"The Russian problem needs to be survived." The fate of sanctions against the Kremlin

Did the Kremlin make an unforgivable mistake with his reaction to a chemical attack in the UK? Will more serious measures of punishment of the Kremlin follow the expulsion of diplomats? How did Vladimir Putin create an anti -Krelev coalition in Washington? Will the West resort to the tactics of the deterioration of Russia from the Cold War?

The program involves: Daniel Gure , vice president of the Lexington Institute in Virginia, a former high-ranking Pentagon employee; Vladimir Kondorovich , economist, professor Heviverford College in Pennsylvania and Dmitry Shlyapentoch , professor of history from the University of Indiana.

The mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and the review of their ambassadors from Moscow in dozens of countries in response to the reaction of Russia to a chemical attack in Salisbury turned out to be the largest action of this kind in the history of international relations. The ability of almost three dozen countries - from Canada and the USA to Australia, Macedonia and Albania - rally and give Moscow, figuratively speaking, the diplomatic slap was a great surprise to observers. In a commentary for CNN, British political scientist Shashanka Joshi writes that while Britain could count on her closest allies in her support, she could not imagine that NATO members, such as Finland, were not members of the EU, for example, Albania and the countries with close ties with Russia, like Hungary, will join them.

The decisive response of the Trump administration, who sent 60 employees of Russian diplomatic departments and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle, caused no less surprise. The inspired American critics of Moscow expressed the hope that the White House will announce new sanctions against the Kremlin. The USA Today , for example, calls for publicity to publicize the secret list of Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin, compiled by the US Department of Justice, introduce the so-called secondary sanctions against foreign companies leading business with Russian firms subjected to sanctions, and even announce the boycott of the World Cup, collecting teams from the Sulfurion countries for an alternative tournament. “Finally, the West begins to respond to Putin’s pressure,” the newspaper writes. “It is necessary to take decisive steps that will make Russia feel the consequences of its behavior.”

According to Daniel Gure , a chemical attack in the UK could unexpectedly for the Kremlin to be an extreme line, the transition of which requires a sharp answer:

I see this as Trump's attempt to join a kind of trade with Putin

- Does Putin believe that the poisoning of a former double agent is not a sharp escalation? We are talking about the arms race when, in fact, Russia is growing up. We are talking about escalation, when only one side is overtaken by the confrontation. In this situation, Washington is trying to achieve parity. Simply put, if the Kremlin began a campaign against the United States and its allies, then he should expect that he will receive a similar answer. The problem is that Vladimir Putin seems to be unable to understand this. He does not understand Trump. President Trump threatens China with introducing duties on Chinese imports, suddenly Beijing agrees to negotiations. Trump threatens with a blow to North Korea, suddenly Pyongyang speaks of readiness for negotiations. My point of view lies in the fact that in response to Vladimir Putin’s refusal to go to negotiations, to moderate interference in the affairs of other states, the Trump administration is following the path of increasing pressure on the Kremlin. And this will continue until Putin agrees to sit down at the negotiating table, to behave, let's say, decently, begin to exposure the confrontation. I see this as Trump's attempt to join a kind of trade with Putin. I can understand why such a manner of doing business is incomprehensible to the Americans, I cannot understand why Vladimir Putin cannot understand this.

- Maybe because many in Russia still believe that Donald Trump for one reason or another is on their side, which, by the way, is also suspected by some American critics of President Trump?

- Trump is on the side of America! He is not on their side. Trump, to put it mildly, does not matter to Russia outside the normal interest in the possibility of reaching an agreement if the Kremlin decides to change its behavior. But Vladimir Putin clearly does not want to understand the "art of transaction", unlike other leaders.

- It does not bother you that Moscow is responsible for the same measures to expuls the diplomats and the USA as a result will also lose a lot?

- The Kremlin will lose much more, for the reason that Russia is not important for us, with the exception of neutralizing the threat emanating from it. Putin's strategy of confrontation, response measures are doomed to failure. Because he does not realize this simple pacemen: we are worried only by the threat of our political system, our economy or the threat of our security, emanating from Russia, but relations with it are not compared with the importance of, say, with relations with China, we are seriously trading with China, China claims influence around the world. And this threat from Russia will be given an increasingly tough answer, there is no other option. I think that soon we will see the sanctions very unpleasant for the Kremlin. It can be assumed that the US Department of Finance collects information about the conditions of Russian oligarchs stored abroad, it finds out that Putin belongs to Putin. He must realize that we are still at the beginning of the process of tightening sanctions. Putin clearly does not understand this, believing that if so far they have not particularly touched him, then he can continue his game. In the end, Vladimir Putin will face a large unexpected surprise that is brewing. This, so to speak, is an American style of action.

