The US and Russia: Politics of Spheres of Influence in the 21st Century

Shabaz Hussain Shah
Research Scholar,
Centre for South and Central Asian Studies,
School of Global Relations,
Central University of Punjab, Punjab, India;
and is the corresponding author.
E-mail: shahbaz.shah18@gmail.com

Sudheer Singh Verma
Assistant Professor,
Centre for South and Central Asian Studies,
School of Global Relations,
Central University of Punjab, Punjab, India.
E-mail: sudheersis@gmail.com

Since the beginning of the 21st century, new stakes of conflict emerged between the US and Russia. As the US tried to contain Russia, the latter challenged the US’ hegemony. This became more palpable after Putin’s re-election as President in 2012. Russia under Putin has been continuously trying to contain the US while protecting its sphere of influence and interests like in Ukraine, Syria, and on security issues, and through cyber attack, disinformation and so forth. Consequently, an action reaction paradigm became evident wherein both failed to iron out the differences in the new stakes of conflict. All this ruptured the relationship leading to a situation similar to the Cold War era. Given Trump’s proclivity towards Putin, hopes were raised of revamping the relations. However, Trump’s pro-Russian stance appears to be failing in the wake of realpolitik of anti-Russia policy legacy that downplayed the initiatives. In this context, it bodes well to examine the new stakes of conflict to give a reasonable evaluation of how Russia is sturdily challenging the US despite the latter’s anti-Russian exertions and to perceive the deterioration in their bilateral relations. In addition, the paper attempts to explore why Trump’s pro-Russia gambit looks waning which unhoped the hopes of normalization of relations.

Introduction

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the successive US administrations tried to integrate Russia into the West. The US took advantage of Russia’s weakened state of affairs and reshaped the structure of Europe by enlarging NATO and supporting the expansion of the European Union. However, in the 21st century as the Russian geopolitical profile and strength rekindled, Russia has pushed back against the US influence both at the domestic and international level. While maintaining their respective influence both got involved in hostile actions recreating the conflicting environment since the Cold War days.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the era of disagreements started between Putin’s Russia and the Bush administration.1 Russia criticized the US’ anti-Russian moves, for instance, the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, NATO’s expansion, and the US deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic in March 2007. Russia made attempts to prevent the US efforts to rope in Georgia into NATO. These created tensions in the relations. In spite of these simmering tensions, the Obama administration attempted to reset the relations to remove the precarious ditch. However, it did not last long and again hit a low after Putin’s re-election to presidency in 2012. Putin began to take a tough stance against the US actions. Consequently, Russia annexed the Crimea that forced the western countries led by the US and EU to impose restrictive measures against Russia. From the security perspective, Russia terminated and reduced the cooperation to the lowest ebb from disarmaments to modernizations and ending of nuclear restraint. For instance, Russia boycotted the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit in the US and suspended the Plutonium Disposition Agreement.2 Russia has been trying to build political alliances with the pro-Russian political forces and pro-Russian candidates in the West like in France, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Serbia and tried to extend its influence in the Middle East. It has already moved to improve relations with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s government in Egypt and is sending troops to the country for joint military exercises. There has also been speculation about reopening of military bases in Cuba and Vietnam.3 It has made efforts to deploy military bases bordering NATO with strong future plans. Through its powerful tool of cyberattacking and disinformation, it has been making efforts to discredit the political system of the states particularly the US, to exert its influence.

However, this was not taken lying down by the West, particularly the US which tried to thwart Russian ambitions of achieving its sphere of influence. The US also resorted to retaliatory anti-Russian policies and actions. In the matter of Russian effort to influence Syria, the US came out in the open to support the rebels against the Bashar al-Assad regime and bombed Syrian airbase.4 The US also retaliated with the missile deployment and the installation of antiballistic missiles in Romania, with similar plans of deployment in Poland in 2018.5 Meanwhile, Russia continued to provide support to the rebels in Ukraine, Assad’s regime and came up with future deployment plans near the borders of NATO’s jurisdiction. It has even tried to discredit the American political system and their belief in democracy through cyber attacking and disinformation during the US presidential elections. All this led to the deterioration in the relationship since both the countries failed to overcome the differences on matters like Ukraine, Syria, or Moscow’s interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. This inability to address the pain points relegated the relations to an all-time low and worse than at any point eversince the Cold War.

