Episode 12: Moscow Meddling
Terrell Jermaine Starr on Rightsizing the Russia Challenge
Since the end of World War II, policymakers have puzzled over the proper way to approach Russia. U.S.-Russia relations have arguably deteriorated to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War as a myriad of issues strain the relationship. From election interference to cyberattacks and Russia’s military expansion Westward, is America’s response effective? Or, does the United States need to consider a new approach? This week, Eurasia expert Terrell Jermaine Starr joins us to discuss the future of U.S.-Russia relations. According to Terrell, the U.S. strategy is hobbled by racism, groupthink, neoliberalism, and military primacy. Terrell advocates for a more inclusive strategy that emphasizes diversity of thought and securing domestic institutions at home.
Listen Here: Apple Podcasts | Google Play | Libsyn | Radio Public | Soundcloud | Spotify | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS
Terrell Jermaine Starr is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and Senior Reporter at The Root, where he writes about U.S.-Russia politics and race in America. He is the founder and host of the Black Diplomats podcast.
This podcast episode includes references to the Eurasia Group Foundation, now known as the Institute for Global Affairs.
Archival audio:
New Cambridge Analytica Revelations Connect President Trump Russia Dots | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC (MSNBC, June 7, 2018)
WATCH: Robert Mueller says Russian meddling 'one of the most serious' attacks on U.S. democracy (PBS NewsHour, July 24, 2019)
How Russia used Facebook, Twitter & Google to influence 2016 election (CBS News, November 1, 2017)
Understanding the Political Scenario of INDIA,CANADA,JAPAN,CHINA,USA, FRANCE etc (Amit Sengupta, January 9, 2020)
QAnon received early boost from Russia (Reuters, November 2, 2020)
CNN reporter talks to conspiracy theorists at Trump rally (CNN, August 2, 2018)
Russian election trolls shared bad vaccine info (Newsy, August 23, 2018)
Anti-Vaxx Protesters Disrupt San Jose City Council Meeting On Vaccine Mandate (KPIX CBS SF Bay Area, August 24, 2021)
Who is accused Russian spy Maria Butina? (CBS News, July 25, 2018)
Russia-Ukraine conflict continues since annexation of Crimea in 2014 (TRT World, April 3, 2021)
Ukraine Crisis: Russia Seizes Control of Crimean Peninsula (ABC News, March 3, 2014)
Ukraine 2014 | Russians Seize Crimean Base: 'I'll Shoot You in the Head' | The New York Times (The New York Times, March 24, 2014)
Putin's Russia Celebrates Taking Crimea (ABC News, March 18, 2014)
Transcript:
September 14, 2021
TERRELL JERMAINE STARR: And the reason why people don't appreciate it is because they don't feel it. There are tanks on Ukrainian soil. There are tanks on Georgian soil that are Russian. There are no tanks on American soil. So, does America have that type of threat? No.
MARK HANNAH: Welcome to None of the Above, a podcast from the Eurasia Group Foundation. My name is Mark Hannah.
Russia has posed a challenge to American democracy, but not in the usual forms of conflict, which defined tensions in the previous century. Rather, they have taken aim at American democratic institutions and its social fabric with campaigns of disinformation and cyber warfare.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: Over the years Russia has undoubtedly posed a threat to American interests. But how grandiose is that threat? And are U.S. foreign policy leaders countering them in the most effective ways? To help us understand what kind of threat Russia poses and how the U.S. can better respond, We talked to an expert who has lived and worked in the region now for the better part of a decade.
STARR: First, let's get into the to the cyber attacks. One of the points I want to make clear is that Russia—the Kremlin—does not present the kind of severe security risk many of the talking heads and media say they do. That is very different from saying they don't pose a threat. They pose a geopolitical threat, just not the type I believe people are focusing on.
HANNAH: That's Terrell Jermaine Starr. Terrell is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center and a senior reporter at The Root. He's also the host of the Black Diplomats podcast. Terrell thinks the threat of Russia is overblown in American foreign policy circles. However, he does believe Russia and its President Vladimir Putin challenge American interests, but that we're handling that and all the wrong ways.
STARR: We don't have any common interests, so think about it. The Kremlin orchestrated a massive disinformation campaign and attempted to hack into our electoral infrastructure. America, through all of its faults, has a civil society that forces our imperfect union to become better. Putin wants to be an authoritarian leader for life and preside over a cryptographic mafia state, and he jails and kills opposition politicians and journalists. So, another thing we have to think about is: all the essential things which matter to us are not things that are working in concert with what Putin wants. Ukraine and Georgia want to integrate into the West. The Kremlin doesn't want that to happen. And so, I'm not sure—this reset, and we're trying to rework it again. Putin has never changed. In the decades he has been in office, the man is pretty consistent about how he views the world. The problem with America is not the Russian threat as a security threat. It's more about what America fails to do to protect itself. And so, when you think about the electoral systems, for example, particularly during Trump's campaign, states were encouraged to invest in election security, and a lot of states—mostly run by Republicans—refused to undergo the requisite security steps in order to protect themselves against potential hacking.