- That is, do you think that the Kremlin does not understand what risks, continuing to bully the United States and allies?

How many Russian mercenaries will be killed by American shells while the situation becomes terrible for Vladimir Putin?

- Russia is mistaken, believing that in the person of the United States it deals, say, with Germany. Putin believes that we are afraid of Russia, that it is necessary to force the United States to be afraid of Russia. We are not afraid of Putin, and he cannot intimidate us anymore than he has already done it. At the same time, we have a lot of tools in our hands, with which we can cause tangible pain of Russia. We have already witnessed the use of some of these measures, but the United States can do much more. And the Kremlin does everything to strengthen the position of their opponents in the United States. A simple example: all that is now required from the American legislator is Putin’s criticism is to show a video that accompanied Putin’s performance in the Federation Council, with the personnel of a nuclear missile that affects Florida to get funding for the Pentagon or at the means of protection from the Russian threat. By his actions, President Putin guarantees not only the financing of the modernization of the American nuclear arsenal, but also the sharp increase in these expenses. In other words, America will do what he was so afraid of. Putin managed to create an alliance in the American political establishment, which has not existed since the Cold War. All liberal democrats, coupled with moderate and conservative Republicans, are anticremile. For various reasons, but a unique coalition was formed. Yes, these sentiments have not yet covered the executive branch of the authorities - both the Obama administration and the Trump administration were in no hurry with the introduction of sanctions, but the White House will catch up with legislators. To this we add events that can further undermine relations: deliveries of military equipment to Ukraine. If Putin responds to this support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, we will increase the support of Kyiv. Who will prevail in this escalation? How many Russian mercenaries will be killed by American shells while the situation becomes terrible for Vladimir Putin? - says Daniel Gure.

- Vladimir Kontorovich, was Moscow reaction to a chemical attack in Salisbury with a critical miscalculation of Vladimir Putin?

“The Kremlin has been leading this game for a long time, and this is not the first risky step, Litvinenko was poisoned by exotic way, there was a dismemberment of Georgia, which was forgotten calmly, 10 years ago, there was Crimea and the Donbass cleaner than one murder,” says Vladimir Kontorovich . “I think this is not a random step.” Whatever you need to pay for, probably somewhere calculated. This is part of the Russian long position in relation to the West.

- Nevertheless, if you look at the Kremlin’s reaction and immediately after the victory of Vladimir Putin, and in the very last days, then anxiety is clearly visible, the fear of being isolated, in the role of an outcast, if you like. The first Russian channel tells, for example, how poor Teresa May begs Europe to intervene for England, and then it turns out that even Albania and Slovakia are being interfered with England. Dan Gure believes that Putin made a serious mistake, thinking that he could easily cope with sanctions against the Kremlin, in reality he may encounter a very unpleasant reality.

What is the Minsk process? This is actually the surrender of the West Donbass

- Outcast is a very wide word, and the measure is narrow - the expulsion of diplomats. After the expulsion of diplomats, the relationship continues. I think in the West a very strong position is that Russia is superpower, it has nuclear weapons, one way or another needs to deal with it. Think about the Minsk process. What is the Minsk process? This is actually the surrender of the West of Donbass. There were many anti -Russian steps in this context, and many steps back from the West. Now, too, there will be a buildup, new sanctions and more sanctions will go after the expulsion of diplomats. It was necessary to somehow react to the ugly poisoning of Skripal, but it is scary to tear with Russia completely, no one wants to. I understand that one way or another you need to maintain some kind of relationship.

- But, as Moscow critics tell you, you can maintain relations, but nothing prevents you from giving a tough response to the Kremlin hostile actions. While the Russian leadership believes, apparently, in this very thesis: they will not contact us.

- I think yes, it is. And still for more than ten years it has been justified. And in much more severe trials - downed passenger aircraft and God knows what else.

-This time is still a special thing: they swung at the American presidential election, many American politicians call this a declaration of war! And it seems, they really think so.

