I’ve been in touch with my old friend Anna Chapman after a considerable interval. She called out-of-the-blue to offer commiseration for the plight of the American polity – or so she said, and to inquire sympathetically how I was faring in the draconian crackdown on all those ‘subversive’ elements who have expressed any regard for Russia. I told her that I hadn’t been targeted except for one telephone call from the FBI alerting me, in a roundabout way, that a commentary of mine from 2015 had been published on a remote website of dubious leanings.

Said site allegedly was underwritten by an anonymous foundation which, in turn, was suspected of receiving funds from the Russian government. Anna intimated, with exquisite delicacy, that were I seriously inconvenienced, there was refuge available at the luxurious condo complex on Lake Baikal (Decembrist Mansions) where she is a founding investor.

It quickly became evident, though, that her actual purpose was to convey the thinking in the Kremlin about relations with the US – in the hope that I might diffuse them among the distinguished and influential persons who receive these commentaries. Evidently, Anna took this initiative on instruction from her superiors in the Russian Bureau for US Affairs (BUSA) where she has held a shadowy position as a freelance consultant since her extrication from the States.

For those unfamiliar with her background, Anna Chapman is the nom de guerre of ?´??? ????´?????? ??´???? who for many years was a deep sleeper agent in England and then in the New York area. Her main beat was Manhattan South – referred to by FSB colleagues as Bloomingdale Station. It was in Bloomingdale’s that she was exposed by an undercover FBI agent while trying on the latest Ivanka line of leggings.

Here is a summary transcript of what Anna had to say.

-       The Russian leadership is pretty laid back about the Presidential election; they are resigned to deal with whomever/whatever emerges from the malestream. They have become accustomed to the peculiarities and antic features of politics in the US. The Kremlin has concluded that there is nothing that Russia could do to inflect the discourse about international affairs in general or attitudes toward Russia in particular. Most certainly, any notion of its ability to affect the outcome is outlandish.

-       What of the related claim that Russia is running a disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting American democracy? Why even consider sowing discord (itself a threat of unwelcome instability) when the natives are doing such a thorough job of discrediting their political system all on their own. The United States’ complicity in the Palestinian genocide has put the final nail in the coffin on the American claim to being the cynosure of humanistic values. While that performance surely redounds to the diplomatic advantage of Russia, China et al, it is at the same time a worrying sign that the world’s still strongest power has gone completely off the rails.

-       Putin, along with his senior colleagues, are amused by headlines declaring that “Russia’s Strategy Is to Shape the American Mind.” For one thing, they have no idea where that elusive mind is to be found.

-       Their preference is for predictability – not persons. It follows that they see Kamala as more tolerable than Trump. With her, they get continuity with the Biden administration – however noxious it has been. At least it gave them something to plan against. There is a small hope that she could be more inclined to opening diplomatic communications with Moscow given that she is a novice who may see an interest in finding out first-hand who Washington is dealing with – and, a certain relaxation of the current high tensions would provide her some space to establish herself in the Presidency.

-       Donald Trump, by contrast, is impetuous and quixotic. His mercurial temperament keeps the Kremlin on edge. Moreover, his own earlier administration showed no particular respect for Russian national interests. After all, he set in motion the escalation of economic sanctions and gave his full backing to the armament and anti-Russian program of Kiev. Hence, Kremlin leaders place little stock in the proposition that Trump might be a less implacably hostile foe than Biden or Harris.

-       That idea, which has gained favour among some opponents to America’s current belligerent policies, is based on two suppositions: Trump is a pragmatic dealmaker; and he is less devoted to the neo-con scripture that rules thinking among the Democrats. Both are seen as dubious in Moscow’s eyes in the light of his consistently bombastic rhetoric, his practice of seeing all encounters in zero-sum terms, his lack of any conception of an alternative world order, and the strength those forces in Washington who would undercut any conciliatory moves (witness the tentative opening toward North Korea in 2017). Trump cast as the ‘prince of peace’ is taken to be a wistful hope of those searching for a deus ex machina to save them from the present self-destructive course America has taken,

-       Kremlin leaders are increasingly concerned by the Trump movement’s turn toward outright autocracy and hyper-nationalism. An election that was understood to be a referendum is now taking on the appearance of a referendum on neo-Fascism – or some close facsimile thereof. The readiness of half the voting populace to put at risk their time-honoured democratic principles and institutions is seen as reflecting a worrisome degradation in the American body politic – a prelude to disorder and erratic, dangerous actions abroad.

