The undeniable benefits of the US-Russia summit

Russian President Putin and US President Trump chat on the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Vietnam. Photo: Reuters

President Trump and President Putin appear set to hold a summit in July. It would be their third face-to-face meeting, although the two leaders have made statements about how positive their working relationship is and how they often speak by phone.

The domestic political climate in the United States over Russia is particularly tense. The White House is at odds with the Justice Department’s “Russia investigation” team led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who has reportedly sought to question President Trump. At the same time, momentum is building ahead of the midterm elections in November, with leaders from both parties warning of the dangers of further “Russian interference.”

In Russia, there is skepticism about any Trump-Putin meeting. Scholars and commentators have raised doubts about whether Trump can bring anything of substance to Moscow. The prevailing mood is that the US president remains a hostage to Washington’s anti-Russian establishment and that any deal with him could be rejected by the US Congress or even his own administration.

What should be on the minds of both presidents, however, is the dire state of US-Russia relations, and its consequences for the interests of both countries and global security.

Not since the end of the Cold War, and perhaps since the early 1980s, have Moscow and Washington come so close to direct military confrontation, as a result of increased deployments, exercises, and operations by air, naval, and ground forces from the Baltic region to the Middle East. In some cases, Russian and NATO forces have come close to entering hostile relations, and escalation has been avoided by a hair’s breadth.

Both Russia and the United States are planning to invest billions of dollars in modernizing their nuclear arsenals, which, while positive from the standpoint of safety and reliability, creates the impression of a new “arms race,” as the two presidents confirmed in a phone call in March. A particularly worrying new aspect of the nuclear threat is the possibility that cyberattacks by states or non-state actors could prompt one of the two sides to raise its nuclear alert level, thereby triggering a corresponding response from the other side, potentially triggering a dangerous cycle of escalation.

The upcoming Trump-Putin meeting is unlikely to resolve the fundamental issues between Washington and Moscow. Neither leader will or should make unilateral concessions on issues they consider crucial to their national security. But it could pave the way toward stabilizing the relationship, which in the current climate would be a major success in itself.

A simple but decisive step toward such de-escalation might be for the two presidents to reiterate the shared view of Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev from the 1986 Reykjavik summit that “a nuclear war cannot be won, so it should never be fought.” In fact, 32 years ago, American and Soviet leaders discussed the possibility of jointly eliminating nuclear weapons, a goal that Presidents Obama and Medvedev endorsed in 2009.

Historic meeting between US President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. Photo: Internet

However, with the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty effectively dead due to alleged violations by both sides, and the New START treaty limiting overall strategic nuclear arsenals under pressure, an optimistic long-term goal like zero nuclear weapons is hardly on the agenda for Moscow or Washington. Instead, both sides must now confront the immediate negative consequences of the discontinuation of bilateral US-Russian arms control for global nuclear nonproliferation.

This is especially true after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, and given the real possibility that Iran is determined to develop weapons, this will set off massive nuclear explosions across the Middle East. If the upcoming 2020 Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is not to be the last straw for the half-century-old nuclear non-proliferation regime, Presidents Trump and Putin will have to offer some hope that Washington and Moscow are taking their respective responsibilities for reduction and disarmament under the treaty seriously.

The wars in Syria and Ukraine have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions across the Middle East, Europe, and beyond. Washington and Moscow each control the resources and levers of influence needed to manage and ultimately resolve these conflicts. While officials have sought to negotiate small steps, such as implementing the Minsk agreements in Ukraine and getting Syria talks back on track, political will remains lacking, and a meeting between the US and Russian presidents is by far the best opportunity for each side to signal its commitment to the process.

Finally, after years of sanctions and counter-sanctions, policies of mutual isolation have eroded relations between the American and Russian people to unacceptable levels that do not serve the interests of either side. Basic consulates and embassies have been severely constrained by diplomatic expulsions from both sides, and by the closure of American and Russian diplomatic facilities.

As a result, tourism, trade, and scientific, cultural, and educational exchanges have all declined sharply for the first time in 50 years since the General Agreement on Exchanges was signed at the height of the Cold War in 1958. Even as sanctions remain in place, the two presidents should send a clear signal that contacts between diplomats, lawmakers, businesspeople, academics, and civil society groups are the foundation for peaceful, productive relations, and are therefore especially important when official relations are strained.

The 2018 World Cup taking place in Russia attracts a large number of American fans to watch. Photo: Internet

Despite the deep crisis in relations between their countries, Americans and Russians still care about each other. Russians still line up outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, eager to apply for visas to the United States, and Americans are the largest group of foreigners in Russia for the World Cup this month. Making ordinary people pay the price for conflict between governments is simply unfair and shortsighted.

The differences between Moscow and Washington are vast, and the two presidents will not find common ground on many issues. The goal of the meeting should not be for them to iron out these differences or reach a grand bargain. Instead, it should be to send a clear message and create the space needed for the two governments to restart mutually beneficial engagement.

The history of US-Russian relations shows that there is no substitute for personal contacts between the two countries’ leaders. This was true of Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. These historical examples are especially relevant now, as official contacts at lower levels are faltering.

The current conflict is not, and will not become, a new Cold War. But it is worth paying attention to the vital lesson of that conflict, that summit diplomacy is not just about celebrating big victories—it is about creating momentum through the small steps and daily interactions that keep it from heating up.

Phu Binh