Trump and Russia The Search for Influence by American Think Tanks on the President’s Quest of “Getting Along”_x000D_

(1)

Trump and Russia:

The Search for Influence by

American Think Tanks on the

President’s Quest of

“Getting Along”

Master Thesis

Public Administration: International and European Governance

2019-2020

Thijs Heezen, s1553941

Leiden University

(2)

2

Trump and Russia: The Search for Influence by American Think Tanks on

the President’s Quest of “Getting Along”

Introduction

Wouldn’t it be great if we actually got along with Russia? Am I wrong in saying that, wouldn’t it be great? Okay, you know… Russia, like us, has nuclear weapons folks. It would be really nice if we got along with Russia and others, that we don’t get along with right now, and wouldn’t it be nice if we teamed up with Russia and others, including surrounding states and maybe NATO, and we knocked the hell out of ISIS and got rid of these people? Wouldn’t that be nice, right (ABC15 Arizona, 2016)?

With these words and many others to the same effect, president Donald Trump of the United States (US) has arguably taken an unique ideological position concerning the state of Russia. His relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin and the American policies towards the Kremlin have been questioned, debated and criticized multiple times during his presidency, with one journalist even stating: “But you don't need James Bond to recognize the fact that more than any other modern American president, Trump has delivered some of what the Kremlin values most” (Harwood, 2020). And that is by far not the only unusual aspect of Donald Trump and his presidency. The election of Trump can arguably (already) be seen as an unique occurrence in American and global history concerning a multitude of aspects. As formulated powerfully by Lieberman, Mettler, Pepinsky, Roberts and Valelly (2019):

Never before in American history has someone been elected president without any previous service in elected office, a cabinet position, or the military. Never in the modern era has a presidential candidate threatened to lock up his opponent; castigated people so publicly and repeatedly on the basis of their country of origin, religion, sex, disability, or military service record; or operated with no evident regard for facts or truth (p. 471).

The science community was also stunned by his election, with a major American scholar stating: “Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had” (Tollefson, Morello and Reardon, 2016). Especially Trump’s questioning of the generally accepted academic theories concerning climate change has been notorious, with the president-elect

(5)

5

calling it a hoax by China at an certain moment. The ideological positions of Trump in relation to immigration were also reason for concern, with scientists being worried that his policies would dissuade foreign talent from coming to work in the US (Tollefson et al., 2016). These unusual circumstances surrounding the presidential election of Trump and his

following years in office make it a fascinating case in scientific perspective, as it provides academics with the opportunity of obtaining many new insights in regards to a multitude of fields.

One of these fields is the world of think tanks, specifically focusing on the American institutions. The number of American think tanks is the highest worldwide, being more than 6000 (Nicander, 2015). This means the sector is well developed and competitive. For the first time in history the American think tanks have (had) to work and attempt to maximize their respective levels of influence with a president who is arguably highly skeptical concerning science. This situation and the previously mentioned unconventional vision of the American leader on the state of Russia form the basis for the central research question of this thesis: “To what extent has the election of Donald Trump influenced the ideological positions of

American think tanks concerning Russia?” The study will follow among others the vision of Lerner (2018), who argues that think tanks are strategic actors which have as objective to acquire the highest possible level of influence. The focus of this research lies on a method used by think tanks in order to achieve this known as strategic ideological positioning. The unconventional presidency of Trump, and especially his ideological position concerning Russia, provide the opportunity to obtain more knowledge about how think tanks attempt to maximize their levels of influence and if they do this by structurally adjusting their

ideological positions on subjects in relation to the opinions of the president.

In order to form a relatively complete image of potential structural change in the ideological positions of American think tanks during the Trump presidency, three institutions were chosen with varying institutional points of view: the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution.

i The Heritage Foundation

The mission statement of the Heritage Foundation is as follows: “The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense” (Heritage Foundation, 2020). The think tank is a

(6)

6

conservative institution and actively attempts to spread and promote ideas in line with this vision (Heritage Foundation, 2020). The Heritage Foundation gained power during the presidency of former American president Ronald Reagan and was seen as the third most influential think tank of the US in 2020 with an average annual revenue of over $112 million (Anonymous, 2020). Regarding international relations the institution has always been a proponent of the reassertion by the US of its military dominance (Abelson, 2006). In relation to Russia the Heritage Foundation has been heavily critical of the country before the start of the Trump presidency. In 2014 it published a report which warned for the hidden motives behind the Russian modernization of its military forces: standing up to the overwhelming power of the US and regaining influence in the former Soviet-Union states. It expressed concerns over the mindset which president Putin had instilled in his people. It called on the US government of the time to take appropriate measures in the form of enhancing the American military strength (Cohen, 2014). Later that year another report followed which continued to criticize the Russian destabilizing actions in the field of international politics and provided an overview of the multiple reports the Heritage Foundation had written on the issue in the past (Coffey and Kochis, 2014). In 2015 the think tank even published a commentary with advice for the future American president after Obama on how to handle Russia. It called for a much more aggressive approach including tougher sanctions and ensuring Europe of sufficient military support, stating that the Russian state had resurged as a major opponent of the Western world and was attempting to undermine the interests of the US on a global scale (Gardiner and Carafano, 2015). The piece stated firmly:

The Russian bear has caught the Obama presidency off guard, successfully exploiting what it perceives to be American weakness and indecision. Rather than projecting strength and resolve, the world’s superpower has looked like a deer in the headlights when faced with a relentlessly aggressive foe (Gardiner and Carafano, 2015).

The general tone and arguments of these publications overall give a relatively complete and clear image of the ideological position on Russia taken by the Heritage

Foundation before the Trump presidency. The think tank saw the country as an aggressive and dangerous state, especially in relation to the American national interests. It was critical of the manner in which Putin led Russia and called on the US government for a strong

(7)

7

ii The Council on Foreign Relations

The mission statement of the Council on Foreign Relations is as follows:

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020).

