Few American scholars know Russia quite as intimately as Michael McFaul.
Fluent in Russian and possessing a deep understanding of Russia’s contemporary history, McFaul is a sought-after voice on Russia’s relationship with the West and has penned numerous books on the topic, including an upcoming tome tentatively titled Autocrats vs. Democrats: Lessons from the Cold War for How to Deal with China and Russia Today.
McFaul is also the former U.S. ambassador to Russia (2012-2014) and served a three-year stint as the special assistant to President Barack Obama and the senior director for Russia and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council.
Before visiting Northwestern University on October 17 to deliver the 34th Annual Richard W. Leopold Lecture hosted by Weinberg College, McFaul discussed his longstanding exploration of U.S.-Russian relations, the Cold War, his current read on Russia and the importance of the U.S. and its allies leveraging past experiences to guide modern-day dealings with Russia as well as China.
You grew up in Montana as the son of a country musician, rarely left the state as a youth and describe yourself as a solid student. Nothing to necessarily forecast the career you’ve had, which begs the question: How did this happen?
Well, it’s funny and fortuitous. As a high school junior, I was looking for the easiest English credit I could get and my neighbor suggested I take debate. I enrolled and my partner – interestingly enough current U.S. Senator Steve Daines – and I ran a case on improving trade relations with the Soviet Union. It was a transformational moment of understanding the utility and value of using my mind, while it also sparked an interest in the Soviet Union and great power relations.
I then ended up at Stanford, where I had two classes as a freshman in fall of 1981 that changed my life: one was a political science course exploring how nations dealt with one another and the second was first-year Russian. Those two courses essentially laid the foundation for my professional life.
In one way or another, you’ve been studying Russia since the early 1980s. What’s so appealing about this nation on the other side of the world?
I was initially interested because it was a tense time between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the early Reagan era. I had a theory that if we could just understand the Soviets better and confront some misperceptions, then we might be able to reduce tensions, even if we never reached agreement. Truthfully, I still believe that, although Russia’s current relationship with the West punctuated by the invasion of Ukraine has me less optimistic.
What’s your read on Russia today?
I find Russia and its government today to be very tragic. I made my first trip to the Soviet Union in 1983 and lived in Russia in the early 1990s when there was a different, more pro-Western government there eager to build democracy and capitalism. It was a hopeful time, but that project has failed, principally because of Vladimir Putin. He has convinced the Russian people that we are the enemy, that we are out to get him and such propaganda has led to this horrific moment of confrontation.
You’ve called the Russia-Ukraine conflict “a pivotal moment in the history of the world.” Why so?
“History of the world” might have been an overstatement, but definitely in the last 100 years or so. Here’s why: though Europe fought these horrible wars in the last century, there was universal agreement at the close of World War II about avoiding such an intense, drawn-out conflict in the future. So, we created some institutions like the United Nations and some norms to prevent World War III. One of those norms was no more annexation, no more imperial conquest of other countries.
Of course, we’ve had tensions since, including hot wars, but thou shalt not annex the territory of thy neighbor – that norm has largely persisted. Putin’s war in Ukraine has challenged that norm, and if that becomes a new norm in the international system, there will be consequences well beyond Ukraine.
Your Leopold Lecture at Northwestern will discuss lessons from the Cold War for dealing with Russia and China today. What are some of the Cold War’s key lessons capable of informing our mindset and action today with respect to those two nations?
There was conflict and death during the Cold War – I don’t want to pretend there wasn’t – but we did avoid the great power war. Part of the way we did that was through a strong nuclear deterrent. As [U.S. President Ronald] Reagan said, “Peace through strength.”
Now, we don’t need to overshoot the target, which is one of the negative lessons from the Cold War. At different periods, we overestimated the Soviet threat and also mistakenly thought every national liberation movement – in Africa, Asia or Latin America – was going to lead to Communism. We had a domino theory dragging us into wars we didn’t need to fight.
We need to do enough to keep the peace in terms of our military strength, but we don’t need to overreach and overextend in the ways we sometimes did during the Cold War.
What’s at stake if we ignore these key lessons?
My biggest fear is the growing American sentiment that discounts the problems “over there.” We say, “Not our problem. Not our war.” It reminds me of the period before the Cold War. Hitler was rising and the Japanese were invading China and some American leaders said, “That’s not our problem. We don’t need to get involved.”
Those isolationist tendencies proved counterproductive for American security and economic interests in the interwar period, and I worry there’s a similar sense in our country today. What happens in Ukraine or Taiwan today is our problem because we are the world’s superpower and the leader of the democratic world.
I understand the sentiment. I truly do. I just think it’s a shortsighted sentiment. If we pull back, that could lead to very negative consequences for our allies and, ultimately, for us.
The current U.S. political climate is tense. How does the U.S. overcome that tension and make thoughtful, pragmatic decisions regarding Russia and China?
The greatest threat to American security isn’t necessarily Russia or China but ourselves. We are at risk of undermining our democracy and if we undermine our democracy at home, we take away one of our greatest advantages when competing with autocratic China and autocratic Russia. Our democratic ideals produce better lifestyles, better economies and are attractive to many people around the world, including people inside Russia and inside China. But if we weaken our democratic system of government because of our polarized politics, then we don’t have much appeal and as much of a comparative advantage over China and Russia. We absolutely need cooperation on basic things of international interest.
What are some of the things Americans are struggling to account for when thinking about modern-day Russia?
First, we need to admit collectively that the project of integrating Russia into the international system has failed – and I acknowledge I was a part of that failure. We need to embrace that failure and not think, “You know, let’s just get this war with Ukraine over and then we can go back to integrating Russia.” As long as Putin is in power, I don’t think there’s any way to integrate Russia into the international system. That’s a tragic thing for me to say personally because I was involved in trying to do that for a good 30 years of my life.
Second, and this may sound counterintuitive, we have to keep open the possibility there will be a moment of integrating Russians – not Putin and not the Putin regime necessarily – but Russians after this current regime fails. While I can’t predict with certainty that will happen, I know enough Russians personally, especially younger Russians, that I have hope we can integrate a post-Putin Russia into the international system. And if that happens, we have to get it right.
Your academic background is in the liberal arts with degrees in international relations, Slavic languages and Soviet and East European studies. How does that academic training inform your outlook and the perspectives you bring to your work?
I served five years in the government, working at the White House and then as an ambassador. Whenever I’m asked about the most useful tools to be effective in those jobs, I always say two things: knowing history and speaking Russian, both of which were instrumental to everything I did at the National Security Council and in Moscow.
Speaking Russian, I could obviously interact with the Russian people. I could go on radio or TV and speak to students. But then, I also had this historical knowledge to lean on. Having a broad understanding about culture, history and language are absolutely invaluable tools in public service
More information and get tickets Leopold Lecture:
The 34th Annual Richard W. Leopold Lecture will be delivered by Ambassador Michael McFaul, who will discuss Great Power Competition in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for Dealing with China and Russia Today, on October 17, 2023 at 5pm CT at Cahn Auditorium. Get tickets here.