• 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

  • Trump and Netanyahu speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Diverging U.S. and Israeli Goals in Iran Are Making the Endgame Even Murkier

    The cracks between Trump and Netanyahu have become more pronounced, particularly over energy and leadership targets.

      • Eric Lob

      Eric Lob

  • Seoul traffic at night
    Commentary
    Emissary
    How the Hormuz Closure Is Testing the Korean President’s Progressive Agenda

    The crisis is not just a story of energy vulnerability. It’s also a complex, high-stakes political challenge.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares

  • Paper
    A Tight Spot: Challenges Facing the Russian Oil Sector Through 2035

    Russian oil production is remarkably resilient to significant price changes, but significant political headwinds may lead to a drop regardless of economics.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Did Messaging App Telegram Fall From Grace in Russia?

    The history of Telegram’s relations with the Russian state offers a salutary lesson for international platforms that believe they can reach a compromise with the Kremlin.

      Maria Kolomychenko

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?

    In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

      Nur Arafeh

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • 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.