The think tank stresses its neutral status as an objective observer and academic

institution (Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). The Council on Foreign Relations is among the most prominent American institutes in its field and has more than 3500 members across the country. Although it is sometimes criticized for being elitist, it has also been praised for the significant contribution it has made over time concerning the production of academic literature. Furthermore, the think tank has consistently seemed genuinely committed to its neutral image, with the expert knowledge it has used by both Democratic and Republic presidencies (Abelson, 2006). In relation to Russia the Council on Foreign Relations has maintained that neutrality to a certain level before the start of the Trump presidency, although there were also some critical pieces in regards of the country. In an article concerning the Russian intervention in the Ukraine in 2014, it was argued that this was a direct attack on the Western world and that it created a reality which the American leadership had to come to terms with. It called for an careful strategy from Washington, managing the relations with the Kremlin with patience and pragmatism (Patrick, 2014). In a piece on the cooperation between Russia and China on the issue of cyberspace in August 2015, it was argued that the bilateral agreement signed by the two countries in relation to the subject was a logical consequence of earlier diplomatic events and had a familiar tone. According to the article, the manner of implementation would be decisive considering the intentions of the deal and thereby the author disagreed with the experts who saw it as another signal of more tensions between the duo of Russia and China and the Western world (Korzak, 2015). In a piece later that year Putin’s leadership style was analyzed following the UN General Assembly, where the Russian president made an appearance for the first time in ten years. Although Putin was

(8)

8

also made that his form of leadership was outdated and dangerous with its high focus on power politics. The final sentence of the piece was: “In the end, it appears Russia—not China—poses the greatest challenge to the rules-based international order on which the UN is based” (Patrick, 2015).

The tone and arguments of these publications overall give a relatively complete and clear image of the ideological position on Russia taken by the Council on Foreign Relations before the Trump presidency. Despite being more neutral then the Heritage Foundation, it was also critical of the manner in which Putin led the country and how it acted on the international scale. Russia was seen in a negative light, an aggressive state with not much respect for the existing global norms and rules. The Council on Foreign Relations however did not avoid being neutral or even positive in relation to Russia when there was reason to, and argued for a fundamentally different American approach of the country then the Heritage Foundation did: a cautionary, pragmatic and patient approach, without the strong counteractions desired by their conservative colleagues.

iii The Brookings Institution

The Brookings Institution states that its mission is as follows: “Our mission is to conduct in-depth research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national and global level” (Brookings Institution, 2020). It claims to be committed to independent research and stresses its high level of neutrality (Brookings Institution, 2020). Despite this, the think tank is perceived to be relatively liberal or leftist. This does not diminish its reputation as an established producer of scholarly research on a multitude of policy terrains (Abelson, 2006). In relation to Russia, the often liberal but also well

substantiated point of view of the think tank concerning the country can be found in multiple pieces in the period before the start of the Trump presidency. In an article published in 2015 the needed Western approach towards Russia was discussed. The piece called for an

understanding and realistic strategy, accepting that the country would never make certain concessions (as for example in relation to the ending of its annexation of Crimea in the previous year) and attempting to find some negotiation areas on which bilateral agreement would be possible. These would be relatively “smaller” topics than for example territorial issues concerning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (Hill, 2015). A following publication in May however criticized the West for underestimating the powers of Putin and called for stronger sanctions in the area of oil and gas. Acknowledging that the Russian leader

(9)

9

would not change his aggressive and disruptive attitude, it was argued that the US and Europe should use a different strategy than traditional diplomacy and thereby show that border-crossing activities of the Kremlin would not be tolerated (Aleksashenko, 2015). In a reaction however to this piece published by the Brookings Institution a couples of weeks later, it was argued that Russia was in fact weak and a large part of Eastern Europe was not intimidated by the country. Baev (2015) stated that the power of the Kremlin was consistently weakening and that Putin’s authoritative leadership was actually quite vulnerable. He however did agree with Aleksashenko (2015) in that the West should be looking into other ways to respond to

Russian aggression than the traditional diplomacy strategy (Baev, 2015).

The tone and arguments of these publications overall give a relatively complete and clear image of the ideological position on Russia taken by the Brookings Institution before the Trump presidency. Similar to the other two think tanks studied in this thesis, the institution was critical of Russia and called it out for its aggressiveness in the area of foreign policy. Differing from the Heritage Foundation however there is no attention payed towards the military in relation to the American approach of the country, but it did make a case for

stronger reactions to disruptive actions of the Kremlin than the Council on Foreign Relations. The desire for a neutral status can be seen in the publication of different views on the issue, but the tone remains decisively different from that of their conservative colleagues. Thereby a liberal, if not at least progressive, preference can be noted.

iv Further contents of paper

With these ideological positions established, the remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the first section the theoretical framework behind this study is explained, showing what the added value of the research is to the relevant academic fields as well as further diving into the ideological position of president Trump on Russia and what the

fundamental theories and hypotheses in relation to this research are. In the second section the focus lies on the methodology of the thesis, explaining why specifically the case of American think tanks has been chosen as well as why in particular the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution. Also on the reasoning behind the focus on Russia will be further elaborated and how the research design of a single-case study in

combination with the research method of Qualitative Document Analysis has been chosen and applied to the data. In the third section the central analysis will be shown in the form of a comprehensive storyline concerning relevant publications of the think tanks in the studied

(10)

10

period. In the fourth section the results of this analysis will be discussed. It will be argued that the use of strategic ideological positioning by the American think tanks in relation to the relevant ideological position of the president is very limited, and that two other factors are much more influential in regards to this issue: the traditional, institutional ideological position of the entities and the major occurrences in the world of international politics. The presidency of Trump however did have an impact considering the width of the debate of the American think tanks surrounding the appropriate American approach of Russia. The thesis will end with an recapturing conclusion, which also will elaborate on the possibilities of the generalization of the results and the options for further research.

(11)

11

1. Theoretical framework

In this section the theoretical framework of this thesis is outlined. In the first

paragraph previous academic research in the relevant field is described, as well as the aspects in which this study differs from it. In the second paragraph the theoretical foundations of the thesis are explained and how the study will advance these. The third paragraph takes a closer look at the ideological position of president Trump on Russia. In the fourth and final

paragraph of this section the main hypotheses and concepts are outlined.

1.1. Previous research on relationship between American think tanks and national policy-making

The relationship between the think tanks in the US and the American policy-making in the area of foreign policy has been studied by many scholars. Many examples of this type of research focused on the strategies used by the institutions to influence the relevant decision-makers and bureaucrats. Abelson (2006) for instance analyzed the channels (private and public) which are used by high profile think tanks to affect the development of significant policies in the foreign policy terrain. He challenged the conventional approaches of measuring the actual impact of the institutions and suggested new models. Lerner (2018) argued that the think tanks utilize the tactic of strategic ideological positioning in order to maximize their level of influence. He thereby focused on the varying ideological distances between the institutes and the chamber median of Congress.

