Press Review: Tillerson's Trip to Moscow Did Not Reduce Differences Between the Two Countries

It seems that Rex Tillerson's visit to Moscow on April 13 did not improve the relations between the two countries, and tensions over suspicions regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria and ambiguities in U.S. foreign policy direction remain. Following the in-person meeting of the highest officials of both countries since Donald Trump's presidency began, U.S. officials stated that both sides cautiously supported actions to improve relations, which are at a 'minimal level.' However, ambiguous news headlines and expert comments worldwide indicate that there was not much common ground for improving relations during Tillerson's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin. The New York Times reported, 'Tillerson and Putin found nothing but disagreement,' stating that the two sides could not even agree on the facts regarding last week's chemical attack in Syria, which prompted Trump to order 59 Tomahawk missiles to be fired at a Syrian military airbase. Time noted in its editorial section: 'The U.S. Secretary of State's trip to Moscow was another sign of how far U.S.-Russia relations have declined. One consequence of the cold relations is how much Trump will be able to count on Russian cooperation to fight the so-called Islamic State in Syria. Cooperation on that front has always been in doubt, but today it seems impossible.' There are no signs of a change in the positions of the two countries regarding the Syrian war, and this issue even led to an open confrontation between the two sides during Tillerson's visit to Moscow. Tillerson stated that Bashar al-Assad's government has carried out more than 50 chemical attacks during the six-year civil war and that the Syrian leader should be tried for war crimes. In response, Sergey Lavrov described the U.S. missile attack on the Syrian airbase as an 'illegal attack' and stated that such actions must be prevented. Even Trump himself did not seem very optimistic about the future of relations between the White House and the Kremlin. He expressed hope for improving relations with Putin but quickly added, 'We will wait to see what happens.' The Guardian quoted Alexander Baunov from the Carnegie Center in Moscow, stating, 'The two sides have behaved as if they owe each other something. But now they act as if they owe nothing to the other side.' Many experts believe that the U.S. attack on Syria represents a fundamental shift in its policy, surprising not only Russia but many other countries as well. This change in the U.S. role, according to Mark Galeotti from the Institute of International Relations in Prague, has confused Moscow, which previously thought it understood the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy. Galeotti added, 'Up to this point, the Russians relied on the notion that they could play the unpredictable actor because they rightly felt they understood many of the red lines of U.S. foreign policy and that the U.S. would not respond to their actions. But now they suddenly find themselves in a reactive position and truly do not know what to do.' Another issue that has clouded the future of relations between the two countries is Trump's recent comments about NATO, where on April 12, he stated that the organization is now doing more in the fight against terrorism and 'is no longer obsolete.' This is a clear revision of his previous comments, where he stated that NATO could no longer fulfill its mission, which will undoubtedly displease Russia. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, told the Los Angeles Times: 'From Putin's perspective, we are an uncontrolled and overly active force that must be opposed. He does not openly express his views, but he seems to be quite sincere in his opinions.' O'Hanlon believes Trump could try to reduce tensions with Russia through broad agreements among NATO members, Russia, and neutral European countries, aiming to prevent NATO from expanding its borders. Jeffrey Mankoff, a senior expert at the Center for International Studies in Washington, believes that the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy during Trump's presidency has intensified tensions between Washington and Moscow and could lead to deeper problems. He stated in an interview with the World Today radio program: 'At the same time, it should be noted that any military confrontation between two nuclear-armed countries can be extremely dangerous. Although I believe that such conflicts are highly unlikely, all those who think about the relations between these two countries should always keep this possibility in mind.' Following Trump's victory in the presidential election, due to his praise for Vladimir Putin's character, expectations were raised that relations between the two countries would improve. However, since the beginning of his presidency, on one hand, a series of investigations into the relationships of Trump's associates and advisors with Russian officials and the possibility of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, and on the other hand, the U.S. missile attack on Syria have complicated relations between the two sides. Barbara Plett Usher, a BBC journalist covering the U.S. State Department, wrote: 'In the background of these events, it is important to note Russia's disappointment with that country's enthusiasm for Trump's victory in the election. This created an atmosphere that seemed to suggest that relations would enter a new phase, and even in a grand agreement, sanctions against Russia for its involvement in the Ukraine war and the annexation of Crimea would be lifted. However, Trump's senior advisors ultimately burst that bubble.'