Rising Powers Review Russia’s Performance at Home and Helsinki

Policy Alert #170 | July 19, 2018

Eyes were trained on Russia for the last month as the country hosted the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but the spotlight followed Russian President Vladimir Putin to Helsinki as he met with US President Donald Trump in the pair’s first official bilateral summit. Many analysts were apprehensive about the tournament given Russia’s strained relations with many Cup-qualifying countries, and expectations for the Helsinki Summit were mixed given the ongoing investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, the suspicious nerve-agent poisoning of Russian double spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter, and two unrelated civilians in the United Kingdom, and ongoing disagreements about Crimea and Syria. In this RPI Policy Alert, the Rising Powers offer their reviews of Russia’s performance as host to the World Cup and negotiator in Norway.

 

RUSSIA

During a press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his American counterpart’s participation: “We had good conversation with President Trump. I hope that we start to understand each other better. I’m grateful to Donald for it. Clearly, there are some challenges left — we were not able to clear all the backlog. But I think that we made the first important step in this direction.” In a later interview with Russia’s Channel One TV, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his pleasant surprise at the summit’s usefulness: “I had no expectations as it was our first substantive meeting. Initially it was seen as a kind of warming-up to speak in more specific terms during our future contacts. […] But things went the other way–the conversation was really very substantive.” President Putin continued to deny “Russia’s mythical interference into US elections” following calls for Trump to cancel the meeting by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers due to fresh indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers as part of the ongoing investigation into Russian manipulation of the 2016 US presidential election.

During a press conference at the summit, which followed the conclusion of the World Cup, Putin gave Trump an official 2018 World Cup soccer ball saying, “Mr. President, I give this ball to you, and now the ball is in your court.” The statement appeared to be a thinly veiled double innuendo, given that Putin paused the discussion of the two country’s policies regarding Syria and that the US will be hosting the 2026 tournament.

• Coverage of the meeting by state-owned Sputnik News tended to spotlight US academics and analysts responses to the meeting that were marginally more positive than most found in the US media, such as Retired US Army Major Todd Pierce, Denis Rancourt, and Nicolai N. Petro. One article representative of the bunch began with the preface “Members in of US Congress in league with the mainstream media have tried to portray President Donald Trump’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin as a treasonous scandal in order to disrupt cooperation between the United States and Russia, analysts told Sputnik,” even though quotes from the interviewees were significantly less sensational. Following Trump’s “walk back” on his comments at the summit regarding alleged Russian meddling in the US election, Sputnik interviewed Peter Kuznick, Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, who said that the move “is ultimately going to be a setback in US-Russia relations.”
• In an interview with stated-owned TASS, Valery Garbuzov, Director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Science, was confident that the meeting had been fruitful: “Issues discussed included Ukraine, Syria and sanctions, and the parties made the most progress in paving the way for cooperation in resolving the Syria issue. […] Judging from the statements Putin made at the final press conference, there are plans to take joint steps to provide assistance to refugees.” However, Garbuzov warned that, “Significant forces in the US political elite, first and foremost the Democrats, were against the meeting. This may torpedo the hope that normal people place on this initial meeting.”
• TASS reported on the glowing results from surveys of foreign tourists by the “Young Guard of Russia” youth wing of the United Russia party regarding their experience in Russia. Anna Rogacheva, a spokesperson for the group, reported to journalists at a press conference that “73% of those surveyed said that they would like to visit Russia again.” According to the Young Guard of Russia survey, while 64% of newcomers have had negative stereotypes about Russia, “88% ended up disagreeing with the stereotypes.
• Nationalist Pravda Report meanwhile appeared to defend the deployment of Russian warships to international waters around Finland, explaining that “The Putin-Trump Summit in Helsinki was held under the protection of the Northern Fleet of Russia.” Unnamed officials from Russia’s General Office reportedly told Pravda that such deployments were a “normal and well established practice.”
• Dmitry Sudakov, a staff writer for Pravda Report, hailed the World Cup as a success: “The majority of foreigners […] were thrilled with what they saw and experienced in the country. They were thrilled to see [a] Russia that was so much different from what their media was making them to [sic] believe.” Sudakov lamented that “the number of European visitors was unexpectedly low,” and blamed “the media” for having “zombified” British and French fans into staying home. Pravda Report also reported that despite the 883 billion rubles price tag of preparing for the World Cup, Russia’s net earnings topped 184 billion rubles, or approximately 2.9 billion US dollars.
• Political scientist Akelsei Mukhin explained in an interview with Pravda Report that the gain of having changed so many foreign guests’ views of Russia outweighed the staggering cost of hosting the Cup: “The presentation of Russia in foreign media has been utterly negative recently. A distorted image of Russia was created – an evil and corrupt country. However, many foreign tourists who come to Russia for the games are stunned with what they can see here. This enormous exposure that the World Cup brings will play into our hands, because it will be harder for foreign media to lie about Russia afterwards.”
• Sputnik News trumpeted foreign guests’ positive perceptions of Russia counter to negative “propaganda” by “Western media.” One article reviewed former UK soccer player Ian Wright’s interview with Russian sports channel Match TV in which Wright said, “There was a massive propaganda campaign. People believed it would be hard here for those with a different skin color, as well as homosexuals. Russia was said to be lingering in the dark ages. However, when I came here, I saw nothing of that kind.” In an interview with Sputnik, editor-in-chief of German news magazine ZUERST, predicted that visitors would change their countrymen’s perception of Russia upon returning home: “I’m convinced that the vast majority of the international football fans coming to Russia come back and they’ll spread the news about a country with great hospitality, with great people, and with a very harmonic way of conducting the World championship. That is, of course, at the same time [rejecting] the mainstream media and also in some part, mainstream politics’ criticism of Russia.”

