Russian Thaw Key to Countering China’s Rise

President Donald Trump discussed “mutual cooperation in defeating ISIS”  with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a phone call Saturday, according to an official readout from the White House. That the pair discussed working together to defeat the scourge of terrorism garnered little news coverage — but indicates a potentially significant realignment of U.S. foreign policy.

In the short term, joining forces with Russia against ISIS would not only bring in another ally against this existential threat, but it would represent the radical change in Middle East policy that Americans on both the Left and the Right have been calling for since 2008.

Despite their growing relationship, Russia and China do not have a historical record of cooperation, and this history may offer Trump an opportunity.

No longer would the United States seek to effect “regime change” and nation-building; instead, the focus would be placed on eliminating radical Islamic terrorism. And the long-term implications could prove far more important. Acting with Russia in Syria could help to curtail a creeping Russian alliance with the Chinese — an alliance born largely of our own actions and which, if fully formed, has the potential to replace U.S. global hegemony.

Since the fabled and failed “reset,” Russia has been increasingly forced into cultivating a relationship with China. Following the Crimean Crisis in 2014, U.S. and E.U. sanctions closed off Western markets, forcing Russia to look to China for economic reasons.

Additionally, Russia now finds itself with American troops on its border — and not under the auspices of mutual cooperation. This hostile posture has proven antithetical to both the long- and short-term interests of the United States. One such example is the desire of the United States to end its dependency on Middle Eastern oil. Russia possesses oil reserves in excess to even Saudi Arabia at some 256 billion barrels. As an oil-rich nation outside the tinderbox of the Middle East, Russia (at least on paper) would appear to be a natural solution to our stated objective. However, the actions of the Obama administration have placed China, not the U.S., into position to end their dependency on Middle Eastern oil. As a result of the Obama sanctions in 2014, the Chinese signed a deal that promises to replace Saudi Arabia with Russia as their primary supplier of oil. This unintended consequence was not only counterproductive both in result and to our national interest, but it also strengthened China at our expense.

[lz_ndn video= 31915327]

Despite their growing relationship, Russia and China do not have a historical record of cooperation, and this history may offer Trump an opportunity. If anything their relationship has traditionally been adversarial — for centuries, Russia has been wary of Chinese power and expansion. As recently as 1969, this escalated into open warfare. According to Bob Savic of the Global Policy Institute, this unease remains. “Possibly the most serious undermining of the China-Russia relationship could come from its very success … there is likely to be mounting concern in Russia of a ‘Chinese takeover’ of the sparsely populated Russian Far East and other regions of Siberia.”

With President Trump being possibly the most outspoken critic of China on the world stage, a stronger relationship with the U.S. at the expense of China may be in the Russian national interest as well. After all, fighting Islamic extremism is not something of concern to the Chinese. Mutual concern is the perfect pretext for beginning a strategic relationship that resolves a common objective in the short term, and begins the diplomatic groundwork for undermining Chinese influence, while denying them a powerful ally.

But what about all the rhetoric surrounding Putin as a “despot” or a “dictator”? These concerns are not entirely unfounded. While Putin is by no means heading an ideal “Western Liberal Democracy,” neither is he Stalin. Russia’s present system of government doesn’t exactly measure up to say, Switzerland — but it is far more free than the brutal Marxism practiced by the Soviets.

[lz_related_box id=”278149″]

While Putin has shown autocratic tendencies from time to time, Stalin murdered of millions of his own people by “diktat” through concentration camps, purges, and forced starvation. Knowing all this we still entered into a formal alliance with Stalin in order to defeat both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. Why? Because our national interest was better served with cooperation. Today, while the threat from ISIS is by no means equivalent to the global threats in play during WWII, it is a vital common national security threat.

Another major point of contention for those who oppose working with Russia is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It is important to note that the continued calls for military action against Assad would mean war on yet another secular Middle Eastern government. We as a nation have been down this path a number of times in the past 15 years — and where is the benefit? Whether it be Libya, Iraq, Egypt or Syria, for the past 15 years we have toppled secular governments across the Middle East.

Each time we have expected democracy to grow in their place, and each time only sectarianism and extremism have risen. The result: a Middle East in total chaos and increasingly populated with failed states. To head down the path of “Regime Change” yet again would be to perpetuate a failed policy. With Putin, President Trump has a clear path down a new foreign policy road that could prove decisive in our fight against terrorism.

If it comes to fruition, a strategic relationship with Russia has not only the opportunity to truly align our foreign policy with our national interest, but to also rapidly eliminate an immediate threat to both the U.S. and Europe. Trump also has the opportunity to turn what has been an adversarial relationship into a strategic partnership.

Jim Webb Jr. served as an enlisted Marine Corps infantryman and lives in Baltimore, Maryland.