I was a recent participant in the Dartmouth Conference, one of the few remaining Track 2 — that is, non-governmental — dialogues between the U.S. and Russia. Its results may be especially interesting in the wake of the recent victory of President-elect Donald Trump and for those paying close attention to the difficult relations between our two countries.

The oldest dialogue of its kind, the Conference has for 56 years enabled senior American and Russian citizens to seek mutual solutions to our shared political and geostrategic challenges. The three-day symposium I attended in late October was the 146th meeting under the Conference’s auspices.

One of a series of events on the Middle East, the meeting convened 10 bipartisan Americans and 10 Russians, included former ambassadors and diplomats, academicians, and business people, all with a wide range of experiences involving the overall U.S.-Russian relationship and the Middle East. While the main focus was on Syria, the overall Middle East, and Afghanistan, we also talked about greater global challenges facing the U.S.and Russia.

The discussions were frank and direct, with many disagreements. It was troubling, though not unexpected, to see how imperfectly these well-informed participants understood each other’s world views, priorities, and vital interests. The perception chasm between us was wide.

If this had been a transactional meeting of only a few hours, the chances of progress would have been slim. From my experience as a military diplomat, such meetings — especially between officials meeting each other for the first time and tied to official talking points — rarely produce much open dialogue.

But over the three days of our conference, during which we shared time and meals, discussions eventually turned toward the kind of frank problem-solving that can only transpire over a sustained period of contact. We ultimately hammered out several modest recommendations, a rare occurrence in the tense relations between our nations.

The recommendations looked for both major parties to find mutually acceptable “contact points” to explore working together, especially in the humanitarian realm in Syria. While not perfect, they are at least a starting point. From this, if there is progress, any nascent cooperation could possibly deepen into other sectors.

Several major strategic points became evident during these discussions and articulated by delegation heads in the final meeting.

First, neither the U.S. nor Russia has a vital, existential-threat-level interest in the complicated situation in or around Syria. Second, an accident or incident involving our militaries in or around Syria could inadvertently escalate into a dangerous existential threat risk involving our two nuclear-tipped countries. Third, sectarian allies and proxies including Iran and Saudi Arabia, will attempt to involve the U.S. and Russia in pursuit of their own parochial regional interests, without regard for overall strategic U.S and Russian interests. Finally, the group agreed on the need for continued support of the difficult mission to ensure a stable Afghanistan.

The findings and recommendations of the group were presented to senior officials in the U.S. State Department and counterparts in Moscow.

This example of sustained U.S.-Russia dialogue should be readopted – across key political and defense entities of both nations – by U.S. and Russian policy-makers as the new Trump administration comes into office. Such a sustained relationship-building, problem-solving approach coupling direct, frank dialog to actions, could reduce serious misperceptions and the high level of paralyzing distrust between our nations that has become so dangerous during these volatile times.

Peter Zwack, a retired Army brigadier general, writes from the Institute for National Strategic Studies within the National Defense University. From 2012 to 2014, he served as the United States’ senior defense official and attaché to Russia. He has traveled extensively throughout Eastern Siberia

Originally Published: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/11/breaking-down-us-russian-distrust-time-talk-and-meals/133430

In 1937, the Third Reich’s expeditionary Condor Legion obliterated the Spanish town of Guernica. This cynical proxy bombing, immortalized in Picasso’s iconic painting, was an early death knell of the League of Nations, and came to symbolize the violent rending of the post-WWI international order. Today, nations must act so that Aleppo does not become a Guernica for our own age.

The Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-regime rebels in Syria’s second-largest city goes far beyond any reasonable military action. This isn’t about the merits of the various rebel groups, or even ISIS, but about the hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians trapped in the bombardment and crossfire.

Many, including myself, watched with concern Russia’s sharp-elbowed but controlled intervention a year ago on behalf of Assad’s Syrian regime. But Moscow has since behaved like a stressed gambler, doubling down by targeting Aleppo’s civilians, hospitals, and aid workers. This is not the measured use of “little green men” that characterized Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, but is rather akin to its brutal military bulldozing of Chechen Grozny in 2000.

Time is not on Russia’s side. The longer she is embroiled as a combatant in Syria, the more she is vulnerably exposed inside that fractious land — and also within a broader Sunni constellation that includes a significant proportion of Russia’s own population. As we have learned so painfully, bad things happen to foreign militaries entangled in Middle Eastern civil and sectarian wars. Perhaps that explains why Russia and the Syrian regime, with their Iranian and Hezbollah proxies, have pulled out all stops to obliterate the rebel resistance.

Judging from the positive reception that President Vladimir Putin received at the recent G20 summit in China, Russia appeared to be working out of its post-Crimea isolation. But that looks to have been temporary. A fleeting opportunity is being missed: Russia might have targeted ISIS in Syria, complementing the offensive launched by Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS-held Mosul in neighboring Iraq. Or it might have accepted several UN-backed cease-fire proposals. Instead, it pressed a ruthless, lawless effort to force a decision in Aleppo.

There is a sense that Moscow has lost control of its own narrative. It is certainly losing its best chance to be a credible part of any lasting, globally-supported solution in Syria. Without such, it will be stuck, expensively alone with its proxies, in a seemingly endless civil war. Increasingly a pariah state, Russia may become committed to a future of economic and political isolation as the price for a higher-profile international standing built upon military excesses in Crimea, eastern Ukraine, and Syria. If so, Moscow may become even more reactionary and aggressive, feeling it has little to lose.

Already, its military, improved but stretched, is increasingly a policy tool of choice. As this is written, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and its well-armed escorts are cruising in a highly publicized sortie toward the eastern Mediterranean. The flotilla will likely slip under Russia’s reinforced A2AD (anti-access, area denial) air-defense network in Syria and add its aerial and missile arsenal to the bombardment just days before the U.S. election. This follows the consecutive and likely coordinated deployments of S-300 air-defense missiles to Syria and the SS-26 Iskander short-range ballistic missile to Baltic Kaliningrad.

Will the largely loyal, but sanctions-strained Russian population, back this recklessly defiant course indefinitely? Only time will tell.

This is a crucial juncture for the international community, just as the 1930s were for the League of Nations. Global allies and partners must firmly hold the line against a revisionist Russia. Hard measures, mostly economic and political, must be added to dissuade Russia from further aggressive behavior. But at the same time, efforts must be redoubled to reestablish essential U.S.and Russian communications conduits between our nuclear-tipped militaries to ensure that operational leaders on both sides aren’t trying to contact each for the first time during a cyber-fast-breaking accident or incident. Credible political and military de-escalatory “off-ramps” will be critical over this increasingly tense period.

As one who came to appreciate the hardy Russian people and their distinct culture over three decades of interaction, I had hoped, and still do, that Russia, faced with firm boundaries and patient diplomacy, can find a way back to the international mainstream of law-abiding nations. Until then, Russia will reap what it sows.

Originally Published: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/10/aleppo-echoes-guernica-and-global-threat/132558/