Back to the Future: CNAS CEO Ambassador Victoria Nuland on “The Evolving Russia Challenge”

In the midst of another week of headlines trumpeting ever-increasing tensions between the United States and Russia, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy welcomed former U.S. Ambassador Victoria Nuland, now CEO of the Center for a New American Security in Washington, D.C., for a lecture on the evolving Russia challenge.

Ambassador Nuland has been on the front lines of the U.S.–Russia relationship for decades. As a young diplomat, she was among the Americans caught in the Russian parliament during the Soviet coup attempt of August 1991; later in her career, she served in key positions in the White House and State Department, including U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs.

The timing of her career maps onto what Ambassador Nuland calls the three phases of the U.S.–Russia relationship from the end of the Cold War to the present. First, from the late Gorbachev years into Vladimir Putin’s first term, was the “field of dreams.” Things grew more tense in 2003, which inaugurated about a decade of a “porcupine partnership.” Finally, from Putin’s return to power and into the present day, the relationship has reached a “back to the future” return to geo-strategy and ideological competition.

“The 1990s were a very, very hopeful time,” Nuland said. Many in the U.S. and Europe hoped that Putin would continue Russia’s democratization and have a bit more success in managing the enormous new country. Meanwhile, Putin hoped that he might be treated as a co-equal with the NATO powers.

However, Nuland continued, “this hopeful period was not long-lasting, for a number of reasons.” Among the most important, according to her, was that “Putin turned out to be a man of Soviet experience and perception, who favored top-down control and a transactional style.”

That style, Nuland argued, has reshaped Russian politics, the U.S.–Russia relationship, and the geo-strategic balance between Russia and NATO. Russia, itself, is now going through a process of state capture, in which Putin has worked tirelessly to shore up his own power. The bilateral relationship has deteriorated toward a level of dysfunctionality not seen in decades and the strategic context is beginning to resemble the competition of previous years.

The question, then, as Professor Daniel Drezner put it in conversation with Nuland, is whether there might be any opportunities for unofficial diplomacy under the ice of the official relationship. Nuland demurred, “One of the consequences of Putin’s consolidation of power has been a serious closing of intellectual space.” As a result, she does not see much room at the moment for exchanges and cooperation between schools, NGOs, or think tanks.

Luckily, some opportunities still exist, such as the budding partnership between the Russia and Eurasia Program at Fletcher and MGIMO, the diplomatic university in Moscow. The program recently brought about a dozen Fletcher students to Moscow during spring break and has rejuvenated Fletcher’s academic and public work on Russia—including Ambassador Nuland’s lecture.

As the U.S.–Russia relationship continues to move “back to the future,” with limited space for official and unofficial collaboration, efforts to understand the evolving challenges are all the more important. In closing, Ambassador Nuland acknowledged the shift from post–9/11 studies focused on non-state actors back to interstate geo-strategy—and challenged Fletcher students to address these re-emerging challenges.

“Guess what: Russian studies are back,” she said. “And the problems aren’t getting any easier. So study hard!”

This piece was republished from Fletcher Features.