I’ve been in touch with my old friend Anna Chapman after a considerable
interval. She called out-of-the-blue to offer commiseration for the
plight of the American polity – or so she said, and to inquire
sympathetically how I was faring in the draconian crackdown
on all those ‘subversive’ elements who have expressed any regard for
Russia. I told her that I hadn’t been targeted except for one telephone
call from the FBI alerting me, in a roundabout way, that a commentary of
mine from 2015 had been published on a remote
website of dubious leanings. Said site allegedly was underwritten by an
anonymous foundation which, in turn, was suspected of receiving funds
from the Russian government. Anna intimated, with exquisite delicacy,
that were I seriously inconvenienced, there
was refuge available at the luxurious condo complex on Lake Baikal
(Decembrist Mansions) where she is a founding investor. It quickly
became evident, though, that her actual purpose was to convey the
thinking in the Kremlin about relations with the U.S. –
in the hope that I might diffuse them among the distinguished and
influential persons who receive these commentaries. Evidently, Anna took
this initiative on instruction from her superiors in the Russian Bureau
for U.S. Affairs (BUSA) where she has held a
shadowy position as a freelance consultant since her extrication from
the States.
Here is a summary transcript of what Anna had to say.
-
· The Russian leadership is pretty laid back about the
Presidential election; they are resigned to deal with whomever/whatever
emerges from the malestream. They have become accustomed to the
peculiarities and antic features of politics in the U.S. The
Kremlin has concluded that there is nothing that Russia could do to
inflect the discourse about international affairs in general or
attitudes toward Russia in particular. Most certainly, any notion of its
ability to affect the outcome is outlandish.
-
· What of the related claim that Russia is running a disinformation
campaign aimed at discrediting American democracy? Why even consider
sowing discord (itself a threat of unwelcome instability) when the
natives are doing such a thorough job of discrediting
their political system all on their own. The United States’ complicity
in the Palestinian genocide has put the final nail in the coffin on the
American claim to being the cynosure of humanistic values. While that
performance surely redounds to the diplomatic
advantage of Russia, China et al, it is at the same time a worrying sign that the world’s still strongest power has gone completely off the rails.
-
· Putin, along with his senior colleagues, are amused by headlines declaring that
“Russia’s Strategy Is to Shape the American Mind.” For one thing, they have no idea where that elusive mind is to be found
-
· Their preference is for predictability – not persons. It follows
that they see Kamala as more tolerable than Trump. With her, they get
continuity with the Biden administration – however noxious it has been.
At least it gave them something to plan against.
There is a small hope that she could be more inclined to opening
diplomatic communications with Moscow given that she is a novice who may
see an interest in finding out firsthand who Washington is dealing with
– and, a certain relaxation of the current high
tensions would provide her some space to establish herself in the
Presidency.
-
· Donald Trump, by contrast, is impetuous and quixotic. His
mercurial temperament keeps the Kremlin on edge. Moreover, his own
earlier administration showed no particular respect for Russian national
interests. After all, he set in motion the escalation
of economic sanctions and gave his full backing to the armament and
anti-Russian program of Kiev. Hence, Kremlin leaders place little stock
in the proposition that Trump might be a less implacably hostile foe
than Biden or Harris. That idea, which has gained
favor among some opponents to America’s current belligerent policies,
is based on two suppositions: Trump is a pragmatic dealmaker; and he is
less devoted to the neo-con scripture that rules thinking among the
Democrats. Both are seen as dubious in Moscow’s
eyes in the light of his consistently bombastic rhetoric, his practice
of seeing all encounters in zero-sum terms, his lack of any conception
of an alternative world order, and the strength those forces in
Washington who would undercut any conciliatory moves
(witness the tentative opening toward North Korea in 2017). Trump cast
as the ‘prince of peace’ is taken to be a wistful hope of those
searching for a deus ex machina to save them from the present
self-destructive course America has taken,
-
· Kremlin leaders are increasingly concerned by the Trump
movement’s turn toward outright autocracy and hyper-nationalism. An
election that was understood to be a referendum is now taking on the
appearance of a referendum on neo-Fascism – or some close
facsimile thereof. The readiness of half the voting populace to put at
risk their time-honored democratic principles and institutions is seen
as reflecting a worrisome degradation in the American body politic – a
prelude to disorder and erratic, dangerous
actions abroad
-
· Moscow fear that those around the White House who are driving
America’s aggressive policies might do something extremely risky vis a
vis Russia. Their fear is that they recklessly cross Russia’s ultimate
red lines – thereby, forcing the Kremlin to respond
in ways that could bring the two powers to a direct confrontation. They
see signs that some of the extreme hardliners are pressing for such
radical measures in the waning days of an administration that offers the
best/last occasion to execute their drastic
strategy of winning a game of ‘chicken’ with the Kremlin. Be alert for
such an October surprise is the watchword.
