March 23, 2017
Russia vs. USA: Who is the Threat, Who is the Aggressor? (2/2)
Jeffrey Tayler, Contributing editor to The Atlantic, tells Paul Jay
there are steps the Trump administration can take if it is serious about
reducing tensions with Russia
Members don't see ads. If you are a member, and you're seeing this appeal, click here
| |
|
|
|
audio
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason I continue to support TRNN is, not only is it real, it is also the most truthful. - Dick S
|
|
Log in and tell us why you support TRNN
|
|
biography
Jeffrey Tayler
is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and the author of seven books.
He has traveled the length and breadth of Russia, both to report for
magazines and for his books, three of which concern Russia. He has
lived in Moscow since 1993, and outlined his proposal for a new detente
between the US and Russia in an essay for the web site Quillette called "The Deal Trump Should Strike with Putin"
transcript
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. We're continuing our discussion about the Russian and American rivalry. We are told over and over again they are adversaries. We,
in part one, talked a little bit about the history of that
relationship, and looked at it to some extent, through the eyes of the
Russians and Russian government, and even Russian oligarchs. And why
Russia considers itself under threat. Well, what would a
real detente look like? Trump came to power, was elected saying he
wanted to reduce tensions with Russia. And it seemed to me of all the
things Trump said, that's about the only thing that sounded actually
positive, in my mind. We'll see if he's actually serious about that, and
if he is, what might he do? Well, our guest has some
very specific proposals of what that might look like. So, joining us
again from Moscow is Jeffrey Tayler. He's a contributing editor at the
Atlantic, author of seven books. He's lived in Moscow since 1993, and
he's recently outlined a proposal for detente between the U.S. and
Russia, one of the articles called, "The Detente 2.0: The Deal Trump
Should Strike with Putin." Thanks for joining us again.JEFFREY TAYLER: Thank you, Paul.PAUL
JAY: So, Jeffrey lets go through sort of a list. I've got some bullet
points here. So, for starters you say, start building some trust. So,
how do you do that?JEFFREY TAYLER: Yeah, the first thing
that we have to understand is how badly the relationship has decayed,
especially since 2014 with the Ukraine crisis. So, essentially the way I
see it, the first... in order to make this even remotely possible for
the Trump administration, it will probably be Russia that would have to
start. And the first thing that they could do would be
pretty small, but symbolically important. There was a program called
Future Leaders Exchange, or FLEX, that they terminated a couple of years
ago. They could restart that program; it's basically an exchange
program. In addition, you might remember that in 2012,
Russia legally prohibited, or forbid, American couples from adopting
Russian children, and they stranded about a thousand children here at
the time, who have since languished, waiting. They could lift the ban on
Americans adopting children. PAUL JAY: I was going to say, that before we get further into the list, something I should have probably mentioned in part one.
The Trump administration, it seems to me, has been extraordinarily
clumsy and inept, in how they prepared the conditions for this kind of
reset, and warming or easing the tensions with Russia. I can't believe
that Flynn, as he talks to the Russian ambassador -- Flynn being the
former National Security advisor to Trump -- how could he not know that
he's being listened to by the NSA. I'm assuming everything
I'm on a phone call with, is being listened to with the NSA, and how
could he not know? The whole thing is just so clumsy, and I wonder if
they've actually spoiled the waters for doing this. All
that being said, let's say they're serious and will continue going down a
-- unless you want to comment a little bit on this. 'Cause I think it's
just ridiculous how they've messed this thing up already.JEFFREY
TAYLER: Yeah. Well, I think it's caused consternation here. And the
spectacle of this meltdown, this protracted meltdown in the White House
with Trump, and the chaos, and the unstaffed State Department, is
causing consternation here. So, they are aware that they're dealing with
an inept partner, and as a result, they're taking a standoffish
approach. They're not pushing anything. You might know
that originally, there was talk of Putin and Trump meeting, possibly in
July at the G-20 Conference in Europe. The Russians said, "We're
interested in that." The White House immediately said, "We're not
talking about that because the temperature has turned up so high with
this anti-Russia campaign, related to the alleged hacking." So,
it's very unlikely at this moment, that Trump could do anything to
initiate a detente. But we have to look a little ways down the line, and
hope that somehow this calms down.PETER JAY: Now, Putin
is denying that the Russians were involved in this WikiLeaks release
that embarrassed Clinton. What's the Russian press saying though? In
the U.S., generally in the media, even a lot of the supposedly
independent and progressive media -- not all, but a lot -- are taking
for granted this was the Russians doing all this. What's being said
