Truthdig
A Genuine U.S. Reset With Russia Is Long Overdue
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_genuine_us_reset_with_russia_is_long_o
verdue_20161115/
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to More2Share to Email
Posted on Nov 15, 2016
By Scott Ritter
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he looks forward to building a
constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington. (WikiMedia
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladimir_Putin-6.jpg) )
As a young Marine Corps officer in the 1980s, I was assigned to a
nuclear-capable artillery battalion. Our mission was to provide general
support to Marine expeditionary forces called upon to implement various
contingencies central to American national security. Two of these
contingenciesnorthern Europe and Iranwere of particular interest, since
they involved direct conflict with Soviet forces.
As the battalion intelligence officer, I was heavily involved in
implementing a training program that prepared our Marines to fight, survive
and prevail on the field of battle. The battalion commander and I
participated as observers in the U.S. Armys OPFOR (opposing force) program
at Fort Irwin, Calif., where American soldiers had the opportunity to train
against a Soviet-style enemy. We trained to shoot, move and communicate on a
sustained basis (i.e., 24 hours a day, for days on end) in a fluid
battlefield environment. We incorporated innovative tactics designed to
maximize mobility and rapidity of operations in an effort to offset Soviet
numerical superiority.
The end result was always the same. In Fort Irwin, the Soviet-style OPFOR
overran its American opponents using steamroller tactics that emphasized
mass over finesse. In our own training exercises, Marine artillery batteries
would, one by one, be locked onto and destroyed by simulated Soviet
counterfire. And in the larger exercises, the scenarios inevitably
terminated with the last surviving artillery pieces firing tactical nuclear
weapons as a last-ditch effort to halt the inexorable Soviet advance.
A few years later, in 1987, I was assigned as an arms control inspector to
help implement the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
(http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm) between the U.S. and the
then-Soviet Union, overseeing the elimination of an entire class of nuclear
weapons and establishing a foundation of inspection-based disarmament that
would help facilitate verifiable arms control between these two
nuclear-armed superpowers for years to come. I was an active participant in
this process, inspecting intercontinental ballistic missiles as they exited
the factory gates, and later at their deployment bases.
This inspection process engendered confidence, from both the U.S. and Soviet
Union, in disarmament processes that sought to limit the numbers of these
powerful weapons. As a former cold warrior on the front line of the
U.S.-Soviet global faceoff, I saw the stark (and meaningful) contrast
between confrontation and cooperation.
Later, in the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union, I had
the opportunity, as a United Nations weapons inspector, to work hand in hand
on disarming Iraq with the same Russian military officers and technicians
whom I had at one time trained to fight. My personal journey from
confronting the Evil Empire to being an active partner in peace was, I
believed, complete. Never again would American children need to learn about
duck and cover or European children have to labor under the threat of
imminent nuclear destruction.
In the years since then, I have witnessed a general degradation of relations
between the U.S. and Russia. The expansion of NATO into the territories of
the former Warsaw Pact, coupled with NATO expansion into the former Soviet
Baltic Republics (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) seemed unduly aggressive,
given the fact that NATOs raison dêtre was the containment and deterrent
of the Soviet Union. The unabashed support of so-called color revolutions
by the United States and NATO in territories Russia considered to be
integral to its national security and identity (the Rose Revolution of
2003 in Georgia and the Orange Revolution of 2004-2005 in Ukraine) was the
precursor to the rapid deterioration of relations between Russia and Europe
and America that culminated in the Georgian-Russian War of 2008 and the
Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The Russian actions in both Georgia and Ukraine have fundamentally altered
the trajectory of relations with the U.S. and Europe. An American
anti-missile defense base has been established on the territory of Romania,
over Russian objections. Fears of Russian aggression targeting the Baltic
republics and Poland have led to the forward deployment of American and NATO
military assets into those regions as a deterrent. For a former Marine who
remembers the debate about missile defense shields and was an eyewitness to
the return of forces to Germany (the Reforger
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Reforger) exercises that were the
hallmark of Americas commitment to the defense of Europe in the 1980s), the
events unfolding in Europe today seem like nightmarish déjà vu.
This sense of dread is furthered by the reality that these actions by the
U.S. and NATO are not taking place in a vacuum. Rather, the actions have
triggered the geopolitical equivalent of Newtons second law of physics
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law
) for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Russian
tactical, nuclear-capable missiles have been forward deployed, targeting not
only the American anti-missile base in Romania, but also the cities of
eastern and central Europe. Two armies, disbanded in the aftermath of the
Soviet Unions collapse, have been reactivated, organized and equipped for
the kind of offensive-minded warfare unseen in Europe since the end of the
Cold War. Moreover, the American and NATO forces being deployed in the
Baltics and Poland are not capable of defeating these newly modernized
Russian forces. If a general ground war broke out in Europe, the only thing
that would be able to stop a Russian advance would be a tactical nuclear
weapon. The world has come full circle since the mid-1980s.