In last year of President Obama’s term, the US administration took several anti-Russian measures on which there was no retaliation from the Russian side. Possibly because of Russia’s hope of normalization of relations with the incoming Trump administration. However, it did not prove productive as Trump’s pro-Russian stance changed under the pressures of realpolitik of the US anti-Russian policy.6 So, the approach failed to avert the fallback position ostensible to Cold War situation that emerged after the Ukrainian crisis. However, there are hopes for peace building for which both the countries have to show some kind of sanity while coming out of actions and sanctions paradigm. The urge for de-escalation and overcoming anti-bullying must be guaranteed to avoid nuke consequence that awaits in future. No doubt, they cannot begin on a clean slate and overlook all their differences and give them a free pass, but the focus should be on improving relations which are at its historic low currently.

Beginning of the Crisis in Relationship in the Post-Cold War Era

Having fundamentally different policy perspective and divergent interests, both the US and Russia hit on each other’s policy actions. This is because both the countries often tried to maintain their sphere of influence. Russia wants to ascertain power in its sphere of influence and the US wants to contain the Russian expansionist agenda. This got the two states involved in hostile actions and encroachment on their respective sphere of influence. Beginning with the NATO expansion to the Syrian crisis, these created conflicting situations that led the two countries towards a state of undeclared Cold War.

Following the normalization of relations in the first decade of Cold War, the 21st century represents the era of disagreements between the two countries. Putin’s assertive posture and Bush administration’s unilateral foreign policy decisions in the wake of 9/11 attacks resulted in several conflicts.7 In the beginning, Russia criticized the US’ support to the anti-Russian revolutions like the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine 2004. Russia was blaming the US and NATO’s expansion as an undue influence in Russia strategic sphere. As the US deployed the anti-ballistic missile system in two former Warsaw pact members, Poland and the Czech Republic in March 2007, it invoked a strong reaction from Russia and it threatened to increase its defense on Russian borders. It threatened the US with deployment of Iskander short-range missiles at Kaliningrad at the NATO’s footsteps if the US went ahead with its European Ballistic Missile Defense System.8 Later on, when America lobbied for offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia, Russia became more aggressive and began to actively prepare for the invasion of Georgia and prevent its accession to NATO.

Under the Obama administration, in spite of having seething tensions over certain issues and many long-standing disputes, the expression of mutual interest for a fresh start was made. The reset aimed to falsify a bilateral dialog on a pragmatic footing to reverse the dangerous drift between the two countries. So, in order to make a fresh start, the warm tone in relations was attempted at the 2009 G20 summit in London.9 Both the countries took mutual initiatives of establishing the security and trade links and reduce tensions emanating from the Russian invasion of Georgia. Russia got United States approval of moving troops’ supplies across Afghanistan given Pakistan’s routes vulnerability and dreadfulness.10 In Obama’s first Nuclear Security Summit in 2010, both the countries made disarmament initiatives to reduce their nuclear stockpiles resulting in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Bilateral Commission’s Defense Cooperation Working Group was established to strengthen military strategic partnership.11 The support was reiterated to Russia’s accession to WTO in 2011 by Washington and Russia cooperated on imposing sanctions on Iran against its nuclear weapons program.

However, the relationship began to unravel as Putin returned to the presidency in 2012. He was startled by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, the assault on Muammar Gaddafi’s regime and anti-Kremlin demonstrations in 2011. After his return to presidency, Putin began to blame the Obama administration for the said happenings.12 This vitiated the relations and consequently both the countries resorted to nerve-wracking acts that left the reset of relations difficult. Russia threatened to strike on missile defense sites in Eastern Europe. Alarm was created when two Tu-95 bear’s fighters intercepted the air defense zone off the US coast of Alaska in 2012. The US anti-submarine warfare capability was challenged when the Russian Akula-class submarine during the patrolling in Gulf of Mexico evaded the US detection.13 The US also came up with certain anti-Russian measures like imposition of travel and financial restrictions on those who had resorted to human rights violations at home by passing the Magnitsky Act. The Act was intended to be a response to the death of Sergei Magnitsky who had alleged that the Russian state officials and ministers were involved in the large-scale theft of the Russian state through tax evasion and tax fraud. In response, analogous restrictions, widely seen as retaliatory, were imposed by Russia on December 28, 2012, that banned adoption of Russian orphans by the US citizens.14 Russia also provided asylum to Edward Snowden who was on a criminal warrant of the US for damaging the NSA property and information essential to national security.15 This resulted in the cancellation of the meeting between Obama and Putin in 2013. Later on, Russia intervened in the Ukraine which was disliked by the US. The relations were highly strained and at this point the US accused Russia of having violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a prohibited medium-range ground-launched cruise missile. Moreover, it threatened Russia with similar retaliation. These instances with the outright confrontation in the post-Cold War relations particularly after Putin’s re-election to the presidency appear to be desolate given that both the parties are on an out-and-out confrontation on a number of issues. The policies, actions, and strategies against each other have created alarm and plunged the relations into crisis which became severe after the Ukrainian crisis, particularly after the annexation of the Crimea. Many analysts argued that it created a situation similar to the Cold War.