about the leaks there?JEFFREY TAYLER: Well, there isn't so
much being said. One thing that's been quite perplexing, and even
pleasing to Russians, is this notion that Russia could have, in some
way, influenced the election. Because they think, well, you're the
United States, you have the longest established democracy, or the most
powerful country, and here you're saying we basically determined the
outcome of your election. It's flattering in an absurd sort of way. But
the Kremlin has denied it, of course, and the average person, really; I
think this is flying a little bit above the radar of most people who
might not quite understand all the dynamics here. So, I wouldn't say
that that's really huge issue here. PAUL JAY: Okay. Other
than the fact that this whole thing's poisoned the waters for doing any
of what we're about to say. Let's go through what sort of measures you
think the United States should take, and Russia, to try to make this
thing less tense. I should say that the doomsday clock
from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved it up to 11:58:30. There's a
lot of talk that we're closer to potential nuclear war than we've been
since the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mean, do you think that's true, or
just a little exaggerated? JEFFREY TAYLER: No, I actually
think that they're factoring in, if you read their statement on why they
moved the clock, they're factoring in, first of all the amount of
tension. Second, the proximity of Russian and NATO forces in the
Baltics. But, also U.S.-Russian forces in Syria. And then they cite
specifically Donald Trump's words about casual use of nuclear weapons,
and his seeming desire to use them. Which is unprecedented. So,
I think the justifiable fear here, is that a crisis will erupt, and
Trump will make some massive mistake, and misjudge something, and set
off a crisis where a normal president would be able to talk it through.
Or, at least not act too hastily. And then the fact that Trump seems to
be sidelining the intelligent people in his administration, Tillerson
and Mattis, augers ill for the future.PAUL JAY: Right. Okay, number two on your list -- cancel the Obama sanctions.JEFFREY
TAYLER: Yeah, I mean the United States would have to give up something.
So, after Russia allows the adoptions to proceed and restarts the FLEX
program, the United Sates should cancel the last sanctions. Which
weren't very... the ones Obama put in place in December, which weren't
very significant. And this will be a prelude that Russia could also
restart the agreement it has with the United States, for the disposal of
Russian weapons grade plutonium, which is something Putin cancelled a
couple of months ago. And also, Russia would have to
repeal a law that it passed, that set conditions for the restarting of
this program, which is beneficial to the United States and to Russia.
So, those would be the basic things to get done to begin starting. But
the first major step would be that the United States would have to take
its nuclear arsenal off hair trigger alert. And Russia too, if they have
their arsenals set that way. It's not clear. PAUL JAY: The Americans have had it on hair trigger alert ever since the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons. JEFFREY
TAYLER: Yeah. Yeah. And they mutually de-targeted their arsenals in
1994, so the targeting can be done pretty quickly. So, the next step is
to take the weapons off hair trigger alert, which would eliminate the
risk of, say, something happening in the 15 minutes that Russia would
have to respond, if they got signals through their radars that there
were incoming missiles, which in the past, as recently as '95, turned
out to be erroneous signals. This would just take the
extreme tension, especially given the time zone differences; we're
talking eight hours time difference. Finding the right person on the
phone in 15 minutes in the middle of the night may not be possible, so
this would help reduce that risk. PAUL JAY: Okay, you have the NATO Russia Council...JEFFREY
TAYLER: Yeah. In 2014, with the Ukraine crisis breaking out, and with
the Russian annexation of Crimea, the NATO Council suspended its
operations with Russia. It's the U.S.-Russia NATO Council, which has
been functioning since the year 2000 or so, to coordinate. And it was a
good move that they established the council, because NATO forces were
moving up to the borders of Russia, and they wanted to establish good
contacts that would be effective in case there was some kind of
misunderstanding. And also, there are other military to
military contacts that were suspended in 2014 that also should be
restarted. To some extent, we're seeing that now in Syria, with the
Russian and U.S. forces who are engaged in de-conflicting. But they need
to restart the Council.PAUL JAY: Withdraw Ukraine and
Georgia from the NATO waiting list. When I was is in Georgia, you know,
six, seven years ago now, eight years ago, I actually heard quite a few
people who were very much against this NATO expansion. They thought it
was unnecessary provocation. It was using Georgia as a provocation. What
is the feeling in Ukraine and Georgia about this?JEFFREY
TAYLER: Well, it's split, and I think that now, in Ukraine there may be
slightly more people interested in joining NATO than before. President
Poroshenko of Ukraine, has said that he would like to hold a referendum.