Research on the powers of the American president is also certainly not new.

Historical perspective

Academics have for instance approached the topic from an historical perspective. Bose (2011) analyzed the expanding powers of the American national leader from the Civil War era till the presidency of George W. Bush and Striner (2010) assessed the influence Abraham Lincoln had on the position.

(12)

12

Relationship presidency and foreign policy

There have also been many studies regarding the relationship between the American presidency and the terrain of foreign policy. Fisher (1988) specialized in how the president and Congress worked together to create the particular field and Popescu (2017) wrote a book on the relationship between the president and the concept of grand strategy.

Legislative powers of American president

Scholars have also focused on the specific legislative powers of the American national leader. Stack (2006) studied the situations in which the American president has grant

legislative powers in comparison to the other policy-makers, while Bolton and Thrower (2016) examined the growing possibility for unilateral action by the commander in chief when Congress has a relative low level of capacity to constrain the executive power.

Measuring the impact of think tanks

Finally, there is also a great amount of earlier research on specifically how to measure the level of influence of think tanks: this for instance has been done by Abelson (2014), Michelot (2013) and Weidenbaum (2010). Abelson (2014) focused on the significant developments the European and American think tanks had gone through considering this particular issue over time. Michelot (2013) compared the respective levels of influence between French and American think tanks. Weidenbaum (2010) pointed to the difficulty of finding certainties concerning the general amount of influence think tanks in practice have.

This thesis is in an similar direction as these previous works but differs in certain crucial aspects. In this study the powers of the president are analyzed in the context of their impact on the ideological positions of think tanks. It differs from Abelson (2014), Michelot (2013) and Weidenbaum (2010) in that the study is not necessarily interested in the actual level of influence think tanks have, but what methods they use to obtain the highest possible amount of it. It therefore shares the vision of Lerner (2018) that think tanks are strategic actors which have as objective to acquire the highest possible level of influence, but

specializes concerning several important facets of the case: it only focuses on one particular public channel, which is the role of the president and the degree of structural influence it can

(13)

13

have on the ideological positions of the institutions. The goal is to obtain information over the consequences of politics concerning think tanks instead of think tanks concerning politics, on which many of the previous studies concentrated. This is a key difference with for example the work of Abelson (2006), where the emphasis lied on the influence of the institutions on the world of American foreign policy-making. And where the central goal of Lerner (2018) was to examine the varying ideological distances between the think tanks and the chamber median of Congress, this thesis analyzes the impact of an unconventional president as Donald Trump concerning the strength and depth of possible changes made in relation to their

ideological positions by the institutions and provides knowledge over what exactly the most influential factors are in their determination. Because of the powers of the position of the American chief in command and the use of strategic ideological positioning of think tanks in other contexts in order to maximize their level of influence, there is ground for research of a possible relationship between the two entities. By looking at three major, institutionally differently oriented American think tanks in detail and over nearly an entire presidential term of an (arguably) unique president of the US considering one specific policy-field, this can lead to genuine new insights in relation to how these institutions attempt to keep their level of influence at the highest level and what role the central national leader and other causal factors play in this process.

1.2. Theoretical foundations of research

Statism

The first theory which therefore informs this thesis is that of statism. This theoretical approach focuses on: “… what is understood by the institution of the state and analyze the relationship between state and society” (Batta, 2011, p. 91). Statism in short argues that the state acts in an relatively autonomous fashion and has a significant amount of power. The theory has undergone several developments over time, mainly due to the occurrence of the behavioral revolution and its approach centered on society. Statism was however brought back into attention by scholars who argued that the state is in fact highly capable of acting on its own and according to its own personal interests. The theory has provided multiple valuable contributions concerning the relationship and interactions between society and its rulers (Batta, 2011). This study aims to deliver an contribution to this very topic: the relationship between American think tanks (society) and the American president (state).

(14)

14

Presidentialism

The second theory which informs the thesis is that of presidentialism. Under

presidentialism there are two executive powers: the leader of the government and an assembly of legislators. It is not necessarily always the case that the president is the most powerful policy-maker (De Luca, 2011). The US however is a state in which this position has a relatively high degree of power and can therefore act in an rather autonomous manner. The American president for instance does not need the support of the national legislature as his or her term is fixed. He or she also has several possibilities to circumvent the powers of

Congress when it comes to policymaking. Executive decrees and treaties can be issued which possibly have similar powers to those of congressional legislation (Robbins, 2011). The dominancy of the US president especially comes forward in the field of foreign policy, on which this research is focused. The public, both international and domestic, most certainly see the American leaders as the central policy-makers on that terrain, although the amount of attention the particular person in charge may give to the subject can vary (Jurišić, 1998).

President Donald Trump has however seemed highly focused so far on the field of foreign policy. Already at the start of his presidential campaign he made various (radical) statements regarding the countries of China, Japan and Mexico. During Trump’s first year in office he continued a number of previously implemented foreign policies while pushing others in unpredictable and varied directions (Macdonald, 2018). An good example of this is NATO, in relation to which the American president has stated that he desires a “good deal” from the partners of the US in return for its respective funding and support (Mukherjee, 2018). Personal characteristics of Trump such as the ignorance of democratic regulations and the threatening of the media have been deemed similar to those of autocratic leaders as for instance Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (Tapia, 2018), and his apparent affection for these kind of rulers has also caused raised eyebrows among the global community (Mukherjee, 2018).

The thesis will advance the state of research on statism by providing more insights in the relationship between state and society. It will display if society in the form of American think tanks still recognizes the power and level of autonomy of the state in the form of

president Trump and if they will act accordingly to this recognition in order to maximize their respective levels of influence. It will advance the state of research on presidentialism by providing more insights in the various forms of impact which a president can have. It will

(15)

15

show if the particular ideological position of the acting president can set structural changes into motion regarding the relevant ideological positions of think tanks. Besides this it will also advance the state of research on think tanks, providing more insights into how these

institutions operate, how they attempt to obtain influence and which roles they take on in society.