New Stakes of Conflict

The US-Russia relations in the post-Cold War era unfolded in a way that drove both countries to resort to bullying to maintain, exercise and expand their sphere of influence. For the last several years, they have been fighting in different spheres. These include the Ukrainian crisis, security and armament issues, Syrian crisis, cyber warfare and disinformation issues, etc. In these risk factors, the security concerns of both remain on top of the agenda. Even in the Trump era, the relations which were presumed to become cordial remain volatile. More importantly, Russia has been using hard-hitting tactics to challenge the US establishment with vigor.

Ukraine Crisis, the Rekindling of Cold War

Defining the mistrust and tensions, the Ukrainian crisis was a peak point and the worst hit to the US-Russia relations. The problem began with the ousting of the Moscow-backed President, Viktor Yanukovych, from power in 2013, and replaced by Petro Poroshenko who had western backing, and unrecognized by Russia. As Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power, the unrest engulfed the southern and eastern areas of Ukraine.16 Russia accused the US of coup d’état to remove Viktor Yanukovych from power. It feared western encirclement and regime change that would turn Ukraine away from Russia and move towards Europe. So, Russia found itself constrained and consequently intervened militarily in the Ukrainian autonomous region of Crimea on March 18, 2014. The US establishment declared the act as an aggression and illegal by submitting a resolution in the UN Security Council. It hard pressed for sanctions and diplomatic isolation of Russia and even proceeded to suspend Russia’s membership in the G8 political forum.¹⁷ However, Russia was legitimizing its action and began threatening the West with counter sanctions and the suspension of diplomatic engagement.18 Consequently, an eye-for-an-eye situation began to emerge whereby Russia countered every move of the US. As the US government, assisted by other allies, imposed sanctions on Russia’s energy, financial and defense sectors, Russia came up with retaliatory measures. It retaliated by banning imports and entry of certain government officials from the US and the West that imposed sanctions against Russia.19 In spite of the sanctions and diplomatic pressure, it did not stop meddling in Ukraine. Ukrainian pro-Russian separatists received unabated support and supply of arms. In the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, they received a large number of fighters and munitions from Russia. Reports from the Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense confirmed that Russia has been building up its defense along the Ukrainian border in the Rostov region as well. It has increased the number of deployment of troops and artillery, combat and logistical support units and their encampments.20 Despite the continued diplomatic efforts, it has done little to implement the Minsk II provisions.21 No doubt, the gunfire diminished, but Russian supported proxies refuse to respect the ceasefire provisions of Minsk II to de-escalate the conflict. They have become more offensive and may likely destabilize the Kiev and force the West to relax its sanctions on Russia.

From the soft power perspective, Russia is also becoming successful in managing its influence. The Rubble is now being used in Donbas region for all transactions, illegal transfer and selling of commodities. Russia recognizes passports and other documents issued by the self-described ‘People’s Republic of Donetsk’, ‘People’s Republic of Luhansk’ and ‘The Nation of Donbas,’ which never existed before.22 These soft overtures by Russia have been proved to be deeply inimical to the US and Europe.

With the coming in of Trump administration, two narratives became evident. Given his affinity with Putin, things would have become more complicated with Russia negotiating to gain advantage on Ukraine that could have severe consequences for the security in Europe and beyond. The other narrative of realpolitik is that US would not allow high-handedness of Russia as evident from the recent meeting of NATO ministers where the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson has said that the United States will not allow Russia to change the borders of the Ukrainian territory and will continue to support the sanctions on Russia.23 However, both these plots will not work out to bring about solution and reduce the Russian influence given its close proximity to Ukraine. Unless and until the US and Russia work out an acceptable modus vivendi, the Russian aggressiveness in the Ukraine would increase detrimental to the US interests.