But the problem with Ukraine is that it's really split in three, in any
case. It's split into the ethnically Russian East, the Ukrainian
Centre, and then a very Westernized part in the far west of the country.
And so the divisions are really strong. One reason why
NATO, even now, you know, the U.S. is careful about sharing intelligence
with Ukraine, because the Russians built the Ukrainian Intelligence
Services, and military, and have essentially infiltrated it at all
levels. It would be extremely risky to begin sharing intelligence with
the Ukrainians. So, it's problematic from the start, it
almost seems impossible that it could happen, but we've seen stranger
things. At the moment, there's a territorial conflict going on in
eastern Ukraine, and the Crimea, there are flashpoints. It doesn't seem
likely that NATO would vote to induct Ukraine. But, what
the United States could do, would be to renounce the declaration made in
Bucharest in 2008, which said Ukraine and Georgia will be members of
NATO. Because they didn't offer them at the time -- a membership action
plan -- which would have started the process. But this is what, in
effect, provoked the Russians to respond very aggressively when
Saakashvili began firing into a breakaway region at Russian peacekeepers
there. Part of his country was there... Georgia's also split into
several ethnic areas. And the Russians invaded when Saakashvili really
started firing, and of course they withdrew very quickly. But
they were in effect saying, this is what happens, they locked in a
frozen conflict in Georgia, and now there's the conflict in Ukraine. So
that Russians have affectively stymied -- the United States may think
that it can one day persuade Europe to agree to invite Georgia and
Ukraine, but it's clear that the Europeans would be extremely skittish
about doing this. And before all this mattered, that is in 2008, it was
possible to make these declarations. There was no overt conflict. Now
there's a real conflict. But a key element of this detente would be for
the United States to formally state -- perhaps in return for Russia
also formally stating that it won't invade, or support separatists on
the territories of these two countries -- that the United States will
not invite Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.PAUL JAY:
Okay, and on your list you have, end provocative military exercises at
the border. I guess this goes for Russia and NATO.JEFFREY
TAYLER: Yeah. Ever since the conflict with Ukraine has broken out, both
sides have conducted military exercises, mostly in the Baltics and
western Russia, and these are serious. It's not necessarily clear what
is an exercise, and what is not. So, we see troops being deployed and
paratroopers dropping out of planes and whatnot. And this
is the kind of thing that could conceivably lead to a mistake, and
accidental shoot down; those operations would have to cease. At the
moment they're not going on, but they have been, and Russia is
conducting periodically massive military exercises that are done, that
have been in response to this NATO expansion.PAUL JAY: And
then, I guess, to me this is sort of a no-brainer that this isn't being
talked about, or talked about more. But that Crimea, a U.N. run
referendum in Crimea, probably a referendum in Ukraine and Georgia. I
mean, and all these peoples decide what they want to be part of and what
they don't. But I don't know if the Americans or the Russians really
want this.JEFFREY TAYLER: Well, the Russians have passed a
law making it illegal to call for the separation of Crimea from Russia,
after the annexation in 2014. But there has been polling done,
including with the participation with Americans. That shows that a
majority of Crimean's of ethnic Russian and ethnic Ukrainian background,
want to remain in the Russian federation. There's no
realistic way that Russia would give up the Crimea at this point. As you
know, as you've seen from the amount of patriotism that gets expressed
here, when Crimea comes into the picture. It was Russian from 1783 until
1954, when Khrushchev reassigned it to the Ukraine, and the Soviet
Socialist Republic. PAUL JAY: I guess that's a whole story onto itself. I don't know, is there a quick answer? Why did Khrushchev do it?JEFFREY TAYLER: I think it was part of an internal party power struggle in the Communist party of the Soviet Union.PAUL JAY: Okay. Well, a subject for another day, 'cause it's probably rather complex to get into.