1.3. Ideological position of president Trump concerning Russia

In this study the ideological position of president Trump on the topic of Russia plays a central role. Already starting in his presidential campaign, Trump took a controversial stance considering the American foreign policy issue of the country. He openly admired Russian president Putin and made the promise to create a friendship between the two world powers where predecessor Barack Obama had failed to achieve this (David, 2017).

During the first 100 days of his presidency Trump’s words and actions were absolutely in line with this intention. Several appointments for high positions within his administration (Rex Tillerson, Michael Flynn, Jeff Sessions) contributed to the feeling of a friendly attitude towards Russia, and the same could be said of the constant suspicion of a connection between the Trump group (family, advisors and associates) and the country. Despite minor actions of the American president which could have had a negative effect on the relationship with Russia (as for instance the launch of a missile against an Syrian military airbase), the global perception that president Trump was approaching Russia in an unique friendly manner remained unchanged (David, 2017).

Trump also expressed this sentiment openly himself. A personal Twitter-post read: “Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only “stupid” people, or fools, would think that it is bad!” (Rumer, Sokolsky and Weiss, 2017, p. 13). He seemed eager to radically change the traditional bipartisan approach towards the country. His believes concerning Russia were judged as: “… unrealistic, to put it mildly” (Rumer et al., 2017, p. 17). Examples which showed this were the surprising dismissal of the finding of the American intelligence agencies that the Russians were the perpetrator of the e-mail hacks in relation to Hillary Clinton and the assurance by Trump that Putin would not enter the Ukraine during the crisis there while a high number of troops of Russia were already present in the state (Rumer et al., 2017).

In the second and third year of his presidency, Trumps approach towards Russia was deemed as incoherent by critics. Despite performing several actions which could be judged as

(16)

16

the toughening up of the American attitude towards the Kremlin (the expulsion of Russian diplomats, providing military assistance to the Ukraine and revealing new defense tactics against Russia), the president also angered the US legislators for instance by congratulating president Putin on his re-election. There seemed to be a division developing between the stance of the senior staff members of Trump and his apparent personal affection for the Russian leader (Manson and Weaver, 2018). At the start of 2019 a journalist in the

Washington Post even called it: “… the Trump-Putin partnership” (Rubin, 2019). This was after the Republican Party had voted to lift a number of sanctions imposed on a Russian oligarch. The author pointed to the fact that Trump made major efforts to keep the contents of his various forms of contact with Putin secretive and questioned the choice of his political followers to allow this continuing stance of the president (Rubin, 2019). In September 2019 the news broke that the Democratic Party consequentially attempted to obtain the transcripts of the conversations between the American and Russian leader by letting a whistle-blower testify before the panel of the so-called Intelligence Committee. Democrat Adam Schiff stated that the objective was to: “… see whether in the conversations with other world leaders, and in particular with Putin, that the president was also undermining our security in a way that he thought would personally benefit his [reelection] campaign” (Anonymous, 2019).

Overall, it can thus be argued that president Trump had an positive ideological position concerning Russia during the first three years of his presidency. Although tougher policies and sanctions against the country have been implemented, these apparently were more the ideas of his personnel than of himself. These contradictory stances made that some critics deemed Trump’s approach of Russia as incoherent, because his words and his policies did not align. However, two key aspects stand out: his personal opinion on the country of Russia and its leader are clearly very positive in comparison to those of any former American president. The apparent affection of Trump in regards of the Russian state stands out from the multiple times he has expressed his desire to have a good relationship with it and has argued that a friendship between the two nations would only have beneficial effects on the world. As for his alleged affection of Putin, the many times he has shown his admiration for the Russian leader in various forms speak for them self. Despite the toughening up of the American policies and sanctions towards the Kremlin, it is undeniable that there is sufficient ground for the argument that Trump has (had) an positive ideological position concerning Russia and that the American think tanks will have picked up on this. This thesis will reveal if it was a

decisive factor for them in their desire to maximize their levels of influence in relation to the national foreign policy agenda and therefore followed him in this personal view.

(17)

17

1.4. Main hypotheses and concepts

The central hypothesis is as follows:

𝐻₀: the ideological position of American thinks tanks concerning Russia can be explained (partially) due to the use of the tactic of strategic ideological positioning in relation to the ideological position of the president because of the significant amount of power and autonomy attached to that position, in order to maximize their level of overall influence concerning the foreign policy agenda.

The alternative hypothesis which follows out of this is:

𝐻₁: the ideological position of American thinks tanks concerning Russia cannot be explained (partially) due to the use of the tactic of strategic ideological positioning in relation to the ideological position of the president despite the significant amount of power and autonomy attached to that position, in order to maximize their level of influence concerning the foreign policy agenda.

The theoretical expectations coming from statism and presidentialism (the significant amount of power and autonomy attached to the position of the American president produces strategic ideological positioning in relation to the relevant presidential ideological position by the think tanks in order to maximize their level of influence) can be clearly seen in them. The main concepts mentioned in these hypotheses are that of “think tank”, “strategic ideological positioning” and “foreign policy agenda”. The concept of “think tank” is defined using the work of Rich (2004): “… aggressive institutions that actively seek to maximize public

credibility and political access to make their expertise and ideas influential in policy making” (p. 11). This definition acknowledges that think tanks are strategic political actors, who utilize various tactics to maximize their overall level of influence in relation to the initiating and implementation of legislation. The concept of “strategic ideological positioning” is defined using the work of Lerner (2018): “… strategic tradeoffs about where they [think tanks, ed.] position themselves ideologically” (p. 352). This definition is in line with the previous definition that think tanks are political actors with as central objective to influence policy change and recognizes that the tactic of strategic ideological positioning can be used to achieve this. The concept is operationalized in this thesis by searching for ideological change

(18)

18

in the publications of the institutions which is “closer” to the ideological position of the president on the relevant issue. The concept of “foreign policy agenda” is defined using the work of Peake (2001): “…the set of issues that the President, Congress, and the media are paying attention to over time” (p. 73). The subject of Russia falls under this as the relevant actors are devoting a satisfactory amount of attention to it during the studied period. The relevant concept is operationalized by the assumption that strategic ideological positioning in relation to Russia means the utilization of strategic ideological positioning by the think tanks in regards of obtaining more overall influence on the American foreign policy agenda.