And there is an article written in the New York Times in which it’s pointed out that there was a lack of investment in Russian language experts in the State Department for security. Again, it goes back to the idea that we are not investing in intellectual security that helps us to understand our reason. We're not investing in infrastructure, right? Because we're still having this debate. All these domestic debates are going back and forth, which is making us vulnerable. And so, that's what I'm saying.
And two: American democracy is not being threatened by the Kremlin. It’s being threatened by people who say Coronavirus isn't real and that Jesus is going to protect us. And Republicans across the South and other states are making it difficult for people to vote. People don't want to make that parallel, but that's what's really happening here. And so, what the Kremlin does is make the crack bigger.
HANNAH: To Terrell, the essence of Russian disinformation is its ability to graft itself onto the existing tensions and divisions in America's own democracy. It exploits rather than causes the myriad crises we've experienced in the past five years.
Interlude featuring archival audio
HANNAH: So, if we can't find common cause or common interests with Russia, Diplomacy seems off the table. That is why so many people in Washington suggest the best way to influence Russia's behavior is through more muscular means—expanding NATO's eastward. What do you say to those folks?
STARR: When we have this conversation about NATO expansion, for example, and how that can operate in the best interests of America, Georgians and Ukrainians all feel like they are guardians of the West. You constantly hear that phrasing: “We are protecting the West from Russian expansionism.” The reason why there are not tanks in Brussels is because we have sacrificed our lives and our land for Western interests. And what you hear from people is they don't feel like that is being appreciated, and they don't feel like they're being valued.
HANNAH: This battle between Western-style democracy and Russian strongmen is at the heart of modern Ukrainian history. This was made dramatically clear in 2014, when Russia invaded the Crimea region of Ukraine.
Interlude featuring archival audio
STARR: When you think about their wars, there are ongoing wars going on—basically frozen conflicts that are taking place—in Georgia and Ukraine. And so, the Georgians feel like we're doing everything we can—or the Ukrainians feel we're doing everything we can—to adjust and adhere to what it will take to begin the process of European Union membership. The problem is the rules keep changing. Or you're afraid of our conflicts pissing off Russia. And the response I get from people—and this is folks I just talked to in cafes or even political scientists—is that no matter how nice you are to them, they're going to take more and more.
And so, the conversation around NATO is—from a strategic standpoint, I don't know what options America has. You either have to realize Russia does not have your values, and no matter what you do, they're going to respond negatively. Or you have to take a stand. But the problem with that is—and it goes back into sanctions—it goes back to how much Georgia is worth. How much is Georgia worth to you? How much is Ukraine worth to you? And the sentiment you get from the ground here is not a lot. I mean, we spend a whole lot of time talking about these very highbrow conversations between diplomats in Brussels and D.C. and in Moscow, for example. But what you don't hear is this real moral conversation: if someone does something to us, how much do you think we are important to your future? And so, Zelensky, who is constantly pushing Joe Biden on the question of NATO membership, is basically speaking on behalf of a lot of Ukrainians about: how much do you think we are worth? And that's the real question beyond anything.
And so, it is a good idea for America to encourage NATO expansion into these countries because at the end of the day, these are your buffer zones. I hate to say it like that, but it actually is. And it’s precise. What happens when you lose those buffer zones?
HANNAH: For Ukraine and for Georgia, the threat of Russia is really quite massive. It's the central, if not the defining feature of their own foreign policy. But for the United States, despite suffering these intrusions on its democracy, the threat doesn't feel as present or, obviously, as drastic. So, Terrell, why is that?
STARR: There are tanks on Ukrainian soil. There are tanks on Georgian soil that are Russian. There are no tanks on American soil. And the reason why people don't appreciate it is because they don't feel it. For example, I'm here in Georgia. If I drive—let's say—three hours north, I'm in South Ossetia. It's not that far. And Gori in 2008—Russians bombed it. That's an hour away. So, does America have that type of threat? No.
HANNAH: At the end of the day, you're for NATO expansion, but at the same time, you're a critic of American military overreach. Do you see a contradiction there? And could this be another case like Afghanistan, where we pour resources into a cause which is ultimately fruitless?
STARR: I think there's a difference between providing security that a country willingly asks for—in the case of Ukraine and Georgia—a country who actively seeks and encourages military cooperation, versus America entering regions that, quite frankly, they don't understand, regions that don't exactly welcome us, cultures that, after decades of military occupation, we don't get. Georgians and Ukrainians want to be integrated into the West. That's not the same in the case of the Middle East. That's not the same in the case of especially Afghanistan.
HANNAH: That makes sense. Putin has a history of using puppet regimes to expand his influence. I'm thinking of Ukraine's foreign president, Viktor Yanukovych. But does he actually stand a chance—as some in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are worrying—of using the Taliban in the same way, of turning them into tools of his influence against NATO and the West more broadly?