So, there was a referendum in the Crimea. A lot of people suggest it
wasn't that fair. I don't know. But Crimea did vote in favor in that
referendum to join the Russian Federation. But if they won it once, why
couldn't they win it again? Why not settle this whole issue with another
referendum?JEFFRETY TAYLER: Yeah, I think it would make
sense. I've been travelling in Crimea since the year 2000, and in fact, I
was gathering material for a story on the separatists, the autonomy
movement at the time. And there's a very strong
pro-Russian sentiment there, partly because they are a lot of former KGB
officers who were given retirement homes there. People were speaking
Russian. Russian was the language of the zone. So, I think that if they
did hold a referendum, it would come out in favor of remaining in the
Russian Federation.PAUL JAY: So, all of this goes back to
that, in fact, on both sides, there's an actual interest for such a new
detente. Do you think there really is?JEFFREY TAYLER:
Yeah, on the side of Russia, yes. I wouldn't say they would call it a
detente; maybe that word isn't being used. But they're looking for a
sort of grand deal, a grand bargain, that would essentially take the
pressure of NATO off of Ukraine and Georgia, and possibly remove the
missile defense systems from Eastern Europe that are in place now. There
is a desire to have sanctions relief. But the sanctions have not so
damaged the Russian economy that they threaten to undo the Putin
government. PAUL JAY: And on the American side?JEFFREY
TAYLER: Well, we all saw Trump saying that he wanted to be friends with
Putin, and he wanted to get along with Russia. That's wonderful, but he
never enunciated vision, or an understanding, and nor has anybody
around him of what that means. I've never heard them talk about NATO.
Except that Trump, at one point did seem to understand that Crimea
played into that. He really was never able to do more than express this
admiration for Putin, which is just not enough. If he
stumbles into this relationship without a plan, without understanding of
what Russia's interests are, without listening to Russia, he could
badly damage things, and set off a new confrontation, even worse than
the one we're in now.PAUL JAY: Yeah, and he's also so
compromised by his big mouth, and I don't know whether it's the Russians
or not, but if it is, the WikiLeaks leak, it's given all the fodder to
the forces in the United States, political and defense, that love having
Russia as a major rival and/or believe it is. They have such fodder now
that it would be hard for him to do much of anything on this front for
quite a long time. Just finally, when you look at the
Russian desire for a grand bargain, the real deal foreign policy
priority for the Trump administration he claimed was ISIS, but when you
read the people around him, what they really think the foreign policy
priority is, it's to re-establish sanctions on Iran, and perhaps target
Iran. And I don't know how far they really would want to
go militarily. But do you think, in part of a grand bargain, that the
Trump people were thinking of, and would Putin go along with this, that
the Russians wouldn't resist all that much when the Americans went after
Iran again?JEFFREY TAYLER: Well, no. In fact, Russia
considers Iran a strategic ally. They've had their historical troubles;
they still have a bit of a turbulent present. But Russia has strong
interests in Iran. It's a huge powerful Muslim country, almost on its
borders. I don't believe they're going to acquiesce to have any U.S.
invasion or attacks, Russia was very important, as you know--PAUL
JAY: Well, I wouldn't think it would be invasion or attacks, but it
could well be trying to do the snap, come up with some evidence,
supposedly, that Iran's violating the agreement, and put back the
sanctions in force.JEFFREY TAYLER: Well, I think they
would resist it. And especially now, there's no reason to think that,
given the hostility that developed between Russia in the last years of
the Obama administration, there'l And they were extremely
important in concluding this deal, which they were proud of. Which Trump
has been saying since the beginning that he wants to abolish.PAUL JAY: All right, thanks very much for joining us, Jeffrey.JEFFREY TAYLER: Thank you, Paul.PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment