Pence mission

Is the support of the Eastern European countries in their confrontation to the Kremlin one of the main foreign policy postulates of the Donald Trump administration? Do the United States intend to welcome the country's border with Russia in NATO? What is the foreign policy of Donald Trump? What is the reason for Trump's sympathy for Putin? Why doesn't Dmitry Medvedev understand America?

We are discussing the Tourne of the US Vispenser Mike Pence in East European countries with Jeffrey Mankoff , an employee of the Center for Strategic and International Research in Washington, Yuri Yarym-Agaev , an employee of the Giverov Institute at the University of Standford, and Nathaniel Knight , historian, professor of Seton-Hall University in New Jersey.

The trip of the US Vice President, Mike Pence to Estonia, Georgia and Montenegro, ended on August 2, caused a mini-sensation among American commentators. During meetings with the leaders of the Baltic countries, Georgia, Montenegro, Kosov, the vice president of Pence, in fact, proclaimed Washington’s intention to return to his traditional role as the leader of the Western community, ready to support those who seek to become part of a free democratic world, from encroachments on their sovereignty, mainly from the Kremlin. He used the term "aggression" to determine the behavior of Moscow; According to the heads of Georgia and Kosovo, he strongly supported their desire to become NATO members; He called the North Atlantic Union the guarantor of the security of Europe; He announced that the future of Western Balkans was in Western Europe. Despite the assurances of the Pence that he was acting on behalf of President Trump, the headlines in the American press reflected the obvious bewilderment of their authors. "Whose statements about Russia to believe?" “The new York Times, “ Pence, makes tough statements in Russia, looking for its support point in Europe, ” Washington Post writes. "Mike Pence spent his Eastern European tour, undermining the Russian policy of Trump during each stop," Prvartz proclaims the publication.

How to explain the evidence of the contradictions between the tone and the arguments of the Vice President of Pence, expressed during a trip to Eastern Europe, and the tone of Russian statements by President Trump? This is what Jeffrey Mankoff says:

- These are strong statements, but at the same time uncertain. These are words of support without references to specific actions that the United States can take in support of these countries. This, in my opinion, testifies to two things: firstly, the highest representatives of the Trump administration do not always coordinate their statements, so they often contradict each other. Secondly, this reflects the lack of an agreed approach to the formation of foreign policy. In the Trump administration, there are several centers of influence, which have different views on the path of resolution of international problems, and relations with Russia, perhaps the most striking example of this clash of opinions. Vice-President Mike Pence, coupled with the Minister of Defense Jim Mattis, represents a more traditional, so to speak, “Hawki Wing” of the Republican Party, but there are people surrounded by Donald Trump, who adhere to other views and do not hide them. Therefore, if you are, say, in Tbilisi or Moscow, I think that you are not always able to determine that the US administration really intends to undertake. Paradoxically, this task is no less difficult for those who observe the administration of Trump from Washington, due to loud cacophony of opinions coming from the White House. It is only clear that Donald Trump himself wants to establish a better relationship with Moscow, but he clearly did not take into account numerous factors that impede the implementation of this intention in the form that the president sees, and he has to retreat from the inner and external pressure planned.

- By the way, it is also very curious that President Trump himself, expressing sympathies against Vladimir Putin and Russia, never refuses support to the countries of Russia - the neighbors of Russia. While in Moscow they publicly fantasized about a possible big deal with the new president at the expense of neighbors, Trump, as I recall, never even made hints that he was ready for something like that. Are those who expected from Trump, say, abandoning the full support of Ukraine?

Donald Trump accepts Petro Poroshenko in the White House June 20, 2017

-After Trump’s conversation with Poroshenko, there was an idea that Donald Trump enthusiastically looks at the future of American-Ukrainian relations. But whether these feelings of the US president are long -term, whether they will become a base for bilateral relations - it is difficult to draw conclusions on this score. I repeat: given the absence of a solid foreign policy line of the current administration, it is difficult to predict what can happen in certain circumstances in the future.

