With the West distracted by terrorism, Russia is plotting

Europe’s fear of IS and the US’s election uncertainty have diverted attention from Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, writes Agnia Grigas

THE suicide bomb attacks in Brussels last week have left Europe and the West shaken. Fears of further violence are compounded by the perceived threat of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and the massive refugee crisis, which are contributing to a sense of instability and divisiveness.

Nato Commander General Phil Breedlove has said that Russia is “weaponising” refugee migration to destabilise Europe. It remains to be seen if the fallout from the Brussels attacks will benefit the Kremlin and president Vladimir Putin’s regime.

The looming threat of terrorism distracts attention from Russia’s policies towards Ukraine. Two years of conflict — from Moscow’s annexation of Crimea to its shadow war in eastern Ukraine — has cost Russia dearly in economic sanctions and international isolation.

The sanctions, coupled with low global energy prices since 2014, have tanked the Russian economy and the rouble. Russia wants to end sanctions and position itself as a potential partner to the West, in the fight against IS.

The new focus on extremism may create an opportunity for Russia to lobby against sanctions, especially when the EU will consider whether to extend them again this autumn. The instability in Europe may also give Russia a window to consolidate gains in eastern Ukraine, where Moscow-backed militants have established separatist territories around Donetsk and Luhansk.

On March 16, the separatist leaders of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) began issuing their own passports. The territory’s militant leader, Alexander Zakharchenko, called the move “a very important step toward building statehood”.

This is an attempt to solidify and formalise the territory’s separatist status and will likely be followed by the spread of Russian passports, in line with Moscow’s previous strategies of ‘passportising’ foreign separatist territories, such as Moldova’s Transnistria, Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and Ukraine’s Crimea.

Russia is unlikely to uphold the ceasefire agreement signed by Putin in February, 2015, and will continue undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which may be easier if Europe’s and the US’s attentions are focused on fighting extremism.

On the day of the Brussels attacks, Russia sentenced Ukrainian pilot and member of parliament Nadiya Savchenko to 22 years in prison. She is accused of complicity in the murders of Anton Voloshin and Igor Kornelyuk, two journalists working for Russian state television, who died in an artillery strike during the conflict in east Ukraine in June 2014.

Savchenko has denied the charges, and the trial has been dismissed in Ukraine and internationally as politically motivated. The Brussels attacks have drawn public attention away from her sentence, though leaders such as US secretary of state John Kerry, continue to press her case, as Kerry did on his visit to Moscow.

Beyond Ukraine, the threat of terrorism, and the fears linked to mass migration of refugees, have boosted anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in Europe, increasing the popularity of far-right political parties.

Moscow’s closest allies in Europe are among the far-right, nationalist, anti-EU and anti-Nato politicians and parties, from the UK and Germany to Greece to Bulgaria.

Such European far-right parties have supported Russia’s annexation in Crimea and its policies in Ukraine. Just last month, France’s far-right National Front party reportedly asked Russia for a €27m for the 2017 presidential election campaign. It received a €9m loan from a Russian bank in 2014. The National Front’s leader, Marine le Pen, denied that financing from a Russian-owned bank would influence the party’s policies.

The threat of Islamic extremism in Europe gives additional leverage to Russia’s self-proclaimed role as the defender of traditional Christian values from the ‘liberal’ and ‘decadent’ Europe and US, and as the defender of Christians from radical Islam in Syria and beyond. For instance, the Kremlin-aligned Russian Orthodox Church described Russia’s military intervention in Syria as a “holy battle” to protect Christians.

In the US, fear of the spread of extremism has coloured political sentiment and has dominated the rhetoric on foreign policy in the presidential campaign. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has proposed a non-interventionist foreign policy for the US and questioned the need for Nato. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton countered that “Putin already hopes to divide Europe. If Mr Trump gets his way, it’ll be like Christmas in the Kremlin.”

The tragic events in Brussels, and the urgent need for European countries and the US to focus on diverting future terrorist attacks and tracking down radicals, should not overshadow other foreign-policy priorities.

Russia has emerged as challenger to the post-Cold War order and it will seek to exploit the EU’s troubles, and America’s distraction with the presidential campaign and the focus on IS. Difficult times such as these make a one-track foreign policy a dangerous choice for the US, the EU, and their allies.

Agnia Grigas is a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a Truman National Security Fellow. She is the author of Beyond Crimea: The New Russian Empire. Follow her @AgniaGrigas.