Security and Armament Issues

Regarding the security perspective, the restraint posture now seems to be over. The two countries, despite various arms control agreements, now maintain their security and defense capability on hair-trigger alert. Russia keeps the agreements on strategic stability and non-proliferation hostage until its demands are met. A beginning was made with the Russian announcement in 2014 of a boycott of 2016 Nuclear Security Summit in the US.24 In spite of Obama administration’s hope to continue cooperation on nuclear security, Russia disengaged the security cooperation on all aspects and continued to blame the US for failing to live up to its treaty obligations. It skipped the US-sponsored Nuclear Security Summit in April 2016 and suspended the Plutonium Disposition Agreement citing the US aggression and moved nuclear-capable Iskandar missiles to the edge of NATO territory in Europe.25 The instance of Russian suspension of the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement has been stated to be akin to the Cold War confrontations of 1962 Cuban missile crisis.²⁶

While keeping the security agreements on hold, Russia also made advances in conventional, nuclear, cyber, or other capabilities by using a handful of the materials, resources, and technology to modernize its weaponry. In spite of its defense deficiencies, it has revitalized its military capability on land, air, and sea for procuring strong forces.27 For the last several years, Russia launched modernization initiatives with advancements in its nuclear capability, the procurement of ballistic missile submarines, the construction of new ICBMs and naval bases. No doubt, Russia announced the reduction in defense spending by 5% in 2016 following the protracted collapse of oil prices. However, the issues confronting its economy do not significantly pace down its military modernization. Russia supplied the advanced weapons and arms to Iran, China and has come up with more upgraded plans of deployment whenever NATO increases its presence, exercise and training and deployment in the different areas of influence. For instance, when in 2016 Warsaw summit, new multinational battalions were deployed in the Baltic and Poland to deter and defend against the potential Russian aggression, Russia in response announced the plans to add and upgrade the defense deployment in three divisions of that region.28 It even threatened to deploy advanced air-defense systems in Syria and even using of cyber weapons.29 No doubt, the US continues to deploy limited forces in the Baltics, Poland, and Romania but that depends on NATO’s deterrence posture that often comes into question due to poor reflection of NATO’s readiness and determination in contrast to its eastern adversary.30 Given the NATO’s deterrence weakness, Rand Corporation think-tank claims that Russia could defeat NATO in the Baltic States in just 60 hours.31 The NATO has been left behind by Russia in terms of the magnitude and frequency of military exercises. In the NATO-Russia exercise gap, although NATO has stepped up to conduct large exercises, none would come close to match Russia’s largest drills. The Russian snap drills, which are personally ordered by Putin, continue to remain unabated, while the political leadership of NATO alliance still lags behind in giving orders to commanders to conduct snap drills.32 In a recent move, Russia is touting a new military base in the Arctic Circle to develop its strategic capability there. The Arctic is home to trillions of dollars of oil and gas reserves and important new location for the opening of sea lane, as is declared by Putin to be the new Suez Canal.33 Given the above significance, the Arctic would invigorate the US to position itself towards it which has been urged by the US senators for many years. However, the Russian foothold there would not allow the US to dominate in the area. Thus, the above-stated Russian renewed aggressive policy by breaking security cooperation and advancements in military modernization with the mounting defense spending following long-time underinvestment, development of advanced weapons and their deployment and proliferation has raised concerns in the US establishment.

The Syrian Crisis, a Peril of Conflict Escalation

The Syrian war that began in 2011 is the worst and brutal war without any real historical comparisons ever since the Cold War period. In the US-Russia relations, it marks a decisive point that creates a dangerous and unpredictable situation. When the Arab Spring began in 2011 across the Middle East, Putin started to look for allies elsewhere in the region with increased support to Syria. And when the US imposed sanctions against the Syrian government and urged President Bashar al-Assad to step down as he lost legitimacy, Russia provided support and arms to the Syrian government against the wishes of the US and its regional allies. It established the military presence in Syria supported by the regional players like Iran and Turkey.34 It undertook military campaign in Syria on October 20, 2015 that added to the strength of the forces loyal to the Assad regime. It aroused strong reactions from the US, but Russia strongly responded by resilient retaliation in kind if the US went ahead with new sanctions.³⁵

Peace talks regarding the Syrian conflict were held to find a political settlement, but these did not prove to be effective in resolving the conflict.36 On the sidelines of various peace talks on Syria, the bilateral negotiations also did not improve because the US unilaterally broke the bilateral negotiations on October 3, 2016, given the renewed offensive on Aleppo by the Syrian and Russian troops. So, the bilateral relations deteriorated, which were severely affected due to the recent chemical attack on Syria, in retaliation to which the US attacked the Syrian air base at Shayrat with cruise missiles. Russia did not remain silent and declared the attack as aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law. It also responded by sending the warship armed with cruise missiles equivalent to the US Tomahawk missiles that joined the Russian battle group off the coast of Syria.37 Recently, Russia has announced that it will boost Syria’s air defense system, which is a clear signal to the US against any anti-Russian development.38 The recent development of joint agreement by Russia, Turkey, and Iran to create safe zones in the area, encouraged by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for the de-escalation of the tensions, is also worrying the US.39 This is possibly because in the first place the US has not been included, and secondly, the four areas where safe zones would be set up are largely held by anti-Assad forces. This shows that vis-à-vis Syria, Russia has remained in an advantageous position to show the West that despite economic sanctions, it has cards to play against the United States. The inability of the Obama administration and even Trump administration to craft a set policy towards Syria has given Russia such an opportunity to intrude in Syria. If the US had got engaged in the region in a meaningful way to end the Syrian conflict, Russia would have found fewer opportunities. However, following the emergence of the political situation as a result of the absence of meaningful involvement of the US, Russia’s direct engagement has increased the risk of military conflict which would undermine the cooperative efforts on shared concerns like the ISIS threat.