CHINA

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said that China welcomed the meeting between the leaders of Russia and the US in Helsinki. Hua expressed optimism that the meeting would improve Russia-US relations. “As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and major countries commanding global influence, Russia and the US shoulder important responsibilities for global peace and security,” Hua told reporters. The spokesperson also commented on China’s relations with Russia and the US respectively: “We are fully confident in the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and the China-Russia relations will not be affected by any external factor. Our stance on the development of the China-US relations is also consistent and clear-cut.”

• State-directed China Daily took a measured stance on the Trump-Putin meeting, and opined that improvements in US-Russian relations from the summit was unlikely: “their longtime enmity, which can be traced back to the Cold War era, and their opposite positions on some critical international issues and their power wrestling in Syria and Crimea, indicate the contention between the two big countries will not vanish any time soon.”
• The nationalist Global Times was critical of the Helsinki meeting and argued that it was impossible for Trump to make any meaningful change to the international system’s status quo: “The US-Russian relationship can hardly be significantly improved. The fundamental reason is that Washington is still immersed in its hegemonic mindset and is not willing to replace such an attitude with treating all on an equal footing. Trump’s ‘America First’ reinforced Americans’ consciousness of the privileged and he has become a new practitioner of US hegemonism.”
• The independent South China Morning Post argued that while a genuine shift in US-Russian relations would be welcome, Trump’s methods undermined the credibility of the summit: “There is nothing wrong with seeking peace with a rival, but it is the manner in which he went about it by apparently ignoring thorny issues like Russian meddling in US elections, the Salisbury poisonings, Ukraine and the war in Syria that sparked criticism.”
• Official state news service Xinhua’s coverage emphasized the unprecedented backlash against Trump following the summit with interviews from US political analysts and former officials.
• On the topic of the World Cup, the China Daily highlighted the success of Chinese companies in spite of the Chinese team’s absence: “The national team wasn’t there but that didn’t stop Chinese companies orchestrating an advertising bonanza of unprecedented proportions at the recently concluded FIFA World Cup.”
• State-owned news channel CGTN aired a documentary on China’s budding soccer ambitions, and explained that the frenzy caused by the World Cup was increasing welcome enthusiasm for football camps in China: “China wants to become a ‘world football power’ by 2050, with plans to get 50 million people playing in two years.”
• Li Tao of the South China Morning Post covered the frenzy itself, “indicating the level of football fever in the country and despite China not having a national team at the tournament.” On online streaming platform Youku, the final match between Croatia and France drew 24 million unique viewers, while competitor Migu reported the final match had been viewed over 200 million times through its platform.