In this section the theoretical framework of this thesis was outlined. It was argued that the key difference with previous research is that the goal is to obtain information over the

consequences of politics concerning think tanks instead of think tanks concerning politics. It was also explained that the main theories behind this study are statism and presidentialism because of the significant level of power and autonomy they attach to the state. In the third paragraph it was shown that president Trump had an positive ideological position concerning Russia in the first three years of his presidency in that he has shown affectionate tendencies towards both the country and its leader. Finally the hypotheses and the main concepts were highlighted, displaying the argument that because of the significant level of power and autonomy attached to the state as stressed by statism and presidentialism, American think tanks will use the tactic of strategic ideological positioning in relation to the relevant ideological position of the president in order to maximize their level of influence.

(19)

19

2. Methodology

In this section the methodology of this thesis is outlined. In the first paragraph an explanation is given for the choice to study the American think tanks. In the second paragraph the reasoning behind the choice for the issue of Russia is highlighted. In the third paragraph it is highlighted why specifically the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution are used for this research. In the following paragraph it is outlined why the method of Qualitative Document Analysis was applied in this study and how this specifically has been done. In the final paragraph the data and its usage are explained.

2.1. Reasoning behind choice for American think tanks as case

The reasoning behind the choice for American think tanks as the case for this study takes into account that the think tanks of the US are the most powerful in their respective field. As stated by Nicander (2015): “Given the size and nature of think tanks in the United States, should no influence be found in this specific environment, it is less likely to be found elsewhere” (p. 481). Especially concerning the American policy-making process in the area of foreign policy, these entities have played an influential role for over a century. They have not only had an far greater impact than their Canadian or European counterparts (Drezner, 2015), but Wiarda (2015) even argued that they could match the levels of impact in American politics in possession of actors such as Congress and the political parties. According to the author there has been a shift from the universities being the central originator of potential policy plans towards the think tanks in Washington since the 1960’s. Their writing is more fitting for this purpose than that of academics: it is easier to understand for the average person and does not include much text on the wide theoretical visions and debates. The academic researchers outside of Washington usually also do not have the required connections and timing to bring their arguments into the sight of the actual policy-makers. Being in the capital of the US is essential in current times to achieve a significant amount of influence (Wiarda, 2015). This relatively high level of power makes the American think tanks an very interesting case from an academic perspective, as their strategies and the effectiveness of these can be analyzed on a tier which is not attainable when studying universities or the foreign

(20)

20

2.2. Reasoning behind choice for issue of Russia

The reasoning behind the choice for the subject of Russia is as previously mentioned the controversial stance of president Trump in relation to the country. As argued by Blackwill (2018): “…Donald Trump’s relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” (p. 33). Because the American leader’s point of view

concerning this topic is so unconventional, it makes it ideal concerning the revealing of potential structural strategic ideological change by the think tanks. None of the studied institutions had an even closely similar view of Russia to the one of Trump before his presidency so if they use strategic ideological positioning in relation to this specific foreign policy issue, they are forced to drastically change their tone in the particular context which should in turn make it easier in the light of research to detect this process. The choice for Russia is therefore motivated by the fact that it is an highly aberrant case.

2.3. Reasoning behind choice for studied think tanks

The choice for specifically the think tanks in the form of the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution is firstly motivated by their differing institutional points of view. As previously mentioned the institutes are considered to be respectively conservative, independent and progressive. This means that the whole width of the ideological field is being considered in this study, which makes it reasonable to assume that the smaller American think tanks would make similar strategic ideological changes as their more prominent counterparts. It could be argued that triangulation takes place as several kinds of evidence (from conservative, independent and progressive points of view) are taken into account in relation to a single research question, which provides validity for the possible causal inference (Stoker, 2011). Secondly, the choice for the three think tanks is motivated by the accessibility of the data. Because of their size and relative importance, there are many online available publications to analyze. The importance of a high level accessibility of research data is for instance stressed by Toshkov (2016).

2.4. The single-case study

The research design used in this thesis is that of a qualitative single-case study, whereby Qualitative Document Analysis is applied to the data. There are several reasons

(21)

21

behind the choice of a single-case study as the used research design. Firstly, this particular study is focused on a causal mechanism: the possible strategic adjusting of the ideological position of think tanks in relation to the ideological position of the president in order to maximize their level of influence concerning the foreign policy agenda. The choice for a single-case study is therefore logical because: “Single-case studies provide possibilities to analyse a case at a much higher resolution and at much greater depth, …” (Toshkov, 2016, p. 291). The use of this research design provides the opportunity to give a complete and detailed picture of the connection between the use of strategic ideological positioning of think tanks and the ideological positions of the American president, of which there is a gap of knowledge in the current academic field as established in the previous section.

Secondly, the use of single-case studies is needed in the academic field which focuses on the interaction between think tanks and policy-makers. As stated by Abelson (2006): “The importance of providing detailed case studies to highlight the participation of think tanks in the policy-making process cannot be overstated” (p. 8). The author argues that this form of research design is necessary to achieve conclusions which can be seen as definitive, because other forms keep relying on weak indicators of impact. This study will avoid this issue by making use of the single-case study research design and can thereby obtain significant results.

2.5. Qualitative Document Analysis

The choice for the use of Qualitative Document Analysis is suitable in order to achieve the research goal of this study. The method is used to: “… analyse document content,

analyzing the meaning and implications of text, which distinguishes it from quantitative word analysis …” (Le Gouais and Wach, 2013, p. 441). It is a logical option because there are many documents available in the form of reports, commentaries and interviews published by the three analyzed think tanks. Qualitative Document Analysis is systematic and secure, with the main focus lying on the assessment of the treatment of so-called “themes”. It can provide important insights in relation to the data and is useful concerning the identification of possible changes which could have occurred in the studied period (Le Gouais and Wach, 2013).

Looking at the conceptual framework of this thesis, it can be stated that this study is XY-focused as it reveals and evaluates the effect of a cause (does X (the election of Donald Trump) make a difference?) but also sheds light on what the explanation is of an particular outcome (what causes are important in relation to the ideological position of American think tanks concerning foreign policy issues?). Was a causal mechanism set into motion by the

(22)

22

unusual ideological position of the president on Russia or were the consequences of the event minimal?