STARR: Well, here's the thing, if we— Direct question: would the Taliban potentially be a puppet regime for Putin? Well, my reaction to that is to look at the history. I don't think the Taliban has any interest in anybody reigning over them, and they've shown that with force and violence. They've defeated two of the greatest militaries this world has ever seen. So, I don't think there's going to be an easy transition for Moscow to fill a void, for example, as a lot of people think. And again, based on my understanding of Afghan history and Afghan culture, I don't see that.
HANNAH: So, you're essentially saying that concerns over a power vacuum in Afghanistan are overblown. I mean, I'm sure Russia's Putin and China's President Xi are happy, at least for a propaganda victory.
STARR: But I think that's the biggest win they're going to get, because historically, the Taliban has not shown any interest in anybody controlling them. They're a puppet for nobody. That's just a fact. So, the answer your question? Yes, it's overblown—the idea that America is not there, therefore, someone else is going to come in. What we have to do is have a sober approach to this. What is going to be the next step for America? Again, we need to invest in our State Department. We need to invest in civil society in Afghanistan. When you think about Ronald Reagan—and listen, I am not a fan of Ronald Reagan at all—one of the things his administration was very effective in when it came to the then-Soviet Union was they were very good at supporting the opposition, whether it be in Poland or elsewhere. They were very good with that. A lot of people would say, “Oh, that work actually single-handedly led to the fall of the USSR.” I'm not going to go that far. What I will say is I think that would have been a better approach than spending all these years with our military. But we have this very colonial construct in how America applies its foreign policy. And it's really not foreign policy; it’s defense.
HANNAH: I want to end with this: you've started this really interesting podcast called Black Diplomats. Can you tell us about that project? What inspired it, and what sort of ideas do you want to put forward that aren't being heard right now within most of the mainstream discussions of U.S. foreign policy?
STARR: Black Diplomats was created to challenge neo-liberal colonial frameworks in how we talk about foreign policy. And what it empowers me to do is have conversations with people, who are not predominantly white males, about the world we want, because foreign policy is not a science so much as: what is your vision for the world? It is your mandate. It is akin to urban planning but from an international standpoint. You decide who becomes a country. Where do people go? Where their borders? And much of how we view the world is how we want our homeland to be. So, we are creating a world in which the world reflects where we live, because where we live is safe. And we assume that if China, Russia, Georgia, Australia, or wherever is like our home, it will be safe. The problem is that the men, the white men who determine safety, come from the Upper East Side. They come from the Georgetowns, the Harvards and Yales. They come from a history and legacy of discrimination that allowed them to enter circles which many people were not welcomed to and were excluded from. And so, they are creating a false sense of home, and you see that in the ways in which the world is carved up.
With Black Diplomats, we talk about that. I talk with my guests who are military vets, who used to work in the State Department, who are journalists, who are Iranians, who are people who discuss what it means to not only defund the police, but to defund the military or to defund the nuclear weapons apparatus. What does it mean to form our values in this non-white colonial framework? Because as far as I am concerned, we need to create a framework by which we don't lead with our guns. We don't lead with violence. And it's a personal story for me because I grew up in Detroit, where I was surrounded by violence. I understand it, and I understand what it means for my grandmother to move up to Detroit and be segregated in a certain part of the city. I know what it means to be the only black person in a room full of experts, and when you name their school, they name all these elite institutions. I'm the one—I'm not only the black person; I'm the black person who went to the HBCU, the historically black college. And so, even our educational journeys are shaped by HBCU, where for the first hundred years or so, after slavery ended—those are the only institutions where we can go versus the other elite schools that wouldn't admit us. That legacy moves forward in the way we think about the world. There are historical parallels and frameworks that I leave with every conversation.
But what I'm doing now, though, is moving on from an interview framework to doing more explainer-type of things, including Afghanistan, where I talk about how neo-liberalism ruins our approach to Afghanistan, how colonialism is not working. So, what I am doing is decolonizing the conversation around foreign policy.
HANNAH: I can't wait to hear more. Terrell, thanks so much for coming on. You can find his podcast at blackdiplomats.net, as well as anywhere else you find podcasts.
I'm Mark Hannah, and this has been another episode of None of the Above, a podcast from the Eurasia Group Foundation. I want to give a special thanks to our None of the Above team who make all of this possible. Thanks to our producer Caroline Gray, and to our associate producer and editor Luke Taylor. Music and mixing was done by Zubin Hensler, and EGF’s research assistants are Lucas Robinson and Alec Evans. If you enjoyed what you've heard, subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or anywhere else you find podcasts. Rate and review us, and if there's a topic you want us to cover, send us an email at info@noneoftheabovepodcast.org. Thanks for joining. Stay safe out there, and catch you next time.
(END.)