 

JAPAN

Japan’s national team, the Blue Samurai, and its fans charmed the World Cup’s audiences with their impeccable manners. Fans from Japan and Senegal set the standards high following their teams’ matches on June 19th, in which videos and photos of the spectators methodically cleaning up the stadiums went viral on social media. Following the Blue Samurai’s defeat, not only did Japanese fans do their part, but the team left the locker room spotless with a note of thanks for their Russian hosts.

The Japanese government had little to say regarding the Trump-Putin Summit. An unnamed official responding to questions from Russian media outlet TASS said, “As for the Russian-US Summit, we will refrain from commenting on other countries’ interactions with each other. However, generally speaking, Russia is an important global player and we believe that Russian-US dialogue is important for resolving serious global issues, particularly those concerning North Korea and Syria.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, however, has pursued improved ties with Russia since taking office. Abe met with officials from the European Union to sign an economic partnership agreement in Tokyo on July 17th, providing a stark juxtaposition to Trump’s behavior at the NATO Summit and his meeting with Putin. Abe’s planned trip to the Europe earlier this month was delayed due to massive flooding and landslides in western Japan following Typhoon Maria.

 

• Left-leaning Mainichi was cynical about the Trump-Putin Summit. “The event […] lacked any sort of concrete outcome that the international community could praise,” the Mainichi argued, speculating that meaningful discussions about North Korea and Syria were set aside in order to discuss the allegations of Russian interference in the US presidential election in 2016. Trump’s performance, when coupled with his behavior at the NATO Summit preceding his arrival in Helsinki, left much to be desired, the Mainichi concluded: “Trump should change his heavy-handed approach and promote diplomacy and politics in which allied countries can have confidence.”
• The Japan Times praised the Japan-EU economic partnership agreement as “a free trade message” to the US following the chaos at the NATO Summit and Trump’s abandonment of its EU allies in his meeting with Putin: “At a time when the United States under the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ agenda is rapidly abandoning its leadership roles in international affairs, Japan and the EU together should be able to push a global agenda forward.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun was equally distressed by the US leader’s behavior. “It is worrying that Trump has been showing a stance of appealing to sell out US principles by giving top priority to building a personal relationship of trust with Putin,” it said. Prior to the meeting, the Yomiuri urged the US to read with caution following Trump’s “arrogant remarks and behavior” at the NATO Summit: “This could pave the way for Russia to take advantage of the division between the United States and European countries and strengthen its hegemonic moves.” The Yomiuri ultimately gave the point to Putin for achieving his goals in the summit: “Putin was successful in conveying the impression that his country has broken out of its international isolation. Putin is apparently aiming to reconstruct the Russian economy by exploiting the summit with Trump to ease and remove US and European sanctions.”
• In an interview with The Japan Times regarding what the Helsinki Summit held for Japan, James D. J. Brown, an associate professor at Temple University in Tokyo, responded that, “For the most part, Abe will be pleased about Trump’s decision to meet with Putin in Helsinki. This is because it can be seen as a vindication of Abe’s own policy toward Russia.” The Abe administration favors improving ties with Russia, including the resolution of the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands through joint development.
• Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, tried to make sense of US deviations from its foreign policy from a broader historical view. Miyake suggested that Trump may be symptom of “the centuries-old inferiority/superiority complex of North America–the New World–vis-a-vis the Old World of Europe.” Miyake noted that this explanation then raises questions about Trump’s seeming subordination to Putin during the summit: “The only logical answer that I can imagine here in Tokyo is this: Putin must have something–like a trump card in his pocket to play–that Trump personally cannot resist. […A]t this moment we can only pray for the Western alliance, of which Japan is also a part.”
• Regarding the World Cup, the unnamed writer behind the Asahi Shimbun’s “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” daily column admitted that “the praise heaped on Japanese supporters at the World Cup was rather hyperbolic.” The author expressed amusement with foreign theories of why the Japanese were so tidy, and explained that the norm of tidying up was developed ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics to conquer “streets [that] were overflowing with trash.” Nevertheless, the author was “simply tickled and [felt] proud of them for earning the admiration of the international community.” Regarding the Blue Samurai’s performance in the match with Poland, however, was criticized as “pseudo soccer,” given that the team simply played a lackluster game of keep-away in the last ten minutes of the match. The author also took notice of the overwhelming number of Chinese advertisements on display at the World Cup: “There was a time when Japanese companies practically dominated the World Cup advertising scene. […] It felt as if this symbolized Japan’s decline, and I could not help feeling a bit sad.”
• The Japan Times instead discussed what the lessons the success of diverse soccer teams in the tournament had for Japan, especially the victory of France’s Les Bleus. Japan itself is debating the merits of increased immigration in the face of labor shortages and a shrinking population. The Times argued that it is inappropriate to merely view the victories as a message of “tolerance and acceptance,” given that many immigrant players are subjected to discrimination and racial hostility: “The broader message from France’s record is that societies must be ready to welcome and integrate immigrants, not just soccer players. Japan has choices to make about its readiness to do so and the price it is prepared to pay not just for sports trophies but for a more diverse society.”