- One new factor is actually, but the factor is not fundamental, but serious: now there is a fusion of interests, so to speak, the American political elite. Previously, when the right ones said: "Russia is the enemy", when Romny said: "Russia is the main enemy," the left laughed. And now the left, too, has also appointed Russia the main enemy. As always, when both parties at the same time, something bad happens when there is no balancing power. It is scary, there is no one to balance. This new moment can play differently.

- So Gure says that the Kremlin managed to create a coalition in the United States that was not from the peak of the Cold War - the Union of Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans on the Anti -Cremile Platform.

Senator Jin Shakhin comments on the list of oligarchs close to Putin, published by the Trump administration on January 30, 2018

- The fact that the Democrats are now updated to Russia, here Putin is minimal. They appointed her guilty for their losing in the presidential election. What is Skripal, killing in England, this is the closest to the skin, this is the most offensive. Since they started to bring down to Putin, then there is no road back. Well, the right traditionally suspect Russia. The merger of these two currents, maybe something new will happen.

- Professor Shlyapentoch, from your point of view, should be perceived by this mass expulsion of Russian diplomatic workers as a sign of tightening the position of the Western capitals and the emergence of new sanctions, or, as Professor Kontorovich believes, is the bowl of patience in the West to the limit?

- Any action has both a positive and negative aspect. Negative, of course, Putin does not want to leave the Russian elite from the West, ”says Dmitry Shlyapentoch . - They are oriented to the west, maybe not on America, so on Europe. On the other hand, the threat of the West is a very good thing for the Kremlin, for rallying society. Second: the threat should not be associated with the symbolic acts of the expulsion of diplomats, today they are expelled, then they return, this is not an irreversible process. As, for example, with Lukashenko: either diplomats were sent, then they were sent again. The third point that can really affect the regime and its interests is the Nord Stream 2. I get completely opposite information there. On the one hand, as if part of the countries really proceeds from the fact that it is necessary to replace it with American liquefied gas, and on the other hand, this gas is very expensive. It is interesting that Germany, Merkel shook May's hand in solidarity, but at the same time gave permission to hold this very pipe on its territory at the very moment when everyone sent diplomats. Neither Japan, nor South Korea, and even more China, which are an alternative to the West, an alternative that the Russian leadership, but which exists, is.

- Dmitry, but we must not forget that since the beginning of all these sanctions, since 2014, if we talk about the whole package of these sanctions, Russia said that America, the West we do not need, we will turn to face China, and everything will be very good. But if Russia tried to turn to face China, then, judging by many data, China turned to Russia with another place. As it turns out, all these beautiful -hearted ideas that they will be able to sell their energy resources in China, they do not work so well, and Russia does not receive the benefits that it would like.

- How do I see Chinese policy? China, like a totalitarian society, whose elites plan for decades, if not for centuries, it does not proceed from the direct benefit of today, as, say, in the West, in America. If the regime seems acceptable to them, and even more so their satellite, they will never give this regime the mouth, especially for economic reasons. I believe that China wants to increase the amount of imported gas, but not because they need Russian gas so much, but because it is necessary to support their potential ally and show him possible alternatives. If you play an independent game, then you are by yourself, we will take your last penny from you. But if you are our satellite, then a completely different attitude will be towards you. Therefore, I repeat, what I watched, studied more or less-this is the attitude to Belarus. What is the benefit of economic from Belarus? Yes, no. But for this famous "Silk Road" this is a program of dominance over Eurasia, but not with the help of weapons, as barbarians do, an eagle of a two -headed, one -headed eagle, but with the help of the economy.

-Vladimir Kontorovich, if you still talk about the sanctions that were the basis of the American, and the Western strategy of the Kremlin, can they be an effective tool for this strategy?

I think there will be a tightening of sanctions against Russia

- We are talking about economic sanctions. By the way, the United States must also be chosen, because economic sanctions work if the rest of the world joins them, and not sabotage. Now there is a great struggle for sanctions against Iran. Europe does not want to, it needs to be persuaded, it is looking for some maneuvers in order to escape from this. I think there will be a tightening of sanctions against Russia. We will not forget about the level of unemployment in Europe, trade is important for it. Sanctions, of course, can complicate the economic situation for Russia, but I do not see the end of Putin in this, the economy goes up, goes down, the well -built political regime holds these fluctuations.

- Many commentators just note that the attack on the British territory created an unusual unity of Western democracies.

- The whole question is how much and what they are ready, except symbolic shares. Such unity was after Hungary in 1956 against the Soviet Union, after Czechoslovakia in 1968, then it slowly evaporated.