Russia’s Cyber and Disinformation Tactics, Defaming the US Establishment

Since the Cold War times, cyber attacking and information warfare have remained successful in unleashing instability. Russia has long been a powerhouse of cyber attacking and disinformation, and the use of these tactics has remained strong. It has challenged the US over the course of time. Russian intelligence agencies have often fed western media false information in order to divert the attention from Russian affairs. About the death of Martin Luther King, the Soviet intelligence agencies spread the rumor of the US involvement.40 In the 1980s, the AIDS conspiracy theory was propounded whereby American scientists were held responsible for creating AIDS virus during weapon experiments.41 Later on, the Russian intelligence agencies infiltrated into the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic National Committees. Although having less effect on Reagan’s presidential elections, the Russian intelligence agencies discredited him as the corrupt servant of the military-industrial lobby.⁴²

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was asked to abandon such activities that harm the US. While promising to do so, Russia never gave up the activity but continued to embarrass the US administrations. Again in 1996, Russia’s new generation of hackers made a state-directed penetration into US military establishment. In the 21st century, these acts have achieved more intensity about which Fred Kaplan said that Russia has achieved the feat in cyber attacking and disinformation.⁴³

Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, considered the anti-Moscow ‘color revolutions’ in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine and the uprisings of the Arab Spring being supported and endorsed by the West. He considered non-governmental agencies and civil society groups working in Russia to be the active masked agents imposed by the West. He, therefore, tried hard to invest the energies and capital to achieve the political objectives through cyber and information warfare.44 After returning to presidency, Putin blamed the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of orchestrating public unrest in Moscow in 2011.45 Later on, it was reported that the cyber attacks on Georgia in 2008 and cyber theft of files from German Parliamentary Committee in 2015 were carried out allegedly by Russia or with the support of Russia. It also got involved in Crimean crisis and the Syrian brutal air campaign where the facts were distorted and misinterpreted highly in Russian state-run information space.46,47,48 These activities of cyber and information warfare by Russia were extended even to the US by cyber attacking of sensitive parts of the White House computers in 2015 and more importantly the Democratic National Committee’s secret data, materials, information, etc.49 This swayed the US 2016 presidential elections and showed the capability of Russia to control the cyber and information space no matter how secure European and the US networks are. Intelligence agencies are warning about similar Russian cyber attacks in the coming elections in Europe like in the Netherlands, France, Germany and possibly Italy. Recent reports show that Russia’s campaign of cyber espionage and disinformation has targeted at least 39 countries besides the United Nations and NATO. These serious cyber attacks and disinformation activities affecting mostly the European states are a greater challenge to the US establishment.

Russian Meddling in the US Presidential Elections 2016

The 2016 US Presidential election had become a war of words between the US and Russia, in which Russia had allegedly meddled in the elections aimed at securing the victory of Trump over Hillary Clinton. While advancing the Trump cause, the US political system was undermined and discredited. The operation involved hacking Democrats’ e-mails, publicizing the stolen contents through WikiLeaks, and propagation of fake news and pro-Trump messages through manipulating social media networks.50 The allegations were dismissed as false and baseless by Putin, and he accused the US of spending huge amounts of money to influence Russian elections in the past. Obama’s administration had ordered the review of the evidence of Russian meddling and publicly pledged to retaliate if Russia was held responsible (The New York Times, 2016). And, as the US intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, came up with reports of Russian meddling in the elections, the Obama administration imposed sanctions on the nine entities including two Russian intelligence agencies, four individual officers of GRU (Russia’s main Intelligence Agency) and three companies that provided material support to the GRU’s cyber operations. The administration also announced the closure of two Russian compounds in the US and expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the US.51 However, Putin did not take any retaliatory measures and called Obama administration's allegations as baseless, creating problems for it to cultivate its relations at the international level as well as forcing the US to adopt anti-Russia approach. Putin was actually expecting improvement in the relations with the Trump administration.