-Nevertheless, during a trip to Eastern Europe, the US Vice-President clearly declared that the new American administration wants to see these countries with members of the Western community, NATO, that it supports them in the confrontation, as he directly said, aggressive actions of Russia. It looks like Washington’s unambiguous strategic statement.

- This is a very important gesture, we recall at least his statement that the future of the Western Balkans, that is, the countries of the former Yugoslavia, is associated with the West. I think many residents of these countries would like to hear more such statements from the current American administration. But there is a serious reservation: this statement comes from the vice president, and not from the president, and we do not yet know whether this will remain a statement of intentions or the administration intends to do something in this direction.

- How does the unusual intervention of Congress fit into this picture in the formation of foreign policy, which deprived President of Trump to determine the future of sanctions against Russian citizens and companies? The Russian Prime Minister, for example, believes that American lawmakers trampled and humiliated the president of his own country?

Legislators not only with suspicions relate to President Trump's plans, but are also ready to act when they believe that the president acts contrary to national interests

- This is a reflection of the widespread distrust of legislators, including from his own party, to Donald Trump's intentions in relation to Russia. The vast majority of legislators consider these intentions dangerous, and they acted in the role of the presidential limiter assigned to them by the constitution, including in the field of foreign policy. In ordinary circumstances, Congress without enthusiasm refers to the idea of interference in a sphere, which is considered the prerogative of the executive branch of power, but now the circumstances are extremely unusual. And this initiative of legislators, which almost all Republicans supported in the Congress, indicates that lawmakers not only with suspicions relate to President Trump's plans, but are also ready to act as a limiter when they believe that the president acts contrary to national interests.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, Mike Pence speaks during a visit of Russian aggression, which requires NATO consolidation; He says that the Trump administration rejects attempts to use strength, intimidation, threats against the Baltic countries; He accuses Russia of destabilizing the Western Balkans. If you believe the premiere of Georgia, the penalty told him that the future of Georgia is in NATO. In these statements of the US Vice President, if desired, you can see a completely clear strategy for the Kremlin’s confrontation and support for Russia-border countries with Russia. My interlocutor Jeffrey Mankoff, however, does not believe that these words reflect the real policy of the Trump administration. In what context do you see these statements? Are these just words or can we talk about the affairs of the Trump administration?

- These are not only statements. By the way, he said more about Georgia, he said that even while Georgia is not a member of NATO, America would treat it as such a member and, accordingly, literally extend to it the fifth point of the NATO charter, that is, to protect it from aggression, ”says Yuri Yarym-Agaev . -Firstly, this is not only words, the very fact of the trip, it is quite demonstrative. Starting with the fact that Trump made the main speech in foreign policy a few weeks ago in Warsaw, choosing it very no coincidence, the fact itself is a pence trip to these three countries, Georgia of Montenegro and Estonia, it is also very demonstrative. That is, all objects are identified completely unambiguously either to the former or potential aggression from Russia and the unconditional support is given to these points in which this aggression can occur. As for words and deeds, it seems to me that it is very important now taking into account all the words that Trump said, all his tweets and other things, to share these two things, to share words and deeds. We see the following: the first is very material things. We see a sharp decrease in oil and gas prices, to a large extent thanks to Trump policy, expanding these developments in America. We see the supply, expansion of coal production and its supply to Ukraine. We see a sharp increase in the defense budget and the modernization of the American army. We see the sanctions that have just been held by the Senate, Congress and signed by the president, and sanctions both material and political.

“ But at the same time, Yuri, the president says that the law is bad, that the law is signed against his desires and that he believes that this is the wrong step.”

American F-35 attack aircraft on the military base of Amari in Estonia

- We see that. But I started by sharing words and deeds. Whatever the president said now, he signed these sanctions, they became American law. Further, as I said, the actions that are aimed at restricting Russian aggression. This includes, in particular, a pence’s trip, various joint military exercises include this, which is also important, also actions directed in essence against Russia's allies, such as Syria and North Korea, which I also think so. And these are already more material actions, including winged missiles that were used in Syria. Finally, a concrete completely result, it is actually also material - these are changes within America in relation to Russia. We see the consolidation of almost all political forces in response to actions and disgrace from Russia. And finally, the ongoing investigation as in the FBI and the Senate and Congress, which, of course, will continue to act against Russia, take it to clean water and keep its responsibility for all the outrages that are. These are actions.

