What’s The Importance Of The Newly Revived Russian-US Interparliamentary Dialogue?

The establishment of more contacts between both countries at this level can lead to new channels of dialogue, including informal ones off the record, for clarifying confusion and debunking lies about the ongoing Russian-US talks as they arise so as to avert the further deterioration of their ties.

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna hosted a delegation of Russian lawmakers who visited DC after the sanctions upon them were temporarily lifted to facilitate their travels there. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov assessed the talks that they held with their bipartisan American counterparts as “very helpful.” Putin’s Special Envoy for talks with the US, who worked with Luna to help make this happen, then invited US congressmen to Russia. The sanctions upon them would also be temporarily lifted to facilitate this.

Although nothing tangible followed the newly revived Russian-US interparliamentary dialogue, which Luna reminded everyone had essentially been frozen for nearly a quarter-century, the very fact that Russian lawmakers visited DC to meet with their bipartisan counterparts is an achievement in itself. The temporary lifting of sanctions on the Russian delegation showed that the State Department is sincere about resuming dialogue at this level despite pressure from the Democrats, Europeans, and Ukrainians.

The establishment of more contacts between both countries at this level can also lead to new channels of dialogue, including informal ones off the record, for clarifying confusion and debunking lies about the ongoing Russian-US talks as they arise. Those lawmakers who participate in this can then share with their peers what they learned from their new friends, thus possibly preventing this uncertainty from further toxifying their already strained ties that their respective leaders are working so hard to improve.

That’s not to imply that these figures would function as the other country’s lobbyists, but just that they’d engage with their counterparts in good faith on sensitive issues and then convey to their peers what they learned in the interests of upholding and possibly even advancing their government’s official policy. After all, those from both sides who voluntarily took part in this dialogue presumably support their respective leader’s efforts to pioneer a “New Détente”, or they at minimum don’t oppose it enough to subvert it.

To be sure, there are still plenty of figures at the congressional and other levels in the US that fiercely oppose this policy and are actively working to subvert it, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has begun publicly questioning the US’ commitment to the “Spirit of Anchorage”. Formerly Western-friendly experts like Dimitri Simes and Dmitry Trenin are now skeptical about the prospects of a “New Détente” with Trump 2.0, and while they won’t subvert Putin, they might advise him to drop this policy.

Continued subversion of Trump’s policy of improving ties with Russia (which he himself might no longer be sincerely committed to anyhow) coupled with new pushback against Putin’s policy of improving ties with the US bodes ill for the future of their ties. The resumption of the Russian-US interparliamentary dialogue might not reverse the aforesaid dynamics that risk further toxifying their already strained ties, but it can’t hurt either, and it might in fact decelerate these trends to an extent.

Therein lies the importance of last week’s talks since they signal that there are still lawmakers on both sides that either support this stalled policy or at least don’t oppose it enough to want ties to worsen. It was admittedly a symbolic event that had no tangible effect on their bilateral ties, but the dialogue channels that were established could be put to use for preventing their ties from deteriorating any more than they already have. That might in turn buy more time for a breakthrough in the “New Détente”.