The administration of President Barack Obama undertook an abortive effort at
resetting U.S.-Russian relations in 2009, when then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton presented her Russian counterpart with a misspelled reset
button
(http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/06/clinton-reset-button-gift-t
o-russian-fm-gets-lost-in-translation/) . But this diplomatic outreach
floundered under the weight of the fundamental differences in approach
between Obama, who viewed Russia as a regional power that acts out against
its neighbors not out of strength, but weakness, and President Vladimir
Putin, who has declared that the dissolution of the former Soviet Union
represented the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. These
contrasting historical perspectives led to a situation where the U.S.
underestimated the extent to which Russia both felt threatened by, and
resented, American policy initiatives in Eastern Europe and the Russian
near abroad.
In the closing months of the Obama administration, relations with Russia
have deteriorated to the extent that people talk about the advent of a new
Cold War. The Russian military intervention in Syria, begun in 2015, has
fundamentally altered the strategic posture of the United States and its
allies in the Middle East. Any meaningful American military operations
against the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad, whether through the imposition of
a no-fly zone over northern Syria or air strikes against the Syrian Army,
would lead to a shooting war with Russia.
The high-profile hacking of the Democratic Partys serversand the
subsequent release of stolen emails to WikiLeaks, designed to influence
public opinion during a presidential electionwas publicly blamed on Russia
by the Obama administration, despite the admitted lack of substantive
intelligence proving such a link. Accusations of Russian interference in the
American political process followed, and Vice President Joe Biden went so
far as to allude to imminent offensive cyberattacks by the U.S. against
Russiasomething that would constitute an act of war.
Into this poisonous environment stepped Donald J. Trump, the bombastic and
unpredictable nominee of the Republican Party who had, throughout his
candidacy, had the audacity to declare that he wanted a better relationship
with everybody. And with Russia, yeah
if we can get along with Russia,
thats very good. He echoed this philosophy during his election victory
speech. [W]e will always put Americas interests first, we will deal fairly
with everyone, with everyone, the president-elect said. All people and all
other nations. We will seek common ground, not hostility, partnership, not
conflict.
In response, Putin noted that he looked forward to building a constructive
dialogue between Moscow and Washington, based on principles of equality,
mutual respect and each others positions.
Whether a Trump administration will be able to bridge the significant gaps
that exist between the U.S. and Russia on complex issuessuch as the
annexation of Crimea, Georgian territorial integrity (Russia has lent its
support to minority secessionist movements in the Georgian territories of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Abkhazia_and_Sou
th_Ossetia) ), arms control, Middle East security and the inherent friction
of Russian pushback to an expansive NATOhas yet to be seen.
There are, however, grounds for optimism. Putin called President-elect Trump
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/trump-faces-bac
klash-over-appointing-bannon-as-a-top-aide-a-choice-critics-say-will-empower
-white-nationalists/) and offered his congratulations. According to the
Kremlin, the two discussed the unsatisfactory nature of U.S.-Russia
relations and the need to work together to improve them. The Trump
transition team released a statement noting that the two spoke on a range
of issues, including the threats and challenges facing the United States and
Russia, strategic economic issues and the historical U.S.-Russia
relationship that dates back over 200 years.
The same day as this phone call, Obama, in a news conference, announced that
he would be travelling to Europe, where he would deliver a message that a
Trump administration would remain committed to the NATO alliance. The
ability to balance improvement in U.S.-Russian relations with a strong
trans-Atlantic alliancesomething that has escaped successive presidential
administrations since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991represents
a level of pragmatism that has been decidedly lacking in American foreign
policy formulation.
One of Trumps weaknesses is his absolute disconnect with the foreign and
national security policy establishment that has guided successive
presidential administrations since the end of World War II, leading many to
question whether he has the combination of knowledge, experience and
gravitas to deal with an issue as complex as U.S.-Russian relations and the
NATO alliance. But this perceived weakness is also Trumps greatest
potential strengthhis absolute liberation from the intellectual hobbles
imposed by the closed-minded, lock-step policy prescriptions these
institutions promote and impose.
Today, the foreign policy playbook calls for confrontation, containment and
isolation of Russia. This is a terrifying proposition. Somewhere in Europe
today is a young Army or Air Force officer who has been forward deployed as
part the NATO tripwire in the Baltics. This officer knows all too well
that the Russians would slice through the assembled American and NATO forces
like a hot knife through butter, and that ultimately the only thing that
would stop the Russians from punching into the heart of Europe would be the
employment of tactical nuclear weapons.
Ive been there, done that, and have the T-shirt to prove it. For this
reason alone, President-elect Trumps willingness to break with the foreign
and national security establishments playbook, and seek to normalize
relations with Russia, is a welcome development. The time for a genuine
reset with Russia is long overdue, not just for old cold warriors like me,
but for anyone who is vested in a better future for the U.S., Europe and the
world.
Throw Wall Street Out of the Democratic Party. Now.
Rebirth of a Nation?
Get Out of Your Election Depression, and Take Action
Hate Crimes Are Up But the Government Isnt Keeping Good Track of Them
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
© 2016 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
Signup for Truthdig's newsletter