 

INDIA

• The liberal Hindustan Times declared President Putin victor in the Helsinki Summit: “Mr Trump’s brand of diplomacy, based more on personal rapport and his instincts than the sage advice of the mandarins at the state department, was left looking weak and ineffectual. And Mr Putin, who has been blamed by western intelligence set-ups of personal involvement in the meddling in the polls in the US and other countries, emerged much stronger.”
• Indian Express, another liberal publication, warned that while the Trump-Putin meeting had little to do with India directly, the country must nevertheless prepare for the possible instability resulting from Trump’s disruption to the decades-old world order: “India has no reason to take sides in America’s internal contestation about Russia and burden-sharing within Western alliances. But Delhi must strain every nerve to cope with the consequences of this debate that has the potential to rearrange the international system constructed after the Second World War.”
• The center-right Times of India urged its government to seek exemptions from the US’s Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) despite Trump’s efforts to improve US-Russian relations. “While Trump thinks he can get along with Putin, US Congress has a very different perception of Moscow. […] India is in talks to acquire Russian S-400 missile defence systems. The purchase would attract CAATSA sanctions unless exemptions are granted by the US. Indian diplomacy needs to step up to the plate and ensure the latter,” the Times concluded.
• Harsh V. Pant, professor at King’s College, London and distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, argued in an op-ed for the Hindustan Times that a successful Helsinki Summit would be beneficial for India, given the country’s relationship with Russia: “Deteriorating US-Russia ties have put considerable strain on Indian diplomacy. The most recent example being the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which can lead to sanctions being imposed on countries that engage in ‘significant transactions; with any of the listed 39 Russian companies. India has close defence ties with Russia and Indian armed forces remain highly dependent on Russia for strategic technologies and supply of spares and maintenance.” Trump’s “disruption” of the status quo has the potential to “open up new possibilities for India,” Pant concluded.
• Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, urged India to change its diplomatic strategy to cope with the “troubling times” Trump has manufactured. In addition to adopting a “transactional approach” to diplomacy, “Equally important is the need for India to come to terms with Trump’s deconstruction of the ‘West’. […] Through the 20th century, India’s foreign policy has been shaped by the impulse to stand up against the West — initially against colonialism and later against Western security alliances. In the 21st century, India’s efforts to construct closer relations with the US, have been slowed by the presumed political centrality of retaining ‘strategic autonomy’ from the West. […] Obsession with ‘strategic autonomy’ makes little sense when the post-War geopolitical categories are breaking down,” Mohan explained.
• Rudroneel Ghosh, a journalist for the Times of India, took no issue with Trump’s primary goal of improving ties with Russia, but offered a critique of Trump’s method of trying to forge his own path unilaterally: “[W]here Trump is missing a trick is in striking out on his own and trying to establish new equations bilaterally. He thinks this will help him get a better deal for America. But that stems from the assumption that the US still has the capacity to exert enough pressure in a bilateral set up. But the reality is that may no longer be the case. With the rest of the world catching up economically and militarily, the US can’t wholly dominate in one-on-one scenarios. Therefore, a better approach would be to work through rules-based multilateral institutions that the US itself helped create.”
• The Indian press had warmer words for the World Cup. The Hindustan Times attributed the World Cup victory of France’s Les Bleus to the members’ “collective” mindset despite the theatrics and solo stardom that is endemic to the sport: “They are a side full of bona fide stars, but without a single diva. The stardom and celebrity of some of the finest footballers in the world is secondary to the ideal of everything coming together for the team. […] Never dour, but always disciplined, they were often criticised for not putting on more scintillating displays. There was no showboating, no genuflecting at the altar of a single star.”
• The Indian Express praised the Cup’s “style and substance” for providing a cause for unity in countries consumed with divisiveness and shattering stereotypes: “What politicians and liberals have failed to do for a decade, this World Cup has done in a month — by a bunch of young men playing entertaining football. It united England, a country sweating over Brexit and over the definition of Englishness. It united Croatia, a small nation amid demographical and financial crisis, whose football administration had alienated the people. It united Belgium, the country deemed least patriotic in Europe with its language divisions and regionalism. It made Kosovo, not even in the tournament, swell with pride because of two hand eagle signs by men who now play for another country. It made Africans smile even though all African teams were knocked out. It made Asians joyous to see Japan make a strong statement. Above all, the stereotype of cold, indifferent, harsh Russians disintegrated.”
• The Hindu and the Daily Pioneer had brief editorials exalting this World Cup’s entertainment factor. The Pioneer raved about the final match’s nail-biting action, noting that the game was only the second finals match since 1998 that exceeded more than two goals, and accredited the excitement of the Cup to the new generation of footballers: “The 2018 edition will be remembered for heralding a new generation that leapfrogs the maestros of the game.” The Hindu also praised Russia for its hospitality: “Russia put on a great show as host, its people warm and welcoming as fears of racist behaviour proved unfounded.”
• The Times of India, on the other hand, took a nuanced look at the power dynamics at play in the world of soccer, and mused that “[t]he gap between the elites and the rest remains, but the margin has been substantially reduced” given the relative success of newer teams like Croatia against “football’s nobility.” The Times also discussed the troubling trend of recruitment in the sport: “It is evident that globalisation is at work in football. But with European club spotters cradle snatching the finest talents in Latin America and Africa, the impact on local leagues in Africa, Latin America and Asia also needs a closer look.”