-Professor Knight, do you see, behind these words, the vice president of the Pence is more than a symbolic gesture?

“I can partially agree with the interlocutor about the separation of words and actions,” says Nathaniel Knight . -But my question: what is behind these actions or who is behind these actions, what is the leading force, is there some kind of whole type of foreign policy that is behind this, or do these actions arise as a result of the lack of coordination? This all rotates around Trump, it should be a coordinating center that forms this vision. We see that this is a person for whom words do not have much meaning, he says that he wants, that he comes to mind, does not feel any obligation to be consistent, does not feel any obligation to support his subordinates. A good example, when the conflict arose between Qatar and Saudi Arabia: Secretary of State Tillerson fiddled for a whole week as a crazy one in order to reach some kind of agreement, calm the sides, then Trump releases some kind of tweet, scolds the catarrh, the whole thing goes to the bottom. Of course, Trump reads the finished text, as in Poland, clearly he did not write this text. It was very visible when he retreated, he said from himself. When he read the finished text, whether he understood this text or believes in this text, no one knows. Where there should be a center, there is emptiness. What happens then? As a result, an institution that should form a policy in some well-coordinated form does not function, especially the State Department. There are stories how the State Department looks now - empty offices, empty corridors, rooms.

- They say that a significant part of the main posts in the State Department are still not busy.

- He simply did not appoint a lot of important posts. What is happening now? It seems to me three things. Firstly, individual people, centers begin to act in their own way, put forward their policy. Therefore, for example, Trump’s performance in Poland: the fingerprints of Steve Bannon, his international global vision of the world, a conflict between Western civilization and Islam, and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism were very visible.

- By the way, the professor, in this speech, criticism of Moscow sounded very much. Moscow in this speech was exposed to an unambiguous aggressor, starting in the 1920s.

There is some consensus regarding Russian politics in Washington, which is formed reflectively, returns old familiar positions

- This is very interesting, this interpretation. Apparently, whoever wrote this speech knew very well which button to press in order to cause an enthusiastic reaction from the Polish public. This was well done in the sense to cause this reaction. I doubt whether Trump understood what resonance this caused in Warsaw and in Moscow. He simply does not know history. I believe that the penalty also acts, expressing its point of view. His tough positions against Moscow are not new, it was seen even in the election campaign, the debate of vice presidents, this was the only question where he very much and noticeably diverged with Trump, led a fairly tough line in relation to Moscow. There is some consensus regarding Russian politics in Washington, which is formed somehow reflexively, returns old familiar positions, in the absence of a clear clear position of the president himself.

- Yuri, such a point of view - there is no real strategy in the White House, everyone pulls the blanket on themselves - now it is very popular. In this case, it is really difficult to seriously perceive statements emanating even from the highest representatives of the administration.

Donald Trump, Jim Mattis, Mike Pence in the Pentagon, July 20, 2017

- I talked about the separation of words and deeds, in the same way it is necessary to separate both the development of foreign policy and the results of this process. As for the process, it is the most difficult and confusing thing that is in the administration. The first thing I must say that Trump was not a politician, he did not even have a team. In fact, a group of people who are responsible, including for foreign policy, is still being formed. This happens by trial and error. Trump is not a conceptual, pure empiricist in nature, in its level, so all this happens in this way. Different forces offer their options, there is a gradual screening. I must say that there are a number of very positive things in this. Firstly, Trump appointed many strong people to different positions, I attribute to them the Minister of Defense of Mattis, and the head of the presidential administration Kelly, and the ambassador to the UN Haley, and the director of the CIA Pompeo, most likely, the same pence. What I also have to pay tribute to Trump that if you look at how he hits his administration, how he removes people, he does not at all adhere to the principle of leaving only the sneakers that assent him. On the contrary, he fired much more people who assented him, and left people who have their own opinion and stand for him. And this is also his strength. In short, this is a complex mechanism for the formation of this position, but ultimately it begins to somehow coordinate. We can talk separately about the penalty, we can talk about Bannon, we can separately talk about 98 senators and 419 congressmen who voted for sanctions, but all this begins to ultimately take shape and create a rather harmonious, completed policy both in relation to Russia and in relation to other ideological enemies of America, including the same China, Iran, Northern Korea and all the rest.