Trump’s Policy, Hopes Unhoped

The US has changed many grand strategies and approaches over the last two centuries from isolationism to active involvement. After World War II, the US became involved in increasingly internationalist policy. Towards the USSR, after World War II, it got engaged in Cold War politics. Although after the Soviet dissolution, the relations were normalized almost for a decade, the tension again arose with the advent of the 21st century on several issues. The Obama administration made some efforts to reset the relations which had otherwise become more anxious.52 The approach seemed to be different since the time Trump came to power, who actually tried to pursue a policy of going along with Russia. After Trump’s presidential inauguration, his 50-minute telephone conversation and face-to-face conversation with Putin were hailed by both the governments as a significant start to move forward for working together on issues of mutual cooperation.53 After spending some days in office, Trump promised a reset in relations and openly expressed his admiration for Putin. However, the relations deteriorated when the US attacked the Syrian airbase that stationed Russian soldiers. Russia condemned it as an act of aggression and threatened to suspend the hotline.54 All this was in the wake of realpolitik under which Trump’s pro-Russia stratagem appeared waning. The realpolitik of eagerly supporting the anti-Russian policy by both the Democrats and the Republicans constrained the efforts of Trump who later changed his pro-Russian stance and declared a newfangled reliance on NATO.55 Recently, Trump also signed the Russia sanctions bill about which he stated that he has been tied down by the Congress on signing the bill. This aroused strong reactions from the Russian side when Putin announced that the US has to shed 755 US diplomats from its embassy and consulates in Russia.56 So, if Trump’s approach fails, the US would be subjected to multiple retaliatory attacks which will not allow the relations to normalize. Russia should, therefore, be a top priority for the Trump administration. It should not only assess the aggressive side of Russia but also has to persuade Moscow to cooperate where cooperation is needed on things like preventing the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), stability in Syria, etc. This is largely because Moscow cannot simply be defeated or contained in the emerging multipolar world order.

Conclusion

There occurred a shift in the US-Russia relations in the 21st century. Although ideologically dwindling, the relationship has anxious moments, since both do not shy away from exercising, expanding and regulating their sphere of influence. Today, the situation has reached an unpredictable point. In the beginning of the 21st century and even after the Georgian crisis till Putin’s return to the presidency, though the relationship became apprehensive it did not plunge into crisis. It was only with Putin’s re-election to the presidency in 2012 that new stakes of conflict emerged. Both the countries resort to bullying and Russia’s tit-for-tat for every US action brings it on to a verge of conflict. In its aggressive policy on Ukraine, on security, armament and defense questions, the Syrian crisis, and the US presidential elections, etc., it constantly challenged the US dominance. All this severely brought the relations to the fallback situation, though not as encompassing as Cold War, and made cooperation on vital issues impossible.

With Trump coming to power, hopes were raised of normalization of relations. However, the narratives of the realpolitik have distorted Trump’s policy of going along with Russia.57 This emanates from the US policy of treating Russia as the biggest threat to their dominance eagerly supported by both the Democrats and Republicans. However, the other narrative of going along with Russia which Trump failed to mobilize would not also have worked out as it would have given a negotiated advantage to Russia’s expansion designs. So, the US policy of having anti-Russian legacy and complete pro-Russia stance will not work out for political stabilization. This is because on the one hand, in the emerging multipolar globalized world order, the US cannot meet the global challenges in isolation. And on the other hand, Russia is the only power after the US having great military might and historical legacy of anti-US policy and military confrontation challenging the US hegemony with the aspirations of changing the global order. The Trump administration has to engage with Russia through a strategy of balancing cooperation and competition to avoid large conflicts and create a favorable and balanced international political environment in which all countries can cooperate and compete fairly.

