Moscow on the Potomac

Background:

When I first submitted my op-ed, “Moscow on the Potomac,” on December 20, 2016 to The Washington Post, I had no idea that the Trump-Russian connection was about to explode into the headlines with the CNN/BuzzFeed exposé?  Three weeks ago, I believed I had put together a rather cogent analysis on the possible repercussions of what seemed to be a rather strange, yet cozy, Trump-Putin relationship.  In fact, I went on to submit my op-ed to several other publications without much success.  Now, given some of the shocking political developments this week, I would first like to present my original take on what I thought was a disconcerting situation even back then before Christmas.  Following my op-ed, I have listed in a postscript all of the startling events that unfolded this week and have been reported in various national media.

Moscow on the Potomac:

In December 2016, we marked the 25^th anniversary of the Western world’s victory over the Soviet Union in a metaphorical “Cold War” that spanned much of the second-half of the 20^th century.  But this seminal victory might turn out to be pyrrhic, if President-elect Trump refuses to recognize that Russia, which emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Union, is no longer akin to a friendly western ally that its then President Boris Yeltsin wanted it to become?

U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, have concluded based upon a preponderance of evidence that the Russians clearly interfered in this year’s U.S. presidential elections, which are a quintessential part of our democracy.  In fact, the DNI’s “intel” consensus was that Russian President Putin directly approved of cyber efforts to help “Comrade Trump” win the White House.  With Trump in the White House, Putin believes that his dream of returning Russia to the heyday of the Soviet Union will be given a new impetus. 

In fact, and more ominously, with Trump’s appointment of “Comrade Tillerson” as U.S. Secretary of State, Putin must sense that the resurrection, of what then President Reagan so derisively called the “evil empire,” will gain momentum.  In all likelihood, Putin will be allowed to keep Crimea and Secretary Tillerson might even choose to turn a blind eye to Eastern Ukraine.  Putin would then be free to re-deploy his 2008 Georgian annexation (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) “you don’t ask, we don’t tell” model in Eastern Ukraine without any further badgering by the West?  Thus, the resurrection of a new “evil empire” will have begun – with Putin’s “near abroad” strategy firmly taking hold in the first year of the Trump presidency. 

It won’t be too long before Putin’s tentacles start spreading to the Baltics and Eastern Europe, especially if Trump restructures NATO to deemphasize its post-Cold War members.  Mother Russia with her enormous natural gas and oil reserves remains Putin’s “trump” card.  With rising energy prices, Putin could then resume playing this trump card to pressurize Western Europe into lifting sanctions against Russia.  If “Comrade Tillerson” sides with Putin on this critical issue, which can be quickly determined by the Trump administration’s policy on Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the sanctions regime would immediately collapse.  Putin’s “near abroad” strategy will then enter a more penetrative “further abroad” phase.  

In choosing to bring Russia closer to the United States, Trump is simultaneously seeking to distance us from China.  It appears to be a foreign policy strategy based on economic power, in which Trump views China’s economic strength as a threat, but does not see Russia’s military strength in the same vein.  More distressingly, Trump seems completely unfazed by the cyber threat Russia poses against the West.  Many American pundits believe that Trump will change his tune after taking office and when the linkage between his presidential victory and the role played by Russian cyber espionage begins to fade in the American public’s memory. 

But the political opposition, anti-communist patriots, and the news media are not likely to let go and there will be ongoing questions about whether we have a “Moscow on the Potomac” situation at home?  However, unlike in the 1984 movie, “Moscow on the Hudson” – in which a Russian Robin Williams is trying to defect in a New York Bloomingdale’s department store – this won’t be a laughing matter!  In our current real life situation, Democrats and Reagan conservatives alike will wonder whether we have an American president in the Oval Office kowtowing to the Kremlin?  Trump might not want his presidential victory to be tainted by claims of Russian interference, but he simply cannot place the integrity of our intelligence agencies below that of Putin’s cyber thugs.  After all, these selfsame agencies will be critical to the success of his presidency – they might have flubbed on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, but they also helped President Obama nail Osama bin Laden!

Sadly, to use a Trumpian term, ignoring Russia’s cyber threat in this highly and hyper connected world could cause the West to lose the Cyber War – a more sophisticated 21^st century version than its metaphorical 20^th century cousin, the Cold War, which took us almost five decades to win.  The Cyber War’s devastating impact could cripple western economies, which are so dependent on the Internet, without any physical WMD being actually deployed?  So it is imperative for President Trump to understand that the Cyber War is a war that no president can afford to lose.  He must begin by acknowledging the problem – Putin has his cyber sights set on the West and the interference into our 2016 elections was only a sampler battle; the bigger war is yet to come!