-Professor Knight, how do you like such an interpretation of the situation: through the seemingly discord and confusion, is the quite clear Russian strategy of Washington Trump's era still draws?

- I understand this idea in order to develop a slender policy by trial and error. As Churchill said, America will do all the wrong options until it reaches the right one. It seems to me that such a narrowing of the Trump area of action occurs. He created such a situation that, especially in relation to Russia, he can not do anything contrary to the current consensus, which is both in the Congress and in his own administration, which the Pence is very well represented. This greatly narrows its capabilities against Russia. Suppose you could come up with some public negotiations, settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, for example, actions against Syria, such things where the weakening of sanctions could be part of the general scheme of negotiations, a common deal.

– Юрий Ярым-Агаев, удивительна была реакция российского премьер-министра на подписание президентом Трампом этого закона, где проскакивают, как мне показалось, издевательские или высокомерные нотки в отношении Дональда Трампа, которого, по мнению Медведева, растоптал Конгресс и американский истеблишмент. Как вам видится из Нью-Йорка: унижен президент Конгрессом?

Политика Трампа в отношении России, по крайней мере, как он ее сумел нам передать, оказалась его слабым местом

– Я не считаю, что отношение Конгресса к Трампу унизительное и оскорбительное. Политика Трампа в отношении России, по крайней мере, как он ее сумел нам передать, оказалась его слабым местом, другие политические силы это корректируют. Сам Трамп себя немножко поставил, я бы сказал, в глупое положение, подставился тому же Медведеву, Путину, кому угодно, когда, подписывая этот закон, начал его критиковать и говорить, что он плохой. Так он сам из себя изобразил человека, которого, своими же собственными репликами, вынудили делать вещь, которую он делать не хотел. Это был его просто политический просчет.

– Опять же в этом замечательном ответе Медведева идет разговор о том, что американский истеблишмент подавляет президента-одиночку. Но на это, видимо, можно взглянуть с другой стороны, как система поправляет ошибающегося, заблуждающегося президента?

- Absolutely. И тут я хотел сказать по поводу российской реакции, она абсолютно глупая и неадекватная. Россия не понимает, что вопрос не в том, что у Трампа маленькая власть, вопрос в том, что в Америке власть есть также у Конгресса, у Сената, у судов и у других многих общественных и политических учреждений, и в этом сила Америки. И Путин, и Медведев мыслят своими по-прежнему советскими категориями, которые в новое время они обозвали вертикалью власти, когда сидит наверху один человек, который всем управляет, а все остальные вещи, включая Думу, – это просто бутафория, которая вокруг существует. Отсюда следуют все их ошибки. Ошибки Путина и Медведева, который здесь, я не знаю, откуда взялся, они основаны на двух принципиальных вещах: что они не понимают, как работает демократический Запад, и еще более на том, что они ставят перед собой какие-то совершенно бессмысленные цели, которые просто для России вредны и не нужны. Если Путин считает, что России хорошо только тогда, когда Америке плохо, то он далеко с этой политикой не уйдет. Потому что Трамп может не делать специально ничего плохого для России, но Трамп не будет делать точно ничего плохого для Америки целенаправленно. И это очень важная вещь – это Путин должен запомнить. А он строит свою политику именно на этом, что России будет хорошо только тогда, когда Америке будет в чем-то плохо.

– То, что американцы называют zero sum game , а можно сказать по-русски – борьба, где не берут пленных?