-
· The talk from Moscow about the dangers of nuclear war is meant
to sober decision-makers in Washington by spelling out exactly what the
apocalyptic outcome might be. Kremlin leaders are distressed that a
large slice of the American foreign policy elite
seems to have unlearned all the wisdom about nuclear matters acquired
over the past 75 years. However, there has been no remarkable change in
Russian nuclear doctrine. Its version of the SIOP (Strategic Integrated
Operational Plan) always has encompassed a
wide range of scenarios. Kremlin leaders are trying to strengthen
deterrence through messaging – advertising and dramatizing symbolic
measures. They are fully conscious of the inherent logical dilemma in
nuclear strategy.
-
· Russian strategists have long recognized that the operational
doctrine and disposition of forces that makes for the most credible
deterrence is the one you'd least want to have in place in the event of
actual hostilities - whether by accident, miscalculation
or escalation dynamic. Tripwires, launch on warning, etc. The logical
way to reconcile the two is to broadcast the idea that one has put in
place some mutual suicide arrangement - but don't actually do it. The
Kremlin is pretty much following that path. Medvedev
especially - and Putin in more muted tones - talks about the extreme
risks of the West doing anything that threatens Russia's integrity.
Cataclysmic nuclear war might well result. Yet, there is no evidence, or
reason to believe, that there has been any consequential
change in Russian doctrine, operational plans or force structure.
-
· Putin, and his advisers, have the impression of an America
whose collective psyche has become fragile – and whose polity is in a
precarious state. That makes it unstable, unpredictable and liable to
extreme reaction to external events and internal
strains. Hence, he feels an imperative need to do whatever is in his
power to prevent a total breakdown – with carries catastrophic
consequences for everyone. This is quite the opposite of alleged plans
to sow discord among American political elites, to severely
weaken the country, and thereby to enhance Russian influence in some
postulated power political contest. That is the exact opposite of how he
views a desired state of relations between the two countries. Russia,
he believes, has an interest in a stable United
States – one that plays a positive role in maintaining international
order, to the degree circumstances permit. That requires, though,
Washington’s abandonment of its hegemonic ambitions, a recognition of
multiple nodes of global intercourse, and the sophisticated
diplomacy need to establish and maintain such arrangements as that
conception implies. The one clear path for constructive engagement
grounded on these principles is dialogue. Unfortunately, Washington
refuses to engage in even the most basic forms of communication.
So, Putin patiently waits for Godot.
-
· All indications, as seen from Moscow, are that the U.S. is
moving in the diametrically opposite direction. So, in partnership with
China, Russia is accelerating their project of constructing an
alternative set of international institutions and collaborative
venture under the BRIC’s umbrella.
-
· These perceptions and concerns about America are shared by
President XI. The two have exchanged thoughts on how to manage this
delicate balance between resisting Washington’s bellicose demands and
avoiding raising tensions to a combustible level.
-
· American society is viewed as in parlous condition – indeed, its
governmental institutions are corrupted, its civic culture degraded, its
leadership erratic and increasingly disengaged from reality. Yet, the
American political class is oblivious to what
the rest of the world is aghast at.