In order to find the answers to these questions, the method of Qualitative Document Analysis was applied in this study in a manner similar to the research of Le Gouais and Wach (2013). There were four stages in the research process: I) the finding of relevant documents II) the identification of the themes in these documents in preparation of the analysis III) the execution of the analysis itself and IV) the finalization of the overall analysis. Concerning the first stage, this was done by searching the websites of the three think tanks for publications on the topic of Russia during the Trump presidency. The following step was to identify themes in the obtained documents. These eventually became the ones mentioned below:

 Positive ideological position concerning Russia

 Neutral ideological position concerning Russia

 Negative ideological position concerning Russia

 Positive ideological position concerning Putin

 Neutral ideological position concerning Putin

 Negative ideological position concerning Putin

 Positive ideological position concerning Trump’s approach of Russia

 Neutral ideological position concerning Trump’s approach of Russia

 Negative ideological position concerning Trump’s approach of Russia

The third step, the analysis, was then done in the following manner: “Each document was analysed to determine the extent of alignment with each theme … . This was done through analyzing the meanings of the text, rather than relying on the presence and frequency of key words” (Le Gouais and Wach, 2013, p. 445). Each analyzed article obtained one out of four scores for every theme: high alignment (H), partial alignment (P), no alignment (N) or unmentioned (U) in case an issue was not addressed in the particular document. In the “Analysis”-section a graphic representation of these scores can be seen for the think tanks spread over the studied period, below which the various meanings of the articles are given in the form of a narrative. The finalization of the overall analysis (the fourth step in the research process) was the comparison of the results between the think tanks, discussing the

(23)

23

answer to the central research question and the addressing of the hypotheses (Le Gouais and Wach, 2013). This fourth step can be found in the “Discussion”-section.

2.6. Studied data

The data studied are publicly available reports, commentaries and interviews published by the three think tanks. The research only takes written publications derived from the own official websites of the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution into consideration. This is to avoid any discussion as to the presence of the genuine connection between the think tank and the pieces themselves. The terms of “article”, “piece” and “publication” are used interchangeably in this context. Video-fragments of the experts of the institutions being interviewed on television will also not be included, as in these situations the staff members could make statements with which their employers could disagree and even distance themselves from in hindsight. By focusing on publications in writing featured on the think tanks’ own official websites there is no chance of this happening, as the institutions are in full control of what is published and how these

publications are edited on these platforms. The publications will be spread over a time period from the inauguration of Donald Trump (January 20, 2017) till the nearing of the end of his third year in office (December 31, 2019). The inauguration date was chosen because it is the official beginning of the Trump presidency, so therefore there cannot be any doubt that he from that point on is the person in charge and carries the formal responsibility for the implemented policies in the studied field. The date of the final day of 2019 was chosen because it was far enough into the presidency of Trump for the think tanks to have correctly recognized the for them relevant ideological positions of the American leader and have made their strategic ideological choices in reaction to them, as well as being far away enough of the presidential elections in 2020 which arguably could lead to statements and opinions by the people in charge which are not sincere but have the central function of attracting voters.

In this section the methodology of this thesis was outlined. In the first paragraph it was explained that the case of American think tanks was chosen because of their relative high level of power. Following on this it was outlined that the issue of Russia was analyzed

because of the controversial stance of president Trump in relation to the country, ensuring that any strategic ideological change of the think tanks would be visible. In the third paragraph the reasoning behind the choice for specifically the Heritage Foundation, the Council on Foreign

(24)

24

Relations and the Brookings Institution was highlighted, in that it was because of their differing points of view and the relatively high level of accessibility to the data. In the fourth paragraph the concept of the single-case study was outlined, arguing that it was suitable as the research design of this study because of the focus on a causal mechanism and the need for this type of research in the relevant academic field. In the following paragraph the Qualitative Document Analysis method was addressed, explaining that it was applied to the data by measuring the level of alignment with the identified themes. In the final paragraph the studied data was highlighted, in that only written publications on the official websites of the think tanks were taken into account and that they ranged from Trump’s inauguration date (January 20, 2017) to the nearing of the end of his third year in office (December 31, 2019).

(25)

25

3. Analysis

In this section the execution of the analysis is displayed. The various meanings of the studied articles are highlighted and the scores concerning their alignment with the identified themes are graphically shown. The analysis is spread in chronological order over three paragraphs, containing narratives for each of the three studied years.

3.1. 2017

3.1.1. The Heritage Foundation

Figure 1: frequency of scores Heritage Foundation on themes in 2017

Just a couple of months after Trump’s inauguration, the Heritage Foundation published a commentary concerning the US relations with Russia, scoring high alignment with a negative ideological position in relation to the country. It focused on the Russian violations of the international arms control rules, their occupation of Georgia and their involvement in Afghanistan. It concluded that Russia did not have any intentions to improve the relationship with the US (Brookes, 2017). In line with this stance the think tank published an commentary by Bromund (2017) in May which criticized the open admiration of the American president of his Russian colleague: “Like many Americans, I completely rejected candidate Trump’s praise for Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin” (Bromund, 2017). The author

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Russia Putin Trump's approach

Russia Positive H Positive P Positive N Neutral H Neutral P Neutral N Negative H Negative P Negative N Unmentioned

(26)

26

however pointed to the implemented foreign policies of the US concerning Russia and argued that this showed that the American president in fact did oppose the country effectively. Policies of the Trump administration had negative effects for Russia in relation to Europe, Georgia, Syria and Afghanistan. It was therefore argued in the piece that:

Trump’s effort to win over the Russians testifies to the emphasis the administration is placing on the war against the Islamists. … But I’d rather have an administration that tries to cooperate with the Russians on ISIS alone than one — like Obama’s — which tries to cooperate with them everywhere (Bromund, 2017).

