By David Wemer
When nineteen-year-old American swimmer Lilly King emerged from the pool after winning the women's 100-meter backstroke at the Rio Olympics, she became not only a gold-medalist, but also a heroine for the anti-steroid movement. Her victory over Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, came amid King's outspoken criticism of the accused doper and a much publicized "finger wag" the previous night. In an attempt to highlight the rivalry, interviewer Michele Tafoya asked King after the swim if she had made a statement "on behalf of the United States." The question was curious, as the American track record on doping makes it an unlikely standard bearer for the anti-steroid crusade. Regardless, Tafoya and the American media were eager to present King's personal victory as a geopolitical one.
The King-Efimova sports rivalry provided a telling metaphor for the growing tensions between the United States and Russia, born out of conflicts over Edward Snowden, Ukraine, Syria, and the hacking of email servers. A quarter century after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we now find ourselves in what Professor Steve Cohen calls a "New Cold War," filled with mutual incriminations, symbolic insults, and shows of military force. The post-Cold war opportunity to forge a more equal and peaceful international system has been squandered as the United States is once again embroiled in proxy conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and now in cyberspace.
Americans may wish to place the blame squarely on Russia's President Vladimir Putin, whose undemocratic regime is portrayed as an impossible partner. But the United States today cooperates with leaders far worse than Putin, and if the United States desires to address challenges such as terrorism, drug trafficking, North Korea, Iran, China, cyber-security, climate change, nuclear security, or Middle East peace, then it needs to make concrete efforts to work with the Russian government and avoid senseless escalation.
Unfortunately, that escalation has already begun. Legitimate American concerns over Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea did not lead to serious attempts at diplomatic resolution, but instead brought on aggressive comments by NATO officials and symbolic troop deployments in Eastern Europe. Economic sanctions targeting Russian leaders and businesses were met with retaliatory Russian actions against Western-sponsored non-governmental organizations.
The tensions spilled over into Syria, where despite similar interests, the Russian and American militaries launched separate combat missions with little to no coordination, risking potentially dangerous encounters. Other valuable cooperation projects, such as nuclear security and educational programs, have also suffered as tensions have worsened.
Recently, attention has been focused on the leak of internal Democratic Party emails by Wikileaks, allegedly obtained from Russian hackers with links to the Kremlin. Although intelligence and law enforcement officials are still uncertain about whether Russian officials actually provided the hacked information to Wikileaks, the Hillary Clinton campaign has used the incident as an excuse to further criticize her opponent Donald Trump for his soft stance on Russia and to even accuse him of being a puppet of the Kremlin. Disregarding the fact that the United States, not Russia, is the world's cyber-hacking leader in terms of volume and technological prowess, Secretary Clinton has portrayed the hack as an inexcusable affront and now has fully embraced anti-Russian rhetoric as a cornerstone of her campaign's foreign policy.
The Democrats, once the party of the Russian "reset," are now arguing that Mr. Trump's openness to working with President Putin disqualifies him from the Presidency, while fellow Republican leaders are distancing themselves from their nominee's comments. Indeed, it is a telling sign that out of all the dangerous rhetoric in Mr. Trump's foreign policy platform, it is his moderation towards Russia that is getting disproportionate attention.
The United States must recognize that a new era of eternal conflict with Russia will only make global challenges harder to solve and instability more difficult to manage. Although Russia does not enjoy nearly the same power as the Soviet Union once did, it is still an essential player in the United Nations Security Council, a potential partner in the global war on terror, and has the world's largest nuclear stockpile. Make no mistake: Russia's actions in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria, and cyberspace are worthy of condemnation and opposition, but they must not be used as an excuse to sever ties, especially when engagement has the potential to provide significant benefits.
Russian-American cooperation is vital to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, to reach a global understanding on climate change, to combat the rise of international terrorism, and to manage conflicts from the Middle East to North Korea. The Obama administration has demonstrated in it relations with Iran and Cuba that it is willing to limitedly engage with illiberal and historically antagonistic regimes without sacrificing core American values and interests. Indeed, Secretary of State John Kerry's recent cooperation with the Russians to reach a ceasefire in Syria, despite its unfortunate failure, should be lauded and serve as a model for future cooperation.
But with Democrats now content to portray themselves as enemies of Putin and non-Trump Republicans eager to differentiate themselves from the GOP nominee's pro-Russian rhetoric, this level of engagement appears unlikely to appear in the years to come. Unless both sides can temper their language and commit to preserving long-term engagement, eternal competition and tension between the United States and Russia may no longer be a relic of the past, but rather a dangerous status quo.
David Wemer received an MA in European Union Politics from the London School of Economics and is the Washington D.C. Program Coordinator for the Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College. David is also a Europe Fellow at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.