• J Mankoff (2009), Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics, Vol. 295, No. 10, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
• B Mariana, S Saradzhyan and W H Tobey (2017), “25 Years of Nuclear Security Cooperation by the US, Russia and the Other Newly Independent States: A Timeline”, Russia Matters, June 16, available at Russiamatters.org. Retrieved from https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/25-years-nuclear-security-cooperat ion-us-russia-and-other-newly-independent-states
• R Oliphant (2016), “Russia and the West have Entered a New Cold War”, The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news /2016 /10/22/unyielding-russia-and-us-heading-for-a-new-cold-war/
• A Yuhas, N Khomami, J Grierson, and C Phipps (2017), “US Says Russia Bears Responsibility for Assad’s Gas Attack – As It Happened”, The Guardian.
• R Emmott (2017), “US Activates Romanian Missile Defense Site, Angering Russia”, Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idUSK CN0Y30JX
• M Petrou (2016), “Trump’s Reversal on NATO: Too Little, Too Late”, Open Canada. Retrieved from https://www.opencanada.org/features/trumps-reversal-nato-too-little -too-late/
• Mankoff (2009), op.cit.
• M Laruelle (2014), Russian Nationalism, Foreign Policy and Identity Debates in Putin’s Russia: New Ideological Patterns After the Orange Revolution, Vol. 108, Columbia University Press.
• M Aristova (2013), “US-Russia Relations of Reset: Results and Perspectives”, Research Institute of European and American Studies.
• A E Stent (2015), The Limits of Partnership: US-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton University Press.
• S Charap (2013), “Beyond the Russian Reset”, The National Interest, Vol. 126, pp. 39-48.
• C P Isajiw (2016), “Neo-Nationalism in the Foreign Policy of the Putin/Medvedev Regime”, E-International Relations Studies. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/ 2016/06/22/neo-nationalism-in-the-foreign-policy-of-the-putinmedvedev-regime/
• J Smith and A Twardowskirdowski (2017), “The Future of US-Russia Relations”, cnas.org. Retrieved from https://www.cnas.org/publications/ reports/the-future-of-u-s-russia-relations
• K A Williams (2012), Imagining Russia: Making Feminist Sense of American Nationalism in US-Russian Relations, SUNY Press.
• M Gordon (2014), “US Says Russia Tested Cruise Missile, Violating Treaty”, The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/world/europe/us-says-russia-tested-cruise-missile-in-violation-of-treaty.html
• R Allison (2014), “Russian Deniable Intervention in Ukraine: How and Why Russia Broke the Rules”, International Affairs, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 1255-1297.
• F Hill (2017), “Understanding and Deterring Russia: US Policies and Strategies”, Brookings Institution, Brookings. Retrieved on June 16, from https://www.brookings.edu/ testimonies /understanding-and-deterring-russia-u-s-policies-and-strategies/
• A Tancredi (2014), “The Russian Annexation of the Crimea: Questions Relating to the Use of Force”, Questions Int Law, Vol. 1, pp. 5-34.
• Nelson (2017), “U.S. Sanctions and Russia’s Economy”, CRS Report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43895.pdf
• G Adam (2017), “Evaluating the Success of Russian Hybrid Warfare in Ukraine”, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Mississippi.
• S Ifer (2017), “Minsk II at Two Years”, Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/ blog /order-from-chaos/2017/02/15/minsk-ii-at-two-years/
• O Dorell (2017), “‘U.S. Supports Ukraine’ Against Russia, Trump Tells Foreign Minister”, USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/05/11/russian-actions-donbas-ukraine-foreign-minister/101550540/
• C Laura Smith-Spark (2017), “Tillerson: US to Maintain Ukraine-Related Sanctions on Russia Until Crimea is Returned”, CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/ 2017/03/31/politics/rex-tillerson-russia-ukraine/index.html
• M Klimentyev (2017), “Russia Told U.S. It will Not Attend 2016 Nuclear Security Summit”, Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-security-usa-russia-idUSKBN0IP24 K20141105
• A Kramer (2016), “Vladimir Putin Exits Nuclear Security Pact, Citing ‘Hostile Actions’ by US”, The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/world/europe/russia-plutonium-nuclear-treaty.html
• D Dolzikova (2017), “Who Killed the US-Russia Plutonium Agreement, and Does It Really Matter?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from http://the bulletin. org /who-killed-us-russia-plutonium-agreement-and-does-it-really-matter10221
• M Hanlon (2017), Beyond NATO: A New Security Architecture for Eastern Europe, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
• R Sokolsky (2017), “The New NATO-Russia Military Balance: Implications for European Security”, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from http://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/13/new-nato-russia-military-balance-implicat ions-for-european-security-pub-68222
• E Geranmayeh and K Liik (2016), “The New Power Couple: Russia and Iran in the Middle East”, European Council on Foreign Relations, available at http://www. ecfr. Eu/publications/ summary/iran_and_russia_middle_east_power_couple_7113.
