Freitag, 24.02.2017 09:09 Uhr

Mr. Trump wrong dreams about Russia

Verantwortlicher Autor: Anton Elstner Washington, 14.02.2017, 11:22 Uhr
Kommentar: +++ Mixed News +++ Bericht 1732x gelesen

Washington [ENA] President Trump seeks a deal with Tsar Putin, but it is a terrible idea. George W. Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and thought he saw his soul. He was wrong. Barack Obama attempted to “reset” relations with Russia, and by the end of his term in office Russia had annexed Crimea, stirred up conflict elsewhere in Ukraine and filled the power vacuum that Mr Obama had left in Syria.

Donald Trump appears to want to go much further and forge an entirely new strategic alignment with Russia. Can he succeed, or will he be the third American president in a row to be outfoxed by Mr Putin? The details of this realignment are still vague and changeable, partly because of disagreements in his inner circle. Even as the US ambassador to the UN offered “clear and strong condemnation” of “Russia’s aggressive actions” in Ukraine, the president’s romance with Mr Putin seems still in place. When in an interview Fox News told Mr Trump that Mr Putin is “a killer”, he retorted: “There are a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

For an American president to suggest that his own country is as murderous as Russia is unprecedented, wrong and a gift to Moscow’s propagandists. And for Mr Trump to think that Mr Putin has much to offer America is a miscalculation not just of Russian power and interests, but also of the value of what America might have to give up in return. Looking Mr Trump’s script for Russia, it looks to be something like this:

America team up with Mr Putin to destroy “radical Islamic terror”—and in particular, Islamic State (IS). At the same time Russia might agree to abandon its collaboration with Iran, old enemy for America in the Middle East and threat to its allies, including Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In Europe Russia would stop fomenting conflict in Ukraine, agree not to harass NATO members on its doorstep and, possibly, enter nuclear-arms-control talks. In the longer term, closer ties with Russia could also help curb Chinese expansion. Mr Trump’s most alarming adviser, said last year that he had “no doubt” that “we’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years.” -

If so, America will need allies, and Russia is a nuclear power with a 4,200km (2,600-mile) border with China. What’s not to like about this? Pretty much everything. Russian hacking may have helped Mr Trump at the polls, but that does not mean he can trust Mr Putin. The Kremlin’s interests and America’s are worlds apart. In Syria, for example, Mr Putin makes a big noise about fighting IS terrorists, but he has made no real effort to do so.His price for working with America could be to secure a permanent Russian military presence in the Middle East by propping up Bashar al-Assad. None of this is good for Syria, regional stability or America.

Even if Mr Putin and Mr Trump shared a common goal (and they don’t) and Americans would not mind becoming complicit in Russian atrocities (but they should), American and Russian forces cannot easily fight side by side. Their systems do not work together. To make them do so would require sharing military secrets that the Pentagon spends a fortune protecting. Besides, Russian aircraft do not add much to the coalition air power already attacking IS. Ground troops would, but Mr Putin is highly unlikely to deploy them.

Likewise, Russia is not about to confront Iran. The country’s troops are a complement to Russian air power. Iran is a promising market for Russian exports. And, most of all, the two countries are neighbours who show signs of working together to manage the Middle East, not of wanting to fight over it. - The notion that Russia would be a good ally against China is even less realistic. Russia is far weaker than China, with a declining economy and population and a smaller army. Mr Putin has neither the power nor the inclination to pick a quarrel with Beijing.

On the contrary, he values trade with China, fears its military might and has much in common with its leaders, at least in his tendency to bully his neighbourgs and reject Western lecturing about democracy and human rights. Even if it were wise for America to escalate confrontation with China (which it is not) Mr Putin would be no help at all. The biggestt risk of Mr Trump miscalculating, however, is in Europe. Here Mr Putin’s wish list falls into three classes: things he should not get until he behaves better, such as the lifting of Western sanctions; things he should not get in any circumstances, such as the recognition of his seizure of Ukrainian territory;

and things that would undermine the rules-based global order, such as American connivance in weakening NATO. Mr Putin would love it if Mr Trump gave him a freer hand in Russia’s “near abroad”, for example by scrapping America’s anti-missile defences in Europe and halting NATO enlargement with the membership of Montenegro, which is due this year. Mr Trump appears not to realise what gigantic concessions these would be. He gives mixed signals about the value of NATO, calling it “obsolete” last month but vowing to support it this week.

Some of his advisers seem not to care if the EU falls apart; like Mr Putin previously did, they embrace leaders such as Marine Le Pen or Viktor Orbàn, who would like nothing more. They see Putin as part of a global revolt by nationalists and traditionalists against the liberal elite and therefore a natural ally. The quest for a grand bargain with Mr Putin is delusional. No matter how great a negotiator Mr Trump is, no good deal is possible . Indeed, an overlooked risk is that Mr Trump, will end up presiding over a dangerous and destabilising falling-out with Mr Putin.

Better than either a bargain or a falling-out, would be to work at the small things to improve America’s relations with Russia. This might include arms control and stopping Russian and American forces accidentally coming to blows. Republicans and the closest president's advisers, such as his secretaries of state and defence, should work to convince Mr Trump of this. Or the alternative would be very bad for everyone everywhere.

Für den Artikel ist der Verfasser verantwortlich, dem auch das Urheberrecht obliegt. Redaktionelle Inhalte von European-News-Agency können auf anderen Webseiten zitiert werden, wenn das Zitat maximal 5% des Gesamt-Textes ausmacht, als solches gekennzeichnet ist und die Quelle benannt (verlinkt) wird.
Zurück zur Übersicht
Info.