So the ideological position of the American president on Russia was recognized, but it was put in the context of strategic foreign diplomacy and eventually praised as being an minimal attempt for international cooperation. A report of the think tank in the beginning of August however openly criticized the attempts of the Trump administration in this direction on the area of cyber security, scoring partial alignment with a negative ideological position towards the president’s approach. It stated that the advisors of the president: “… have

continued to propose scaled-back forms of cooperation with Russia” (Inserra, 2017, p. 1). The report put the blame for a sympathetic attitude towards the country on the staff of the

American president, rather than on Trump himself. Russia was again as in the earlier

publications seen in an negative light, with the author openly stating: “Given that China and Russia are untrustworthy, only the exercise of U.S. power can curtail their malicious cyber activity” (Inserra, 2017, p. 3). This vision was continued in a commentary on a topic which has proven to be sensitive for Trump: Russian digital interference in American politics. Dale (2017) stated that Russia had indeed used social media platform Facebook to affect the

proceedings of the presidential elections in 2016. Trump and his opinion on the issue were not mentioned in the article, scoring unmentioned. A critical sound on the American president was voiced in a commentary in November: Phillips and Armstrong (2017) argued that the Trump administration was still being misled by Russia, despite Trump being the president. In relation to Syria the authors stated that the national administration had to be careful not to be attracted by deceitful promises from the Russian side (Phillips and Armstrong, 2017). In the same month a commentary was published which was very negative on the intentions of president Putin, scoring high alignment with a negative ideological position in relation to the Russian leader. Although in the piece the contacts of Trump’s campaign team with Russia in anticipation of the American presidential elections in 2016 were mentioned, the focus was

(27)

27

more on the interference from the country in relation to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The author argued that concerning the election of Trump the Russians did not have much influence, and that his victory was an upset in their planning. Putin was however still seen in a negative light in relation to the interests of the US (Bromund, 2017). Finally, a commentary published in December focused on the Russian violations of a particular missile treaty, again scoring high alignment with a negative ideological position towards Russia. Although it stated that the US had an long way to go concerning bringing the Russian state back in line in this regard, the name of Trump was not mentioned. Dodge and Wilson (2017) simply argued that it provided the American leadership with a chance to show it’s resistance.

3.1.2. The Council on Foreign Relations

Figure 2: frequency of scores Council on Foreign Relations on themes in 2017

The Council on Foreign Relations published an article in February which was heavily critical of the strategy followed by the Trump administration in relation to the role of Russia in the area of cybersecurity, scoring high alignment with a negative ideological position in relation to the relevant approach. It argued that while the American president was fighting many domestic wars (including with the media, intelligence agencies and companies) Trump meanwhile: “… declares his respect for Vladimir Putin, seeks better relations with Russia, ignores the implications of Russian interference in the U.S. elections, and equates Russian state violence at home and abroad with U.S. behavior” (Anonymous, 2017). The article

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

(28)

28

thereby specifically criticized the ideological position of Trump on Russia, declaring that it damaged the American interests and was beneficial to those of the Russians. In August the think tank published an report on an workshop which was held in June, focusing on

cooperation possibilities between the US and Russia. The participants of this event argued that both countries needed to recognize each other’s interests and that there were some possibilities for working together, among others in the area of arms control, Europe and the Middle East. The views on Russia in the piece scored highly neutral, with a participant even stating that the Americans were lacking in the acknowledgement of legitimate interests on the Russian side. Despite this, it was argued that the Russians should recognize that Trump was not in the process of achieving regime change in their country (Anonymous, 2017). The same neutral tone could be seen in an article published in September on the handling of North Korea by Russia. It analyzed the Russian actions objective in regards to this issue, although it was mentioned that the country from time to time enjoyed being a hindrance in international negotiations and thereby scored partial alignment with a negative ideological position towards the state. An instance of when this happened was the 2016 negotiations of the US with China in order to form the appropriate language of the response of the United Nations (UN) Security Council to the execution of another nuclear test by North Korea (Snyder, 2017).

Critical concerning Russia

In November the Council on Foreign Relations published a piece on Russian

interference in foreign elections and Trump’s response to this. The article stated that besides the actions of Russia in relation to the presidential elections of the US in 2016, there was also substantial evidence that similar occurrences had taken place in the Netherlands, Germany and France. The author spoke of the possibilities of Russian interference in Mexican elections, as this could have more significant results concerning the harming of the US. Russia was therefore seen negatively and the treatment of Mexico by Trump was seen as especially harmful as this could mentally open the way for Russian propaganda and misinformation under the Mexican people (O’Neil, 2017). In the same month the Council on Foreign

Relations published an report on the limiting factors in economic sense concerning the foreign policy of Russia. The country was again portrayed negatively, resisting in every possible way an world order dominated by the US as a consequence of fundamental misunderstandings going back decades in history. It was argued that because of its continuous weak financial situation the Russians could however be looking at a steadily declining role in global politics.

(29)

29

The article also mentioned the apparent desire of president Trump to improve the relationship between the US and Russia, but the author saw this as unlikely to happen in the nearby future because of the growing resistance to each other on both sides at that moment in time. He advised the Americans to be patient as Russia would gradually have to come to terms with its financial state and act according to their consequential diminishing international role (Smart, 2017).

3.1.3. The Brookings Institution

Figure 3: frequency of scores Brookings Institution on themes in 2017

The Brookings Institution published an advisory piece in March on how Russia should be handled by the US government. The author argued for taking an laidback approach, as everything which the Americans could do would eventually be beneficial to Putin. The article pointed to the persistent financial problems of Russia and that the country could be brought to its knees by having patience and letting their issues overwhelm them. The vision on Russia was that of an relatively limited global force which only would gain advantages if the US and Trump deemed the state as a worthy opponent, scoring high alignment concerning neutrality (Aleksashenko, 2017). Just three days later the think tank published another advisory article on how the US should deal with Russia. The piece recognized the friendly statements Trump made concerning Vladimir Putin during his presidential campaign. The author argued in a neutral fashion that on certain subjects Trump should take a firm stance towards Russia: the

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(30)

30

security of NATO, the nuclear balance and the Russian treatment of arms control treaties and the Ukraine. Although this would have possibly disappointed the Kremlin, Trump could then engage with the country in an more effective manner. He could show that the US stood open for dialogue. In order to make this work the president however would have to display a combination of persistence and patience (Pifer, 2017). In June, the same author had an article published by the Brookings Institution which focused on how Congress, then controlled by the Republicans, had a lack of faith in the American leader considering the treatment of Russia. Although the proposed legislation which would impose new sanctions on the Russians would probably pass through the relevant institutions, there was doubt if the executive power in the form of Trump would either comply with the plans or veto them. The author therefore advised the president and his staff to ensure that Trump’s voice was the decisive one

regarding this topic because with a meeting between Trump and Putin planned in July, he would want to be in a strong position concerning the execution of his interests on the domestic front. The article scored high alignment on neutrality by giving no opinion in relation to if either Congress or the president was correct in their opinion on the sanctions (Pifer, 2017).