***

Post Script:

1.     CNN online report, datelined January 10, 2017, with the headline, “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him”:

 

“A salacious 35-page document, a summary of which was presented to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump last week, included allegations that Russian operatives claim to possess “compromising personal and financial information” on Trump, CNN first reported, citing multiple U.S. officials.”

2.     Senator Marco Rubio asked Rex Tillerson, Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, at his January 11, 2017 confirmation hearing: “Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?”

Mr. Tillerson replied: “I would not use that term.”

3.     David Ignatius revealed the following in his January 12, 2017 Washington Post op-ed online, “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?”:

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.”

4.     Matthew Miller in his January 13, 2017 Time magazine report online, “James Comey Cannot Be Trusted With a Trump-Russia Investigation”:

“It was always going to be difficult for FBI Director Jim Comey to oversee an investigation into ties between President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. Thursday’s announcement that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General will investigate Comey’s conduct during last year’s presidential election makes it impossible.”

5.     On late Friday evening January 13, 2017, NBC News reported:

“The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said it will conduct a bipartisan inquiry into possible Russian intelligence agencies' involvement in the U.S. election, and the probe's scope includes interviewing officials in the Obama and Trump administrations.”

Moscow might have tried to soft land on the Potomac, but unfortunately it has been caught making a big splash – the consequences of which are yet to be fully determined!

Trump - I Get By With a Little Help From My Friends

On December 30, 2016 I penned this ode to DJT. With apologies to the Beatles, whose classic album “Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band” celebrates it’s 50^th anniversary in 2017, here's the Trump version of “With A Little Help From My Friends”:

Oh I get by with a little help from my friends

Putin, the GRU and 400-pound Russians sitting on bed ends

I asked them to find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 lost emails

So they hacked into the DNC and Podesta’s GMails

From Russia with love… it’s how I became Mr. President!

Now I think we ought to get on with our lives

Because I won the greatest electoral landslide

Obama said that he thinks he would have won against me

But my friends in the Kremlin simply don’t agree

They would’ve faked news about his countless Muslim ties  

I can’t understand why the Democrats are so bitter

It might help if they learned how to use Twitter

I’m just trying to make America great again

By letting Putin back into the superpower pen

I’ll counter cheating China by making Russia fitter

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends.

Mmm, I'm gonna try with a little help from my friends.

Oh, I get high with a little help from my friends.

Yes, I get by with a little help from my friends,

With a little help from my friends. Ah.

TRUMP, TAXES & PUTIN-Y ON THE BOUNTY!

We have to unearth a mother lode of Trump treasure

So why doesn’t the media keep up the pressure?

Americans need to learn more about his finances

Like did this billionaire pay his fair share of taxes?

An IRS audit is a charade behind which Trump hides

He fears that releasing his returns will turn the tide

Why even Trump’s base might be upset to find out

That his wealth, taxes, charity, etc. are all a washout!

Then there is this entire “Putin-y on the Bounty” facet?

Russians holding an uneven cross-section of Trump assets

Why penalize China for decade-old currency manipulation?

It’s not really a problem, more like a Trump exaggeration!

So if he hangs on to his returns with his usual string of lies

Losing an election won’t really hurt the Trump enterprise

But if he ascends to the Oval Office without coming clean

We might as well just let him paint the White House green!  

Now if he offered full disclosure but lost the presidency

Then the Trump brand will surely lose some currency

But if releasing returns is followed by a victory at the polls

God save this nation, as President Trump will be on a roll!

We simply cannot afford to chance it with this great nation

Informed voters can wittingly preempt a Trump administration

By putting country before party, even the Gipper would agree

Be like Bush 41; vote for Hillary Clinton and also save the GOP!

Axis of Faith

Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of non-violence might have humbled the British empire of yesteryear, but such subtlety and discretion have little to no effect in this age of terrorism. India’s lack of a military response to the “26/11” Mumbai attacks might have gained it credibility in the western world but have made it appear weak and ineffective in its own backyard. China’s recent verbal saber-rattling over its long-standing border dispute with India is a case in point.