BRAZIL

• The business newspaper Valor Economico remarked that the Trump-Putin Summit left the international community with only one certainty: we will never not be surprised by Trump’s statements. According to the article, Trump’s behavior at the meeting was the most subservient that a US president has ever had before a Russian leader, launching the West in an existential crisis. However, the author believes that the chances for triggering an impeachment proceeding due to the event are considerably low.
• The online portal of the Jornal do Brasil highlighted Trump’s backpedaling on his comments the day following the summit, in which he said that he respects the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections. This reversal revealed the high level of inconsistency linked to his official pronouncements. The Jornal do Brasil noted that depending on the audience Trump is addressing, his discourse can change dramatically.
• As the decisive quarter-finals matches of the 2018 FIFA World Cup between Belgium and Brazil approached, the newspaper Extra highlighted the Brazilian team’s net worth, which was 50 million US dollars more than the Belgian team. However, the economic value of the team was not predictive of the match: Brazil was beaten by Belgium with score of 1 to 2.
• Referring to the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the magazine Veja took aim at Brazilian fans who shamed their country in Russia with a sexist video that spread on social media. The video depicted a group of Brazilians men tricking Russian women into making crude remarks in Portuguese on camera. While the women seemed to be having fun, it was clear that she couldn’t understand the meaning of the words she was repeating. The incident generated anger worldwide and was strongly repudiated by the Brazilian authorities.

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.