BY EMMA COOPER ’20
On March 29, Russia announced it would expel 60 United States diplomats in response to the expulsion of over 100 Russian diplomats by more than 20 countries, including the United States, Canada and countries in the European Union, three days earlier. According to BBC, the coordinated move was designed to punish Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom, with a nerve agent.
In a statement made on March 26 by Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov denied the Russian state’s culpability for the poisoning and accused countries who participated in the expulsions of “blindly follow[ing] the principle of Euro-Atlantic unity, to the detriment of common sense, the norms of civilized international dialogue and the principles of international law.”
Russia later declared that it would expel the exact same amount of diplomats expelled by each country and enact any additional measurements posed by individual states. The United States went further than any of the other countries and not only expelled 60 Russian diplomats, but also closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The second and third largest expulsions were 23 diplomats by the U.K. and 13 by Ukraine, according to the Washington Post. In response, Russia also closed the United States consulate in Saint Petersburg.
Stephen Jones, professor and chair of the Russian and Eurasian studies department, said the “tit for tat” move by Russia was unsurprising. “The question is whether such mutual diplomatic expulsions achieve anything,” he said. “The diplomats will soon be replaced. It is purely symbolic and will not significantly hurt either side.” The United States and Russia will not be required to reduce their staffing levels, allowing the diplomats who were kicked out to be replaced by others, as reported by USA Today.
Nicole Daphnis ’18, co-president of the Mount Holyoke Russian club, also thinks Russia’s retaliation was anticipated. “From the perspective of the Russian government, it was completely reasonable, otherwise they would look weak,” she said. However, Daphnis is worried about how ordinary citizens abroad will be affected by the closing consulates in both the United States and Russia. She is especially concerned about Russia’s decision to close the consulate in Saint Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city.
“Though I always felt completely safe in Russia, when I was studying in Saint Petersburg I liked knowing I passed the street the American consulate was on en route to class,” she said. “We currently have two U.S. citizens from Mount Holyoke studying in Saint Petersburg — why should people like them be negatively impacted by this situation?”
Jones suggested the most effective way to respond to the Skripal case, as well as Russia’s hacking in the election and involvement in Ukraine and Syria, is to engage with Russia head on. “It is not just criticism that Russia needs if we are going to stop it invading its neighbors and poisoning British citizens. It needs action that hurts,” he said.
To grab the attention of Russia’s elites and the financial sector, Jones proposed clamping down on Russian banks in London and New York. “In the short term that would make Russians even more anti-Western, but it would begin to sow doubts among Russian elites about the fruitfulness of Putin's policies,” said Jones.
For many, the diplomatic expulsions highlight the growing tension between Russia and Western countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Today’s tense relations have led to comparisons with the Cold War.
Daphnis believes that while the analogy makes for good headlines, it is not indicative of reality. “People have been making comparisons to a new Cold War since the annexation of Crimea four years ago and I've held the same opinion on it the whole time: it's ridiculous and harmful,” she said. “This kind of rhetoric justifies people clinging onto a Cold War mentality we should have lost over 25 years ago and impedes progress in relations between Russia and the West.”