-       Moscow fear that those around the White House who are driving America’s aggressive policies might do something extremely risky vis-à-vis Russia. Their fear is that they recklessly cross Russia’s ultimate red lines – thereby, forcing the Kremlin to respond in ways that could bring the two powers to a direct confrontation. They see signs that some of the extreme hardliners are pressing for such radical measures in the waning days of an administration that offers the best/last occasion to execute their drastic strategy of winning a game of ‘chicken’ with the Kremlin.  Be alert for such an October surprise is the watchword.

-       The talk from Moscow about the dangers of nuclear war is meant to sober decision-makers in Washington by spelling out exactly what the apocalyptic outcome might be. Kremlin leaders are distressed that a large slice of the American foreign policy elite seems to have unlearned all the wisdom about nuclear matters acquired over the past 75 years. However, there has been no remarkable change in Russian nuclear doctrine. Its version of the SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operational Plan) always has encompassed a wide range of scenarios. Kremlin leaders are trying to strengthen deterrence through messaging – advertising and dramatizing symbolic measures. They are fully conscious of the inherent logical dilemma in nuclear strategy.

-       Russian strategists have long recognized that the operational doctrine and disposition of forces that makes for the most credible deterrence is the one you'd least want to have in place in the event of actual hostilities - whether by accident, miscalculation or escalation dynamic. Tripwires, launch on warning, etc. The logical way to reconcile the two is to broadcast the idea that one has put in place some mutual suicide arrangement - but don't actually do it.

-       The Kremlin is pretty much following that path. Medvedev especially - and Putin in more muted tones - talks about the extreme risks of the West doing anything that threatens Russia's integrity. Cataclysmic nuclear war might well result. Yet, there is no evidence, or reason to believe, that there has been any consequential change in Russian doctrine, operational plans or force structure.

-       Putin, and his advisers, have the impression of an America whose collective psyche has become fragile – and whose polity is in a precarious state. That makes it unstable, unpredictable and liable to extreme reaction to external events and internal strains. Hence, he feels an imperative need to do whatever is in his power to prevent a total breakdown – with carries catastrophic consequences for everyone.

-       This is quite the opposite of alleged plans to sow discord among American political elites, to severely weaken the country, and thereby to enhance Russian influence in some postulated power political contest. That is the exact opposite of how he views a desired state of relations between the two countries. Russia, he believes, has an interest in a stable United States – one that plays a positive role in maintaining international order, to the degree circumstances permit.

-       That requires, though, Washington’s abandonment of its hegemonic ambitions, a recognition of multiple nodes of global intercourse, and the sophisticated diplomacy needed to establish and maintain such arrangements as that conception implies. The one clear path for constructive engagement grounded on these principles is dialogue. Unfortunately, Washington refuses to engage in even the most basic forms of communication. So, Putin patiently waits for Godot.

-       All indications, as seen from Moscow, are that the US is moving in the diametrically opposite direction. So, in partnership with China, Russia is accelerating their project of constructing an alternative set of international institutions and collaborative venture under the BRIC’s umbrella.

-       These perceptions and concerns about America are shared by President XI. The two have exchanged thoughts on how to manage this delicate balance between resisting Washington’s bellicose demands and avoiding raising tensions to a combustible level.

-       American society is viewed as in parlous condition – indeed, its governmental institutions are corrupted, its civic culture degraded, its leadership erratic and increasingly disengaged from reality. Yet, the American political class is oblivious to what the rest of the world is aghast at.

MIR DRUZHBA 

?´ ? ??´????

*