• The Guardian (2016), “The US to Speed Up the Deployment of Troops to Poland, Romania, and the Baltic”. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/us-deployment-poland-romania-baltic
• J Smith and A Twardowski (2017), “The Future of US-Russia Relations”, Center for a new American Security, 11.
• Russia Targets NATO with Military Exercises (2015), Stratfor.com. Retrieved from https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-targets-nato-military-exercises
• Griffin (2017), “New ‘Cold’ War? Russia Touts Arctic Military Base, as the US Struggles to Catch Up”, Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017 /04/28/new-cold-war-russia-touts-arctic-military-base-as-us-struggles-to-catch-up.html
• C Phillips (2016), The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East, Yale University Press.
• N MacFarquhar (2015), “Thank You, Assad Tells Putin in Moscow”, The Hindu. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/thank-you-assad-tells-putin-in-moscow/article7791093.ece
• T Studies (2017), “Vienna Peace Process: Opportunities and Challenges for Syrian Opposition”, Alaraby. Retrieved from https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english /comment/ 2015/11/26 /vienna-peace-process-opportunities-and-challenges-for-syrian-opposition
• Alce Luhn (2017), “Russia Sends Warship to Battlegroup Off Syrian Coast”, The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/08/russia-sends-warship-syrian-coast
• Batchelor (2017), “Russia Plans to Bolster Syrian Air Defences, and Derides US over ‘Extremely low’ Effectiveness of Bombing”. Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-missile-strike-russia-syria-air-defences-bolster-donald-trump-putin-low-extremely-low-effective-a7671921.html
• Daily Mail (2017), “Russia, Turkey, Iran Sign Deal to Set Up Syria Safe Zones”. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4474884/Russia-Turkey-Iran-sign-deal-set-Syria-safe-zones.html
• D Cavanaugh (2017), “Russia Tried to Use Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Assassination to Start a Race War”, Medium. Retrieved, from https://medium.com/war-is-boring/russia-tried-to-use-martin-luther-king-jr-s-assassination-to-start-a-race-war-9eeab04f1b82
• A Cantwell (2003), “The Man-Made Origin of AIDS: Are Human and Viral Experiments Responsible for Unleashing the HIV Holocaust”. Rense.com. Retrieved from http://www.rense.com/general45/cant.htm
• J Feiman, N Markos, J Katzenstein et al. (2017), “Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War”, The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war
• Ibid.
• B MacDonald (2017), “Trump, Putin & New Cold War: What the New Yorker Gets Wrong”, RT International. Retrieved on June 17, 2017, from https://www.rt.com/op-edge/378921-trump-putin-new-yorker-cold-war/
• A Osborn (2011), “Vladimir Putin Accuses Hillary Clinton of Inciting Protests”, The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8942456/Vladimir-Putin-accuses-Hillary-Clinton-of-inciting-protests.html
• M Connell and S Vogler (2016), “Russia’s Approach to Cyber Warfare”, No. DOP-2016-U-014231-Final, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia, United States.
• B Mathias (2016), “Was Russia Behind 2015’s Cyber-Attack on the German Parliament?” | DW | 02.02.2016. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/was-russia-behind-2015s-cyber-attack-on-the-german-parliament/a-19017553
• N Bertrand (2016), “‘A Pretty Big Deal’: Russia’s Air Campaign in Syria is About to Get Much Deadlier”, Business Insider. Retrieved on August 1, 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.in/A-pretty-big-deal-Russias-air-campaign-in-Syria-is-about-to-get-much-deadlier/articleshow/53728963.cms
• E Parez and S Prokupecz (2011), ”How Russians Hacked the White House”. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/how-russians-hacked-the-Wh/index.html
• C Library (2017), “2016 Presidential Campaign Hacking Fast Facts”, CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html
• “Fact Sheet: Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment” (2016), available at whitehouse.gov. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/fact-sheet-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity-and
• S Shah and Z Zhu (2017), “Trump’s Russia Policy Constrained by Realpolitik – Analysis”, Eurasia Review. Retrieved from http://www.eurasiareview.com/08092017-trumps-russia-policy-constrained-by-realpolitik-analysis/
• R Oliphant and D Millward (2017), “Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin Ready to Hold Summit Following the Historic Phone Call”, The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-hold-historic-telephone-call/
• E Harrison (2017), “Russia, US and Military Intervention in Syria: What Next After Missile Strikes?”, The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/08/russia-us-what-next-after-missile-strikes-donald-trump-assad
• J Borger and A Luhn (2017), “Donald Trump Says US Relations with Russia ‘May Be at All-Time Low’”, The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/12/us-russia-relations-tillerson-moscow-press-conference
• N Bierman (2017), “Trump Quietly Signs Russia Sanctions Bill”, Los Angeles Times, Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-quietly-signs-russia-sanctions-1501685899-htmlstory.html
• Shah and Zhu (2017), op. cit.