Monica Toft Speaking at the Fletcher-MGIMO Conference

By Anna P. Ronell

Because U.S.-Russian relations may be at an all-time low since the end of the Cold War, it is especially important now to continue dialogue between the two countries through all available channels. To quote Fletcher professor Daniel Drezner, “Last fall, the common consensus was that the state of the bilateral relationship was at its lowest point since the Cold War. That was before the Trump administration ratcheted up diplomatic and economic sanctions, pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and slapped new tariffs on Russian steel. It’s safe to say that things have gotten worse.” More than ever before, keeping channels of communication open should be a priority for the Fletcher community.

The MGIMO-Fletcher partnership is one such crucial channel for dialogue. Set up by two premier educational institutions whose strengths lie in the field of international relations, their scholars are able to address those subjects not usually available for discussion at the official level. As tensions between Russia and the United States kept rising and disagreements proliferated across multiple issues, the MGIMO-Fletcher partnership initiated a series of conferences, the first held in November 2017, to provide an opportunity to examine both the depth and scope of disagreements between Moscow and Washington. Welcoming participants to the conference, Georgy Borisenko, representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, called for maintaining direct personal contacts, fostering an atmosphere of mutual trust, and attempting to overcome the present problematic situation that is not conducive to solving urgent problems of mutual interest.

The second conference, which took place in Moscow on May 24, 2018, addressed areas of shared interests, possibilities for cooperation and de-escalation, and pathways for productive debate. While the topics for discussion ranged from nuclear non-proliferation to economic challenges and competing interpretations of international law, the panel on Counterterrorism and Non-State Threats was of particular interest to the Center for Strategic Studies. The panel focused on several critical questions: How similar are Russian and U.S. approaches to combating terrorism? Does ISIS still pose a significant threat to international security? How strong are the military deconfliction arrangements between Russia and the United States against the backdrop of increased tensions around Syria? What are the two sides’ approaches to Afghanistan? Can radical Jihadism rise in other regions in the foreseeable future?

Professor Monica Toft addressed the multitude of complexities inherent in the Syrian civil war, such as class divisions, the history of ethnic and religious tensions, economic problems, and religious differences. It is an extraordinarily complicated conflict, but ISIS remains the common enemy of both Russia and the United States. Much data pertaining to the Syrian civil war are unreliable; for example, the range of casualties varies immensely with more than 150,000 people missing and presumed dead or whose deaths remain undocumented.

The key area of disagreement between the United States and Russia in the conflict in Syria is whether or not to keep Assad in power. Due to the fact that the civil war in Syria is overlaid by a religious conflict, it may last longer than other civil wars and be even more deadly to civilians. Toft emphasized that Islam should be reinterpreted to prevent it from becoming further instrumentalized and entrenched as religious wars acquire a particular intensity and are harder end through negotiation. Professor Toft pointed out that regimes undergoing democratization are more prone to religious civil wars.

Professor Irina Zvyagelskaya, in contrast, argued that counter-terrorism has ceased to be a unifying issue in the Middle East. Furthermore, with the diminishment of ISIS, it is not entirely clear what should come next in the fight against terrorism. According to Zvyagelskaya, in the context of a complex, multi-faceted civil war such as we have now in Syria, it is becoming progressively harder to label groups as terrorist, as terrorist methods are not confined to any specific group. In civil wars, and specifically in the Syrian conflict, groups labeled “rebels” are using the same repugnant methods as the “terrorists.” Not all factions are members of the opposition, and not all factions need to be supported through the peace process. There are many grey zones and all actors need to be particularly careful with labels, especially that of “terrorists.” For example, it is hard to say whether Hezbollah is a state actor or a non-state actor. On the one hand, it can be seen as a terrorist group and a proxy of Iran; on the other hand, it participated in the elections in Lebanon and won parliamentary seats. Professor Zvyagelskaya concluded with the pessimistic observation that despite the military defeat of ISIS, the situation is not better and international terrorism has not ceased. In fact, all parties, including the United States and Russia, are doomed to continue fighting it together.

Professor Ivan Safranchuk offered an overview of the Jihadist movement, pointing out its persistent role in regional conflicts over the last 40 years. The worldwide Jihadist movement has a core of about 15,000–20,000 professional fighters who shift geographically. In every conflict, about half of the professional core gets killed. From where do they re-emerge? Recruitment into the Jihadist movement happens from all the conflicts ongoing in the vast Muslim territories. 50,000–60,000 people can be recruited from each local conflict into major wars. They share money, ideas, and sponsors who may be officially or unofficially supporting the movement. Professor Safranchuk argued that we have not been able to defeat them, as they adapt to the experience of defeat in one place by shifting their presence to another conflict. The United States and Russia should work together, but the two countries do not agree on what to do in relation to the Jihadist movement between one conflict and the next.

The conference addressed a wide variety of critical issues in U.S.-Russia relations and brainstormed possible areas of cooperation. The discussion was engaging and open-minded, covering a plethora of opinions from American and Russian scholars. It did not provide many answers but the questions were valuable in helping the participants understand each other’s points of view.