Moscow’s attempts to interfere with the presidential election is clear evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin poses a direct threat to the United States. Despite the U.S. military advantage, Russia has demonstrated the ability to use espionage, diplomacy and military force to undermine our security.
While most observers believe that the challenge of countering Russia and navigating the complicated relationship with Putin will fall to the next president, the legislative branch will have a major role to play as well. The 115th Congress has an opportunity to address this threat by focusing time and resources on legislation and oversight to safeguard U.S. interests and influence abroad, demonstrating real leadership to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role in foreign policy.
While Congress is not institutionally structured to manage daily crises in Syria or Ukraine, the legislative branch does have a track record of making constructive contributions to foreign policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, for instance, Congress led efforts to secure nuclear weapons in the newly independent countries of the former USSR, authorized economic assistance to the people of these countries, and established exchange programs to achieve dialogue between Americans and their former adversaries. During the Cold War, Congress also successfully pressed to end military interventions in Southeast Asia and Central America and provided leadership on human rights issues. Americans remember the excesses of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.), but Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) may have had more impact on history by working behind the scenes for Senate approval of forming the United Nations and NATO and funding the Marshall Plan.
Putin and his government are firmly in power and are unlikely to change their attitude toward the United States any time soon. Responding to Moscow and managing this important relationship will require patience and a long-term approach. The incoming Congress should actively help the next president defend and promote U.S. interests in the face of increasingly assertive Russian diplomacy.
To start, Congress must ensure that America’s future leaders within and outside government possess the deep understanding of Russia required to cope with its newfound assertiveness. For more than 20 years, the Title VIII program, administered by the State Department, provided funding for American scholars to undertake research and language training related to Russia and its neighbors and built a cadre of American intellectuals with the requisite knowledge to inform U.S. policy toward these countries. Title VIII was heavily defunded in 2013, and the number of American scholars and experts having the opportunity to pursue Russia-related research and language training has steadily decreased as a result. This is an investment in American intellectual capital, and Congress should fully restore its funding.
Along with increased funding for the Title VIII program, lawmakers should make sure to facilitate the approval of presidential nominees. Given current tensions with Russia, it is critical that we have capable senior leadership in place during the presidential transition to address the challenges posed by the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent any breaks in leadership that Russia could exploit. Senators might expedite approval of all nominees for positions dealing with Russia and its neighbors and should avoid placing holds on Russia-related nominations.
Congress should also work to counter Russia’s informational warfare. Putin’s government has almost completely suppressed independent voices in Russian media and has engaged in an effective international media campaign domestically and internationally. The Counter-Disinformation bill introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is an important first step toward bolstering U.S. ability to offer alternative sources of information by centralizing and focusing government efforts to provide facts to counter destabilizing narratives spread by Moscow. A further step might be the creation of a special Senate subcommittee for the upcoming session that would study the long-neglected area of U.S. broadcasting and issue a report with legislative recommendations.
Lawmakers should also promote person-to-person diplomacy. When official U.S.-Russia contact shrinks, alternative channels of communication become more important, as they did during the Cold War. The Russian government has shut down certain student and scholar exchange programs, while others have withered as a result of our budget cuts. Congress should reinforce existing programs and work to reinstate programs that have been eliminated. Members can do their part too, making a greater effort to meet with counterparts and officials from Russia’s neighborhood, which will inform their own ability to make informed decisions.
Finally, on the military front, Congress must upgrade our cyberdefenses and prepare for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis. Russia’s cyberwarfare capability is well-known and should be taken seriously. In light of the evidence that election networks were compromised in Arizona and Illinois, Congress should investigate and legislate ways to protect the integrity of our electoral process. Moreover, the possibility that Russia may suddenly escalate its military involvement in Ukraine cannot be discounted. Presidential foreign policy is always strongest when it’s backed by demonstrable congressional support and preparing a joint response to possible Russian escalation in Ukraine could become an important test case for foreign policy collaboration between the two branches.
Given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, flirting with direct military conflict would open a Pandora’s box of unthinkable outcomes. As war powers and treaty-approval powers have drifted away from Congress, sanctions have become a powerful tool. Lawmakers may be tempted to use that tool in response to provocations by Russia. But they should be careful in using them. Sanctions can have serious and unforeseen consequences and Congress should consider their use very judiciously lest they further escalate a situation.
Russia must be dealt with as a longer-term challenge in a firm and measured way. Members of Congress should make investments to enhance our national capacity to deal with the ongoing challenge from Moscow. They also can invest personally in terms of their own knowledge, firsthand experience, and relationships to maintain and develop their important role in U.S.-Russia relations.
