How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Russian Interference and Fear the Bomb

By: Krishna Gall

Across the United States cities are shuttered and communities ravaged by the devastation of COVID-19. The American people have been confronted with a grim new reality, that the population is vulnerable, the future is uncertain, and the inconceivable can happen. This public health crisis serves as a stark reminder that low probability catastrophic events indeed happen and, as a nation, we have to be prepared for the next one. Yet for all of the popular discourse surrounding global pandemic, climate change, and artificial intelligence, the threat of nuclear annihilation remains the most immediate threat to our human existence and receives the least attention.  

Since President Trump’s misguided decision to step away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (“INF”), the American population lives blissfully ignorant under a proverbial thermonuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by a single fraying thread. Even without the added uncertainty of the coronavirus pandemic, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a group founded in 1945 by scientists at the University of Chicago, set the 2020 Doomsday Clock as “100 seconds to midnight,” the closest mark to extinction since the height of the Cold War. Among their catalogue of risks to human survival, the group specifically identified poor relations between the United States and Russia as a paramount threat. 

The troubled state of affairs between the United States and Russia is historically complex and multifaceted, but American policy is largely a function of the country’s intractable skepticism of their old Cold War foe. The specter of the Soviet Union, a belligerent nation whose nuclear arsenal compelled a generation of Americans to “duck and cover” under their grade school desks, looms large when many evaluate the threat posed by today’s Russian Federation. Although tensions cooled in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, anti-Russian sentiment spiked in recent years following the election of President Donald Trump and evidence of Russian election interference. Without regard to the long-term consequences of inflaming tensions with Russia, establishment Democrats, and like-minded media outlets, weaponized hostility towards Russia in an attempt to kneecap their political opponents. 

While Russia-bashing proved effective against Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections, during the Democratic primary election, Democrats successfully tarred Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard with the same pernicious Russian interference fiction. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to suggest Congresswoman Gabbard was being groomed by the Russians: "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate." Congresswoman Gabbard, a military veteran who served in Iraq, has since dropped out of the race and endorsed Vice President Biden. Senator Sanders too became a target, when leaks from closed door intelligence briefings on Capitol Hill suggested Russian intelligence was supporting his presidential bid. 

Unfortunately, the use of Russian interference as a political bludgeon significantly altered American public opinion. An NBC News poll demonstrated the extent to which Americans are fearful of Russia, with 27% of respondents ranking Russia as the “number one immediate threat” to the United States, ahead of ISIS, North Korea, and China. As recently as 2012, President Obama mocked presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for even considering Russia to be the greatest threat to the country, saying: “the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back.” It is clear, our current political climate makes the argument for détente with Russia unpalatable, as Democrats have already built the Russians up to be America’s chief geopolitical rival. 

To address this security crisis, elected officials from both political parties must rise above this Russia interference hysteria and act in humanity’s strategic interest. The legal troubles of Trump associates Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone are not adequate justification for blocking diplomatic overtures to Russia. Currently, any dissenting public opinion on the topic of U.S.-Russia relations is frequently met with a reflexive accusation of sympathy for President Vladimir Putin. Without irony, the attitude towards Trump and Russia from the American Left is reminiscent of the far-right fringe groups of the 1950s. In particular, the legacy of the John Birch Society, a right-wing anti-communist group whose members believed President Eisenhower was an agent of the Soviet Union, lives on today.   

President Trump should ignore the media protests and champion a common-sense approach to relations with Russia. Resisting hawks in his own administration, notably Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and ousted National Security Adviser John Bolton, the president should promote nuclear disarmament, reviving the INF treaty and ending wars in Afghanistan and Syria, as his top priorities for 2020. Additionally, after decades of misguided interventions and encroachment on Russia’s border, the NATO alliance must be adapted to meet the challenges of terrorism and mass migration, rather than preserving the late Ambassador George Kennan’s Cold War strategy of containment. With common ground on issues ranging from militants in Syria to China’s rise in Asia, cooperation with Russia is in the interest of American national security and will reduce the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust.

Krishna Gall is a first year MIA concentrating in International Finance and Economic Policy.