When former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in September 2017 to be the next U.S. ambassador to Russia, relations between the two Cold War rivals were on thin ice. A month earlier, the Trump administration ordered Moscow to close three diplomatic facilities in the United States in retaliation for Moscow’s substantial cut to U.S. embassy staff on Russian soil. That move, in turn, was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response to a comprehensive U.S. sanctions bill against the Kremlin passed by Congress to punish Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The tit-for-tat between Washington and Moscow reminded old Russia hands of Cold War-era tactics, when expelling diplomats and curtailing the activities of one another’s embassy staff were quick ways to register displeasure. Huntsman couldn’t have picked a more turbulent time to become America’s man in Moscow.
The atmosphere hasn’t gotten any better during his nearly two years as ambassador. Huntsman, who also served as ambassador to China during the Obama administration, resigns his post with a heavy heart and a realization that the U.S.-Russia relationship is in a rough state. He acknowledged as much in his letter of resignation, describing his tenure as an “historically difficult period in bilateral relations.”
Huntsman, however, always understood that he had a unique role as ambassador to not only defend U.S. interests in the Russian Federation, but to take advantage of every opportunity to promote dialogue between Washington and Moscow. The U.S.-Russia relationship was too important to write off despite the intense politics back home that rewarded lawmakers for being tough on the Russians. At a time when diplomatic offices were being closed, diplomats were being sent packing, and a larger raft of punitive bills were being considered by Congress and the Russian Duma, Huntsman had to do his best to keep lines of communication open. The communication may not have resulted in many agreements, but at least Americans and Russians were talking to each other rather than past each other.
As Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump have learned, dealing with the Russians is no piece of cake. Every single president since the end of the Cold War has come into office hoping to establish a new relationship with Moscow. Every president, by and large, has failed.
Clinton’s relatively easygoing partnership with Boris Yeltsin suffered a beating as Moscow became increasingly exacerbated with U.S. military operations in Iraq, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Bush’s kinship with Putin evaporated after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and slammed shut after the Russian invasion of Georgia. Obama’s reset button imploded as soon as Putin returned to the Kremlin. Trump has been unable to fulfill his desire for more constructive relations due to a number of factors: domestic politics, divergent interests, Russian malfeasance in the American political system, and systemic mistrust to name a few.
As the Carnegie Endowment’s Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky capture perfectly in their latest paper, the last 30 years of U.S.-Russia relations have been a predictable roller coaster. “A period of optimism follows,” the two scholars write, “but obstacles to better relations emerge, and optimism gradually gives way to pessimism.” Huntsman, despite his diplomatic experience, wasn’t able to break this cycle.
Just because a turnaround in relations is difficult, however, doesn’t mean the United States shouldn’t try. Indeed, Washington has both a responsibility and an urgency to keep the U.S.-Russia relationship from going off the rails. For two countries that possess over 12,000 nuclear weapons between them (90% of the world’s total), a long-term dialogue is an absolutely essential component of maintaining a degree of strategic stability, decreasing misunderstanding and miscalculation, and exploring openings for effective cooperation on shared national security interests such as counterterrorism and nuclear restraint. It would be the height of irresponsibility to not pursue such diplomacy. It would be extremely naive to assume Russia, as economically weak as it is, can be ignored in perpetuity.
None of this is to suggest Moscow has been a model citizen of the international community. It most certainly hasn’t, whether it includes violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or attempting to assassinate a former spy on British soil with a highly lethal chemical weapon, Russia has engaged in a number of troubling behaviors that warrant censure.
Yet in international politics, a country rarely gets to choose who it does business with. Russia, by virtue of its place in the world, is one of those countries whether we like it or not.
As the next U.S. ambassador prepares to travel to the embassy in Moscow, he or she would be wise to review Jon Huntsman’s departing words: “While much of what divides us is irreconcilable, there are common interests we cannot ignore.” It’s time for Washington and Moscow to leave politics at the door and begin doing the business of statecraft again.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
