist Elena Servettaz notes, Vladimir Putin, who was present at the D-Day celebrations, still tried to steal the show to promote his policies.
The Ukrainian government announced on June 9 that it had reached a “mutual understanding” with Moscow on parts of a plan proposed by newly elected Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko for ending violence in the volatile eastern part of the country. Donald Jensen, resident fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Studies, argues that despite conciliatory gestures from Moscow, the crisis is hardly headed for a prompt resolution.
In late May, Russian president Vladimir Putin was in China on an official visit, the main result of which was the signing of a thirty-year contract to supply China with natural gas from Russia. Against the backdrop of Russia’s increasing isolation, this “Chinese turn” might look like a logical step; however, political analyst Tatyana Stanovaya argues that Moscow’s actions reinforce Russia’s status as a raw materials appendage and undermine its role in global politics.
On April 28, the United States imposed a new round of “smart” sanctions against Russian government officials and companies considered close to Vladimir Putin, including travel bans and asset freezes for seven Russian officials and asset freezes on seventeen Russian companies. According to Donald N. Jensen, resident fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, though, these sanctions are still unlikely to work without being included in a broader Western pushback campaign.
On April 17, at the talks in Geneva, officials from the United States, Russia, the European Union, and Ukraine agreed on a framework to reduce tensions in Ukraine, including demobilizing armed groups and giving their members amnesty; vacating seized government buildings; and establishing a program of political reform. However, as Donald N. Jensen, resident fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, notes, the tensions will likely be eased only temporarily.
2014 is an important year for Afghanistan, as it marks the end of the Karzai era, with a new president slated to be elected on April 5. For the United States, 2014 marks the end of a military operation that began in Afghanistan in 2001. Afghanistan also remains an important issue for Russia, which recently commemorated the 25th anniversary of the Soviet forces’ withdrawal from that country. As Harriman Institute visiting scholar Daria Mattis points out, the upcoming elections are of critical importance to the future of the Afghan state.
On March 20, U.S. president Barack Obama expanded economic sanctions against Russia following the annexation of Crimea. Donald N. Jensen, resident fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, points out that so far, the West’s policy has been one of bureaucratic compromise, and it will only become effective if sanctions tighten enough to turn Putin’s inner circle against him.
In the view of the new complications of the U.S.-Russia relationship Donald N. Jensen, Resident Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, reviews the most recent book The Limits of Partership by Angela Stent, who served as an advisor on Russia to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
While Russian state propaganda talks about a “fascist” threat emanating from the new government of Ukraine, it is Russia itself that could turn to fascism if Vladimir Putin’s anti-Ukrainian campaign is allowed to succeed. Such is the view of Russian author and sociologist Poel Karp, who warns the West against capitulating before the Kremlin.
Page 5 of 11
Our newsletter delivers a digest of analytical articles and op-eds published on our website, along with the latest updates on the IMR activities on a monthly basis.