The world discerns between India’s post-26/11 fatalism and America’s post-9/11 realism. However, if India wants to be seriously considered as a major economic and military power in the 21st century, it needs to revamp its 20th century “non-aligned” foreign policy just like it overhauled its antiquated socialist economic model in 1991. India’s economic gains since then are clearly visible to the world; however, its inability to simultaneously defend itself against modern-day terrorism and communist China’s expansionist designs has the potential to mire it in an eternal crisis that can only suppress its growth as a 21st century power.

As far the United States is concerned, there are two significant reasons that it needs to revisit its Cold War foreign policy paradigm:

1. Thirty-odd years of economic engagement with China has not resulted in a concomitant shift in China’s totalitarian political structure – the U.S. should have embarked on a mid-course correction in its China policy shortly after the end of the Cold War in 1991. China’s unchecked power and blatant ambition could result in a New Cold War situation with the western world in the next couple of decades.
2. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S. not only abandoned Pakistan, but further slapped it with the Pressler Amendment sanctions – which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified annually that Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons. Any attempt to mollify Pakistan after two decades of neglect will eventually prove to be a waste of time and energy – the Pakistani people no longer trust the U.S. and never will.

Notwithstanding Pakistan’s current offensive against its own homegrown Taliban, it remains a fragile democracy that can be usurped at any time by its powerful military. As soon as President Obama starts winding down military operations in Afghanistan next year, we will see an attendant increase in Pakistan’s meddlesome activities along its eastern border with India. Based on China’s ongoing problems with the United States and India, Pakistan must already be hedging its bets – by renewing old ties with and seeking longer term refuge under Beijing’s expanding Asia-Pacific umbrella.

Thus, in this rapidly evolving new power structure, it only makes sense that the U.S. seek stronger ties with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific region – that go beyond its traditional Cold War allies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. It is imperative for the United States and India to become more closely aligned from a political, economic, technological and military standpoint. Keeping the world’s oldest and largest democracies together – in a new long term “axis of faith” partnership – should become the foundation of 21st century U.S. foreign policy.

A ‘New Clear’ Passage to India

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force in 1970 after China’s first nuclear test in 1964 and before India’s first nuclear explosion ten years later. At that time, the NPT recognized as “nuclear weapon states,” only those nations that had conducted nuclear tests prior to 1967. These nations happened to be the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Although the People’s Republic of China did not take its legitimate place as a UN member until 1971 and then signed the NPT only in 1992.

A recent New York Times editorial lamented that “When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington's only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies.” Even if there were something wrong with this typically conservative principle, it should be noted that U.S. foreign policy had made some rather hefty concessions back in the early seventies to accommodate communist China. This was part of President Nixon’s “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” overture to engage one communist giant while trying to contain the other – the Soviet Union.

These progressive considerations of yesteryear have brought us to the current situation, in which China is now viewed by our foreign policy establishment as a long-term strategic threat to the United States. We find ourselves in this predicament, in large part, because our policy of engagement has helped steer China towards a market economy without bringing about commensurate change in its political system and authoritarian form of government.

The afore-mentioned Times editorial also stated that

“President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success”

and thereby implying that his India strategy could actually chalk one up for him in the win column. It is quite likely that Bush’s forward-thinking nuclear deal with India might do just that. This is one instance where the neocons in the Bush Administration are actually seeing the forest for the trees by laying the foundation for a seminal paradigm shift in 21st century U.S. foreign policy – one that not only addresses our China syndrome, but also considers the larger threat as defined by the ongoing “global war on terror.”

So then why is Wall Street Journal columnist, Bret Stephens, not a happy camper? In a recent column he accused our “new clear” partner of keeping “bad company” with Iran. Mr. Stephens’ probably needs a refresher course on our own recent haphazard dealings with Iran. After 9/11, a “coalition -- made up of Iran, India, Russia and the Northern Alliance, and aided by massive American airpower -- drove the Taliban from power.” Despite this measure of Persian support, barely a couple of months later in his 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to declare Iran as a charter member of his “axis of evil.” Then, to further confound matters, he placed an unseemly reliance on dubious information from known Iranian-sympathizer, Ahmed Chalabi, and invaded Iraq in March 2003.