- But these events took place behind the "iron curtain." Now the situation is different. Never before the European countries have been an object of chemical attack on their territory, during which hundreds of people could suffer. According to American commentators, Moscow could cross the extreme line if the Kremlin is really behind the attack on the Skripals, as British representatives say.

- Putin takes risky steps that no one expects, he risks more than is usually accepted than expected from him. He is already doing this for 10 years, if you think. Georgia was in 2008, and Litvinenko was before that. One step, we can say, calculated what we get? There is not one step, here is a strategy that increases all the time, increases the risk. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that in 10 years he could not think about what would happen next. It was possible to reverse many times. Crimea and Donbass are still things that cannot be given back, irrevocable things, Donbass may not be irrevocable. In my opinion, this is a strategy. I don’t know how he thought deeply, thought finely, thought how he knew how. Let us recall George Kennan and his famous doctrine of deterrence of the Soviet Union. Of course, incomparable things, but some reasoning is applicable. The Soviet machine, which rushes in full and challenges all the standards, what to do with it? Hold back. But the deterrence included serious relations both economic and political. React to aggressive acts, and otherwise try to maintain relationships.

- Fans of Ronald Reagan will tell you to this that such a strategy has extended the life of the Soviet regime. Reagan came, pulled Moscow into the arms race, and the ridge of the system, which had stood for a decade, broke.

Well -set authoritarian regimes are kept with different turns of the economy

- As Mikhail Sergeyevich sometimes told his critics after the fall of the Soviet Union: "I could still be the general secretary." Я думаю, что он прав. Мы видим, как стоят Северная Корея и Куба нерушимо. Вот такое резюме: санкции против России в основном могут быть санкциями экономическими. Они ухудшат экономическое положение России? Ухудшат. Путину это неприятно? Unpleasant. Грозит ли это падением его власти? Generally speaking, no. Потому что хорошо поставленные авторитарные режимы держатся при разных поворотах экономики. Это не про экономику. Неприятно, конечно, он хотел иметь здоровее экономику, но не смертельно. Кроме экономики у него есть другие соображения.

– Вы готовы сделать комплимент Владимиру Путину по поводу создания крепкой авторитарной системы, способной устоять в условиях серьезных встрясок, скажем, вызванных экономическими трудностями?

- It looks like that. Вы помните, какое было волнение, когда он отдавал президентство Медведеву, никто не понимал, как это можно – отойти от пульта с кнопками. В Крым нельзя съездить в отпуск, чтобы не было путча в Москве, а тут он к кнопкам сажает другого человека. Отдал, вернулся. Там хорошо работающая машина. Хотя, конечно, кто знает, мы там не были, мы их инструкции не читали. Выглядит, что да.

– Дмитрий Шляпентох, что вы думаете о стратегии Кремля? Дэн Гурэ считает, что Владимир Путин не осознает опасности и для России, и для других, которую он создает своими действиями, Владимир Конторович считает, что у него есть стратегия, которая может быть вполне эффективной для выполнения его целей.

– Все рисуют, что Путин – это такой иррациональный агрессор, империалист безумный, который хочет восстановить империю советскую, царскую. Нет, они очень расчетливые и, в отличие от американцев, прекрасно понимающие ограничения своих возможностей. Это та самая крыса, которая хочет убежать в ее нору, если возможно, но если уж вы припираете крысу в угол, то крыса будет кидаться вам в лицо. У Путина, как и у других врагов Америки, масса других вариантов ответить. Например, с той же Северной Кореей, у них есть граница с Северной Кореей, они сейчас с ними резко налаживают контакты, хотят даже какой-то мост построить специальный, будут продавать нефть и все, что нужно. А уже если сильно будут донимать, то могут поставить оружие, те же самые ракеты С-300, которые очень не хотела Америка, Израиль видеть в Иране. Поэтому возможность пакостить, создавать проблемы, вы мне создаете проблемы – я вам буду создавать проблемы.

– Но все-таки возможности Вашингтона и Москвы в этой области в силу их очень разной весовой категории различаются. Помнится, Кремль очень встревожился некоторое время назад, когда говорили о возможности исключения России из системы электронных переводов денег Swift , российские представители даже называли это актом войны. Наверняка США, Запад при желании могут причинить очень серьезный ущерб российской экономике, например.

