• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Dmitri Trenin"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

U.S.-Russian Diplomatic Normalcy: One Small Step Nearer?

This week the U.S. government has presented to Moscow the candidacy of its future envoy for customary prior approval by the host country. Then, at some point, the Russian government not objecting and the U.S. Senate willing, a small but important element of U.S.-Russian diplomatic normalcy will be restored.

Link Copied
By Dmitri Trenin
Published on Jul 1, 2014

The absence of a U.S. ambassador in Moscow ever since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis has been striking. This never happened during the Cold War, when ambassadors were the prime conduits of dialogue between the superpowers. Not so these days. Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry have met many times during the past four months, and have spoken even more often. Occasionally, the two presidents also engage in telephone diplomacy. What the absence of a resident ambassador means today is that the government responsible for such a vacancy deprives itself of day-to-day contact with senior figures in the other country, and this limits its understanding of the host nation's policies.

Initially, the lack of replacement for Michael McFaul, who left Moscow on February 21, 2014, could have been seen as a sign of Washington's disapproval of Russia's actions in Crimea and with regard to Ukraine, an unspoken addition to the sanctions package. Yet, the longer the Spaso House, the U.S. ambassador's residence in Moscow's historical Arbat district, stays unoccupied, the more punishing the situation becomes for the United States: the Russian ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak, has, of course, continued working in Washington. Now, the U.S. government has taken the usual step of presenting to Moscow the candidacy of its future envoy for customary prior approval by the host country.

At least since April, there has been no mystery about the name of McFaul's possible successor. John Tefft is a career diplomat who served as a deputy chief of mission in Moscow, and as ambassador to Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Most recently, after his retirement last year, he headed a RAND project which brings U.S. and Russian business people together. Last night, Russian TV was scathingly critical of Tefft's past record, blaming him for too close relations with Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili and for scheming in Ukraine ahead of the Maidan. It also mentioned that some elements in Russia looked forward to his arrival in the hope of getting support in their campaign against the Kremlin.

Yet, this does not mean that Moscow will necessarily turn Tefft down. He would be coming to Moscow under starkly different circumstances than McFaul in January 2012. President Putin's popularity has never been stronger. Anti-government protests in Moscow have long died down. The Russian public attitude toward the United States has hardened. Also, John Tefft is a traditional career diplomat. He would do what diplomats are supposed to be doing under difficult circumstances: reaching out to key figures, listening to what they have to say, and seeking to explain his own government's intentions. He will be an interlocutor par excellence, not a negotiator.

On the Fourth of July, there will still be no U.S. ambassador to greet guests at Spaso. Then, at some point, the Russian government not objecting and the U.S. Senate willing, a small but important element of U.S.-Russian diplomatic normalcy will be restored.

About the Author

Dmitri Trenin

Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center

Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space

      Dmitri Trenin

  • Commentary
    What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West Revealed

      Dmitri Trenin

Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
Foreign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesRussia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Article
    Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio Politics

    “Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.

      Jennifer B. Murtazashvili

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In Russia, Private Companies Have Been Left to Pick Up the Tab for Ukrainian Drone Attacks

    The cost of air defense has become an unregistered tax on revenue for businesses. While military rents are consolidated in the federal budget, the costs of defense are being spread across the balance sheets of companies and regional governments.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • San Francisco Skyline
    Paper
    California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National Outcomes

    Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.

      • Wyatt Frank
      • Marissa Jordan

      Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.