Little change in relationship US-Russia

At the end of July the Brookings Institution published a piece which studied the

relationship between the US and Russia after six months of Trump’s presidency. It argued that the amount of change which the president had promised concerning this issue was minimal in practice. Putin seemed to be optimistic in regards to his possibilities of manipulating Trump, while the American leader had the domestic investigations on the possible collusion between his campaign team and the Russians to worry about. The author called the plans of policy-maker Tillerson wise and gave him advice on several topics including communication between the Kremlin and NATO, the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine and the potential for talks and cooperation between the two sides. Although the need of hard work was stressed for both countries, the article mentioned the requirement of the stopping of negative Russian behavior multiple times and thereby scored partial alignment with an negative ideological position concerning the Kremlin (Pifer, 2017). In November the think tank published a piece on the activities of Russia concerning the use of misinformation. This was very critical in regards to both the country and the American response led by Trump. The author stated: “President Trump’s comments last week contradicting the U.S. intelligence

(31)

31

community assessment regarding Russian influence the 2016 elections further politicizes the issue and virtually ensures that the United States will continue to sputter in its response” (Hill, 2017). The article continued with an advisory plan containing three steps to address the Russian actions. It ended with an very clear judgement of the country of Russia:

Attitudes about information and usage are changing and there is a growing number of companies and governments that now understand that information is being weaponized by states like Russia to undermine political stability, sow fear and mistrust, and incite violence (Hill, 2017).

In an article in December the tone however was very different. Although it was negative of Trump’s tone concerning the subject of Vladimir Putin, the idea of accepting that the expansion of NATO had reached its limit was seen as a possibility to reduce the tensions between the US and Russia. The author was however very clear in his opinion that it was Putin’s fault that the relationship between the West and the Kremlin was in such a poor state, thereby scoring high alignment with a negative ideological position concerning the Russian leader (O’Hanlon, 2017).

3.2. 2018

3.2.1. The Heritage Foundation

Figure 4: frequency of scores Heritage Foundation on themes in 2018 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

(32)

32

In January 2018 the Heritage Foundation published a commentary on the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review of the Trump administration in the following month. The vision on Russia in this piece was distinctly negative: it argued that Moscow wanted their relations with the US to go back to the state they were during the Cold War and that the Russians were relatively willing to utilize their nuclear arsenal. The expectations were that the Trump administration would take a significantly different approach considering this issue than the American government under Obama’s presidency, who was arguably focused on the diminishing of the global number of nuclear weapons. According to the article, the US desperately needed to upgrade its arsenal in this category (Dodge, 2018). In March the think tank published a piece responding to the attempted assassination by the Kremlin of a retired Russian intelligence agent in the United Kingdom (UK) using an chemical weapon. It was argued that in line with the global outrage over the event the Trump administration formed a clear negative judgement of the act, recognizing the dangerous intentions of Russia in relation to the US and their allies. The author stated that Moscow already had ignored international legislation for a significant period of time, scoring high alignment with the relevant negative ideological position (Spochr, 2018).

High alignment with negative ideological positions concerning Russia and Putin

In April the Heritage Foundation published an article which specifically addressed the Western attitude towards Vladimir Putin. It stated that the general leniency in regards to the Russian leader had only made him willing to go further with his volatile behavior and that sanctions should follow which would target him personally. In relation to the approach of Putin used by Trump during his presidency, the article only mentioned that the US had permitted another round of sanctions against Russia. The authors were however clear in their personal judgement on the Russian president: “With the momentum that has come from Western solidarity against Putin’s repeatedly deplorable behavior, the West should strike while the iron is hot” (DeBevoise and Mrachek, 2018). This tone was continued in an report published by the Heritage Foundation in anticipation of the 2018 NATO Summit. Russia was seen as the sole remaining existential danger to the member states of the alliance and a strong signal in the sense of deterrence was required. The authors criticized the Russian willingness to use military power to change borders, their high defense spending and their international attacks in the digital world. The threat formed by the Kremlin would therefore have to be

(33)

33

openly discussed at the Summit in July, the Strategic Concept of NATO in relation to this issue was in need of an update and the Nord Stream II project would have to be halted as it was just giving Russia more possibilities to exert it’s destructive influence (Coffey and Kochis, 2018).

However, in an commentary published by the think tank at the end of July these negative views of the country were ignored. It focused on the domestic investigation concerning possible collusion between Trump and the Russians in order to let him win the presidential elections in 2016. The author argued that there was zero evidence that this in fact had happened and that the media should focus on other topics which actually had an effect on the daily lives of the American population. The continuing attention towards the Russia investigation was only in favor of the results for the Democrats concerning the midterm elections in 2018 (Binion, 2018). In September the Heritage Foundation published an article which argued that sanctions against the Kremlin were necessary. It mentioned a number of these measures which Trump had approved, which would: “… strike at the economic heart of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle of kleptocrats” (Coffey, 2018). The piece stressed that more were on the horizon and that this was an continuing tough attitude towards Russia by the US government, scoring high alignment with an positive position towards Trump’s approach of the country. The author however also argued that the recent discussion concerning the

possible lifting of sanctions against an particular Russian oligarch was out of place. As stated by him: “The U.S. government has absolutely no good reason to cut this man any slack. … Now is not the time for the U.S. Treasury to lose focus on the bigger geo-political picture” (Coffey, 2018). At the end of the year a piece was published by the think tank on the decision of president Trump to pull the American troops out of Syria. The reasoning behind this choice remained vague and surprised many allies of the Trump administration. The author was concerned in the text that without a clear explanation of this plan: “… many of the administration’s supporters will join the stampede of critics who have jumped to the conclusion that Russia, Iran, ISIS, the Assad regime, and Turkey will be the principal

beneficiaries of Trump’s new Syria policy” (Phillips, 2018). He clearly did not agree with this argument, giving numerous other explanations for the decision including that arrangements with other states had been made in order to compensate for the American soldiers leaving (Phillips, 2018).