– Это борьба, навязанная самой Россией. На самом деле в ней нет необходимости, но российская зацикленность на доминировании над другими нациями, сферах влияния и прочих для меня совершенно абсурдных понятиях, она им не дает покоя, она создает эти все постоянные конфликты, которые на самом деле создаются исключительно из Москвы. Все, что сейчас происходит, было инициировано полностью российскими действиями. Поэтому, когда речь идет о возможных переговорах с Москвой, я разделяю позицию многих сенаторов и конгрессменов, что все эти санкции, вся эта реакция на них – это результат действий самой Москвы.

– Натаниэл, совершил ли Путин фатальный просчет, санкционировав вмешательство в американскую избирательную кампанию? Похоже, России за это придется много лет расплачиваться санкциями и изоляцией, как, собственно, признает сам Медведев?

– Что касается российской реакции, мне кажется, они просто работают по шаблону, как было принято в "холодной войне" – санкции, потом ответные действия. Я не вижу особо дальновидной политики, которая дала бы выход из этого тупика.

– Все-таки Путин, с вашей точки зрения, не шахматист, как его называют некоторые американские наблюдатели, противопоставляя его простоватому, по их мнению, американскому президенту?

Владимир Путин и Реджеп Эрдоган

– Я согласен с общепринятой точкой зрения, что стратегия – его слабая сторона, в тактике он сильнее. Он оппортунист, он может реагировать на определенную ситуацию, но дальние планы, дальнее видение, как можно это развивать, или стремление к какой-то цели это далеко не всегда видно. Я согласен, что он действует на основании логики противоречия, он противопоставляет Россию и сторонников России некоему гнилому либеральному Западу. Странно, что Трамп тоже против гнилых либеральных ценностей, поэтому у них такой общий язык, общие симпатии, допустим, к диктаторам, как Эрдоган, Турция очень большой друг и того, и другого. По темпераменту у них очень много общего. Это видение мира на основании конфликта между западной цивилизацией, западными ценностями и угрозой извне, которая должна подорвать нашу жизнь. Нас грабят, нас уничтожают, надо защищаться от этого. Мне кажется, есть общая тенденция у Путина тоже. Но рецепт на мирную внешнюю политику, мне кажется, не очень получается.

– Юрий, мне кажется, профессор Найт только что объяснил эту необъяснимую для многих симпатию Дональда Трампа по отношению к Владимиру Путину: их, скажем так, психологическая схожесть.

Главный просчет Путина в отношении лично Трампа заключался в том, что он предполагал, что Трамп будет помогать именно России

– Я думаю, эта психологическая схожесть как раз никогда, если мы возьмем всю историю человечества, она, кстати, никогда не помогает сближению. Потому что люди с таким мышлением скорее идут в конечном итоге на конфронтацию друг с другом, а никак не объединяются. Так что это очень ложная вещь, она создает иллюзию действительно близости характеров, но эти характеры – каждый всегда тянет на свою сторону. Поэтому в конце концов это приводит к конфликтам. Но, слава богу, мы живем в стране Америке, где все психологические оттенки схожести и прочее нивелируются очень мощной конституционной республикой и всеми остальными структурами власти, которые все эти вещи корректируют. Последняя вещь, которую я могу сказать, что главный просчет Путина в отношении лично Трампа заключался в том, что он предполагал, что каким-то образом Трамп будет помогать именно России. Трамп, безусловно, со всеми вещами и оговорками, которые сказал мой собеседник, и я могу сказать, он является безусловным патриотом, безусловно, его задача сделать Америку сильнее. И я абсолютно уверен, что он в этом искренен. Он никогда не сделает ничего, целенаправленно не сделает ни одной вещи, которая будет во вред Америке. Он будет это делать. Если Америке хороша низкая цена на нефть, будет низкая цена на нефть. Если для Америки хорошо стать более мощной, иметь более мощное оружие, он это будет делать. Ему при этом наплевать, что при этом будет с Россией, с Турцией и с кем угодно. И в этом, я думаю, главный просчет Путина и российского правительства, что если они исходят из того, что он специально будет что-то делать для России во вред Америке – это была глупость с самого начала, они на этом сильно уже прокололись и проколются еще дальше.