Jason Bruder is currently a George F. Kennan Fellow at the Kennan Institute and was formerly senior staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
While most observers believe that the challenge of countering Russia and navigating the complicated relationship with Putin will fall to the next president, the legislative branch will have a major role to play as well. The 115th Congress has an opportunity to address this threat by focusing time and resources on legislation and oversight to safeguard U.S. interests and influence abroad, demonstrating real leadership to fulfill its constitutionally mandated role in foreign policy.
While Congress is not institutionally structured to manage daily crises in Syria or Ukraine, the legislative branch does have a track record of making constructive contributions to foreign policy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, for instance, Congress led efforts to secure nuclear weapons in the newly independent countries of the former USSR, authorized economic assistance to the people of these countries, and established exchange programs to achieve dialogue between Americans and their former adversaries. During the Cold War, Congress also successfully pressed to end military interventions in Southeast Asia and Central America and provided leadership on human rights issues. Americans remember the excesses of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.), but Sen. Arthur Vandenberg (R-Mich.) may have had more impact on history by working behind the scenes for Senate approval of forming the United Nations and NATO and funding the Marshall Plan.
Putin and his government are firmly in power and are unlikely to change their attitude toward the United States any time soon. Responding to Moscow and managing this important relationship will require patience and a long-term approach. The incoming Congress should actively help the next president defend and promote U.S. interests in the face of increasingly assertive Russian diplomacy.
To start, Congress must ensure that America’s future leaders within and outside government possess the deep understanding of Russia required to cope with its newfound assertiveness. For more than 20 years, the Title VIII program, administered by the State Department, provided funding for American scholars to undertake research and language training related to Russia and its neighbors and built a cadre of American intellectuals with the requisite knowledge to inform U.S. policy toward these countries. Title VIII was heavily defunded in 2013, and the number of American scholars and experts having the opportunity to pursue Russia-related research and language training has steadily decreased as a result. This is an investment in American intellectual capital, and Congress should fully restore its funding.
Along with increased funding for the Title VIII program, lawmakers should make sure to facilitate the approval of presidential nominees. Given current tensions with Russia, it is critical that we have capable senior leadership in place during the presidential transition to address the challenges posed by the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent any breaks in leadership that Russia could exploit. Senators might expedite approval of all nominees for positions dealing with Russia and its neighbors and should avoid placing holds on Russia-related nominations.
Congress should also work to counter Russia’s informational warfare. Putin’s government has almost completely suppressed independent voices in Russian media and has engaged in an effective international media campaign domestically and internationally. The Counter-Disinformation bill introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is an important first step toward bolstering U.S. ability to offer alternative sources of information by centralizing and focusing government efforts to provide facts to counter destabilizing narratives spread by Moscow. A further step might be the creation of a special Senate subcommittee for the upcoming session that would study the long-neglected area of U.S. broadcasting and issue a report with legislative recommendations.
Lawmakers should also promote person-to-person diplomacy. When official U.S.-Russia contact shrinks, alternative channels of communication become more important, as they did during the Cold War. The Russian government has shut down certain student and scholar exchange programs, while others have withered as a result of our budget cuts. Congress should reinforce existing programs and work to reinstate programs that have been eliminated. Members can do their part too, making a greater effort to meet with counterparts and officials from Russia’s neighborhood, which will inform their own ability to make informed decisions.
Finally, on the military front, Congress must upgrade our cyberdefenses and prepare for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis. Russia’s cyberwarfare capability is well-known and should be taken seriously. In light of the evidence that election networks were compromised in Arizona and Illinois, Congress should investigate and legislate ways to protect the integrity of our electoral process. Moreover, the possibility that Russia may suddenly escalate its military involvement in Ukraine cannot be discounted. Presidential foreign policy is always strongest when it’s backed by demonstrable congressional support and preparing a joint response to possible Russian escalation in Ukraine could become an important test case for foreign policy collaboration between the two branches.
Given Russia’s nuclear arsenal, flirting with direct military conflict would open a Pandora’s box of unthinkable outcomes. As war powers and treaty-approval powers have drifted away from Congress, sanctions have become a powerful tool. Lawmakers may be tempted to use that tool in response to provocations by Russia. But they should be careful in using them. Sanctions can have serious and unforeseen consequences and Congress should consider their use very judiciously lest they further escalate a situation.
Russia must be dealt with as a longer-term challenge in a firm and measured way. Members of Congress should make investments to enhance our national capacity to deal with the ongoing challenge from Moscow. They also can invest personally in terms of their own knowledge, firsthand experience, and relationships to maintain and develop their important role in U.S.-Russia relations.
Jason Bruder is currently a George F. Kennan Fellow at the Kennan Institute and was formerly senior staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