Санкции – это не орудие, которое заставляет режимы такого рода меняться или гибнуть

– Все зависит от степени тоталитарности режима. Санкции – это не орудие, которое заставляет режимы такого рода меняться или гибнуть. Советский Союз погиб не от санкций, не от гонки вооружений, не от того, другого, пятого, шестого, седьмого. Тут я хочу заметить, один раз я процитирую своего покойного отца, что погиб Советский Союз только от либеральной глупости Горбачева. Потому что те же самые процессы, которые были в Китае, Дэн Сяопин расстрелял в 1989 году пулеметами, все предрекали, посмотрите газеты того времени американские, что завтра или послезавтра он падет. А он не только не пал, но экономически вырос многократно. То есть история многополярна, многовариантна. Модель очень жесткая, что плохие парни обязательно падут, а хорошие парни, естественно мы, будут жить вечно, – нет, совсем необязательно.

– Профессор Конторович, тем не менее, известно, что в окружении президента Трампа доминируют критики России. На должность советника по национальной безопасности Трамп только что назначил Джона Болтона, который недели две назад в публичном выступлении призвал дать на действия Кремля сверхнепропорциональный ответ. Он считает, что она является ключевым игроком, создающим проблемы международной безопасности. Он обвиняет ее в помощи Ирану, который прямо финансирует террористические организации. Можно предположить, что наличие таких людей в Белом доме повышает вероятность новых решительных мер со стороны Вашингтона в отношении Москвы?

John Bolton

– Это понятно, что это склоняет механизм в одну сторону или в другую. Но решить проблему России Болтон не может. Проблему России нужно пережить, она нерешаемая, как Трамп не может решить проблему израильско-палестинского мира. Есть проблемы, которые не решаются. Значит, не надо пытаться их решать, а нужно пережить. Стратегия сдерживания была в этом духе. Нельзя было решить проблему Советского Союза, Советский Союз сам себе ее решил. Но нужно было поддерживать свою силу, не давать Советскому Союзу распоясываться, где можно было ее остановить, а решить ее, она не решалась, пока сама собой не решилась.

– Советский Союз сдерживали очень активно, по всему миру, взять хотя бы поддержку моджахедов в Афганистане или врагов левых диктатур в Латинской Америке. Спорадические ограниченные санкции, введенные со времени аннексии Россией Крыма, в таком контексте выглядят вынужденными ограниченными мерами, не рассчитанными на определенные результаты?

– Северная Корея вся обложена санкциями со всех сторон, все равно, когда кого-то нужно пришить за границей, пришивают на людях. По-моему, они кибератаками тоже балуются. Это зависит от восприимчивости к боли, от чувствительности к боли. У авторитарного режима, который от экономики зависит не так сильно, как демократический режим, где нужно переизбираться, нужно, чтобы народ был доволен, чувствительность ниже. Чувствительности Путина мы не знаем, но пока что он санкции пережил, которые были на него наложены. Я думаю, что переживет еще процентов на 50 больше.

– У вас, как у профессионала-экономиста, есть какое-то соображение, что может подействовать в этом случае?

– Это очень технический вопрос. Финансовая система, банки, много чего есть, тонкие вещи. Я, когда про некоторые санкции читаю, я не понимаю, о чем идет речь. Это неприятность для России, для российских жителей, непонятно, насколько неприятность для Владимира Владимировича Путина. Потому что это его власти никак не грозит. Давно замечено, это в какой-то мере подтверждает его пропаганду: враги, что делать? Враги, надо бороться.

– Не может для него быть перспективой, вот он примиряется с Западом, отменяется какая-то часть санкций, и благодарный российский народ, получающий западные инвестиции, восхваляет своего лидера, например, за ускорившийся экономический рост?

– А как примириться с Западом, не сдавая Донбасс и не отдавая Крым? Или Запад должен поступиться принципами, или Путин должен поступиться принципами. Это был тяжелый шаг, который создал реальности на земле, которые, я не знаю, можно ли отыграть.

– В последнее время много с обеих сторон звучат заявлений о новой "холодной войне" между Западом и Россией. Есть у Кремля, у Путина поводы опасаться такого развития событий? Все-таки экономический вес противников ой как не равен.

– Смотря, как он будет играть. "Холодная война" – это же метафора. Путин не перевозит кубинцев в Анголу и не воюет в Мозамбике и в Эфиопии против Сомали, в Сомали против Эфиопии. Амбиции его поменьше, и стоит это дешевле. В той мере, в которой не будет зарываться и помнить пределы, – ну, ничего.