If that weren’t bewildering enough, since 2005 President Bush has relied heavily on the Iranian-backed government of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to “sustain, govern and defend itself.” But now, with the weight of the impending Petraeus Report hanging over its head, the Bush Administration figures that Shiite Iran’s influence in the Middle East is getting out of control. So the Administration wants to hedge its bets on Iraq and re-supply our traditional Sunni allies, Saudi Arabia and its satellite Gulf States, over $20 billion in an arms deal. This is the same Saudi Arabia that – accounted for fifteen of nineteen hijackers on the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and – gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and the Bush Administration’s original “war on terror.” Is it any wonder then, why they – the Muslim nations – continue to hate us?

If Mr. Stephens could see the forest for the trees, he might have realized that going forward India could actually help us with our tenuous relationship with Iran. More importantly, these two nations could also help us snare our $50 million man, who has enjoyed a safe haven within the borders of another shaky Sunni ally, Pakistan, since his escape from the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 . From a long term strategic standpoint, just as we look to India as a counter-weight to China in Asia, it is within our national security interests to have a Shia power counter-balance the traditional Sunni hegemony in the Middle East.

From a more practical standpoint, our “new clear” passage to India could mutually benefit not only our two great democracies, but also it could become the basis for new, long-term alliances throughout the western world. My reasoning is based on an observation that I had first made in my 2005 book, “The Bush Diaries,” and is worth repeating:

“The population of the world can be divided into roughly four equal quadrants — Judeo-Christian, Hindu-Buddhist, Muslim, and Communist. A vast majority of the people that constitute the Judeo-Christian and Hindu-Buddhist quadrants happen to live in secular democracies. It would therefore seem natural for these quadrants to be more closely aligned, since they share similar economic and political value systems? One would hope that an alignment of this nature could become an ideal for peace and prosperity throughout the world.”

The 21st Century China Syndrome

Prior to 9/11 China was high on the Bush Administration’s priorities, but Iraq has pretty much consumed the Bush presidency since then. Here’s what BBC News reported on the eve of Secretary Powell’s first visit to Beijing in July 2001:

Almost immediately he arrived in the White House President Bush began talking tough on China. President Clinton liked to refer to China as a strategic ‘partner’. President Bush changed that to strategic ‘competitor’.

In the six years of the Bush presidency, the U.S. trade deficit with China has ballooned 180% from $83 billion in 2001 to $233 billion in 2006 per the Foreign Trade Statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau.

In January 2007, the Associated Press reported that

“China's foreign exchange reserves, already the world's largest, have passed US$1 trillion,”

and

“economists believe about 70 percent is in U.S. Treasuries.”

Given these statistics it would seem on the surface that the Bush Administration has only managed to further solidify China’s role as a “strategic partner” to the United States. In fact, with the U.S. economy now so heavily dependent on China, President Bush – in the little time that he has left in his term – and future U.S. presidents are going to find it increasingly difficult to change the status quo with China without a paradigm shift in our China policy.

So I was not at all surprised when George Will expressed his very own skepticism in a recent column, “Real Change In China?” using James Mann’s book, “The China Fantasy: How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression,” as a reference. However, it is important for Americans to realize that Mr. Will's “regime change” sought by President Nixon’s policy of engagement with China has still to bear fruit after 35 years. By comparison our policy of containment of the Soviet Union and communism, initiated by President Truman after World War II, achieved its objective in 45 years.

Coincidentally, containment was also beginning to languish as an ineffective doctrine around its 35th anniversary until President Reagan took office in 1981. He then jump-started it with his “evil empire” offensive and the Soviet Union collapsed barely a decade later.

As mentioned earlier, President Bush has been overwhelmed by the “global war on terror” that he initiated under the auspices of his very own “Bush Doctrine.” Unfortunately, the magnitude and complexity of conducting this preemption policy has rendered him incapable of seriously revisiting our China engagement policy – which happens to be languishing, like its Soviet containment cousin did, in its 35th anniversary.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. economy continues to get more and more interminably entwined and dependent on China, cold turkey disengagement is hardly a viable option and “real change in China” slips further into oblivion. No matter how China performs in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it long ago won the gold medal for international statecraft.

Alas, we have already begun to witness the 21st century China Syndrome – in which China has already demonstrated its ability to launch a missile and destroy an orbiting satellite, to make and launch a satellite for Nigeria, and has also publicly announced its intention to land on the moon by 2010.

Thus, the strategic imperative for the United States is no longer in doubt – China has already morphed into a “worrisome competitor” – we must therefore redefine and pursue a more holistic relationship with this budding superpower, one that encompasses economic, foreign, and trade policies that are not only in sync with our core values, but also more cognizant of the 21st century China Syndrome.