Crimea

"Crimea's story is really a story of democracy."

Crimea is arguably the origin story for the US and Russia’s turn towards hostility, but it’s a story that’s largely misunderstood and misrepresented.

In fact, Crimea’s story is really a story of democracy. In 2014, President Viktor Yanukovych was removed from office by what amounted to a bloodless coup. Instead of following the impeachment process and rule of law outlined in the Constitution of Ukraine, which would have involved formally charging Yanukovych with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote in favor of impeachment — the Ukrainian parliament bypassed the constitution and implemented a new provisional government that was neither legitimate nor democratically elected. In doing so, more than 12 million people and more than 80% of Crimeans who voted for Yanukovych were essentially disenfranchised. By foregoing the rules of impeachment laid out in the Ukrainian constitution, the ouster of President Yanukovych gave legitimate grievance for those in Crimea who felt their right to self-determination was violated.

This led Crimeans to independently organize a referendum on Crimea's status, a referendum that we have sufficient evidence to conclude was free, fair, and representative of what Crimeans want. First, multiple polls conducted by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) between 2009 and 2011 show that a majority of Crimeans favored reunifying with Russia well before the 2014 referendum. Second, two Gallup Poll studies shortly after the referendum found that Crimeans themselves regard the referendum as fair and accurate. One found that 82 percent of Crimeans believe "the referendum reflects most Crimeans' views." The other post-referendum Gallup Poll found that 91 percent of Crimeans felt the referendum was free and fair. Third, the polling data matches the outcome we would reasonably assume based on Crimea's demographics. Although Ukraine is ethnically around 78% Ukrainian - Crimea, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. In fact, around 67% of Crimeans are ethnically Russian and Russian is the primary language spoken at home for around 85% of Crimeans.

This demographic reality lends further credence to the Crimean Referendum and its legitimacy. The share of ethnic Russians and primary Russian-speakers among Crimeans parallels the prior polling data and allows us to reasonably assume that most Crimeans would prefer reunification with Russia given the choice.

For that reason, we call on the United States to base policy on reality and recognize the Crimean Referendum as a binding resolution to Crimea’s status as a subject of the Russian Federation.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project

Ending Sanctions

"We call on lawmakers in the United States to match democratic values with political action and lift the aforementioned sanctions that unfairly target Crimea."

Despite voluminous lip service to democracy — the United States and its allies have consistently communicated a position on Crimea that is categorically undemocratic. That rather undemocratic position to Crimea’s democratic referendum has come in the form of sanctions against Russia, and more appallingly — sanctions that specifically target Crimea and the Crimean people.

In fact, just days after the referendum in 2014, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13685 which prohibits investment, importation, and exportation to and from Crimea in what essentially amounts to a complete embargo on the peninsula. The message could not be clearer. What those sanctions do is emblematically and fundamentally put a condition on democracy, that a “democratic gesture is only legitimate if we like the outcome.” Those sanctions punish Crimeans for the crime of exercising democracy, something which seems so diametrically opposed to America’s purported commitment to upholding democracy.

We call on lawmakers in the United States to match democratic values with political action and lift the aforementioned sanctions that unfairly target Crimea.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project

Syria

Our goal is to educate and draw attention to this particular issue because we believe that an informed American public would favor stabilization in Syria and a foreign policy that promotes just that.

With the Syrian Civil War ostensibly drawing to an end, Russia and the United States have a number of avenues for collaboration. Both countries have common strategic interests to prevent radicalization and the revival of ISIS-like groups, to prevent the use of chemical weapons, to avoid conflict with each other, and to ultimately provide a pathway for stabilization in Syria.

That said, the United States has not been the most helpful towards stabilization. Although the United States’ contribution has been priceless in the fight against the Islamic State, the U.S. has simultaneously prolonged the war with strikes against the UN-recognized Syrian government and by propping up extremist elements in Syria that do not share Washington’s values. Our goal is to educate and draw attention to this particular issue because we believe that an informed American public would favor stabilization in Syria and a foreign policy that promotes just that.

With Russia and the United States’ combined military leverage, both Syria and the Middle East at large have the potential to be a safer, more peaceful place.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project

Arms control

"It’s time to throw grease on the gridlock and start making real diplomatic efforts to ensure mutual security as well as global security."

One of the most consequential matters that demands cooperation between Russia and the United States is the issue of nuclear arms control.

In recent years, we’ve witnessed a considerable degradation in Russia-U.S. relations, particularly in the realm of nuclear agreements. From the United States’ withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT), to the United States’ most recent withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) just this year - a lot of ground has been lost.

That being said, there is still room for collaboration. In 2021, the limits on nuclear weapons set by the New START treaty between Russia and the United States are set to expire. This is the next big challenge for Russia-U.S. diplomacy. And although bilateral relations between the two countries are currently at an impasse, it’s time to throw grease on the gridlock and start making real diplomatic efforts to ensure mutual security as well as global security.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project

Trade

"Trade between Russia and the United States is a win-win for both countries."

Last year, Russia and the United States achieved more than $28.4 billion dollars in trade. That trade included and includes a wide-variety of products from natural resources, to equipment/machinery, medical supplies, and everything in between. Simply put, trade between Russia and the United States is a win-win for both countries. It allows for more products and products of higher quality to stock the shelves in both Russia and the United States, while simultaneously creating jobs and prosperity for the companies and workers involved.

However, despite that, there are a number of hurdles preventing Russian and American businesses from reaching greater levels of economic trade and collaboration. Those hurdles most notably include the host of sanctions levied by the United States that target Russian individuals, companies, and whole branches of Russia’s economy. Those sanctions are unjustified, unwarranted, and counterproductive - especially considering such sanctions inadvertently harm a number of American businesses.

Even President Donald Trump has expressed an interest in improving business relations. In May, President Trump told reporters at the White House “We intend to do a lot of trade with Russia. We do some right now. It’s up a little bit. But [Putin would] like to do trade and we’d like to do trade.”

Our goal is to make that intention a reality by bringing more attention to these specific sanctions and being a channel for building better business relationships.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project

Russia-Nato

"Our goal is to foster dialogue between thinkers and policy-makers on both sides in a way that educates, informs, and leads towards productive policies."

Russia and NATO have a long and intricate history that bares relevance up until now. Following the Fall of the Soviet Union, Russia and NATO made a number of considerable strides towards peace and collaboration. In 1994, Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and since that time, NATO and Russia with the help of the United States have signed several important agreements on cooperation that have persisted despite differences on both sides.

Though there have been a number of breakthroughs in the past 20+ years, the relationship is currently on the rocks. We believe that education and dialogue is the only way to reverse that course and put Russia and NATO on a path of mutual security. The United States is a key partner in that.

Therefore, our goal is to foster dialogue between thinkers and policy-makers on both sides in a way that educates, informs, and leads towards productive policies.

•  
•  
•  

Close Project