Mary Troyan

USA Today

WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has long supported increased military spending and tough talk about the threat Russia poses to the U.S. and its allies in Europe.

Since becoming an adviser to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, however, those principles appear to have undergone some revisions.

Trump has upended traditional conservative caution toward Russia by exchanging niceties with President Vladimir Putin and expressing hope for warmer relations. And Sessions, a frequent surrogate for the Trump campaign in public appearances, is nodding in agreement.

“This whole problem with Russia is really disastrous for America, for Russia and for the world,” Sessions said July 31 on CNN. “Donald Trump is right. We need to figure out a way to end this cycle of hostility that's putting this country at risk, costing us billions of dollars in defense, and creating hostilities.”

Just days into his new assignment as chairman of Trump’s national security advisory committee, Sessions in March was applauding Trump’s “more realistic, pragmatic” foreign policy.

“I think an argument can be made there is no reason for the U.S. and Russia to be at this loggerheads,” Sessions said. “Somehow, someway, we ought to be able to break that logjam.”

Other GOP leaders – and President Obama’s administration -- say there are plenty of valid reasons for the loggerheads.

In addition to annexing Crimea in Ukraine, Russia sent military aid to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in that country’s civil war; provided asylum to Edward Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges; is widely believed to be responsible for the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers; and has sharply restricted freedoms for independent journalists. And the head of NATO has accused Russia and Assad of “weaponizing migration” in an effort to destabilize Europe.

Yet Trump – and Sessions – insist a Trump presidency can and should de-escalate tensions between the two world powers.

It is a contrast from Sessions’ 19-year Senate record of calling Russia an untrustworthy adversary to be dealt with via massive military strength, not negotiation.

In a Montgomery speech in March 2014, for example, he called for international scorn toward Russia for its aggressive actions in Ukraine and, before then, Georgia.

"I believe a systematic effort should be undertaken so that Russia feels pain for this," Sessions said then. "Because if you don't act now to make some sanctions against Russia then why will they believe in the future that we're going to impose sanctions or do anything aggressive if they move forward to take all of Ukraine, all of Georgia?"

In July, Trump refused to urge Putin not to interfere with the American election process.

"I'm not going to tell Putin what to do. Why would I tell him what to do?" Trump said. In the same news conference, Trump said if he’s elected, “we’ll be looking” at whether to recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift sanctions against Russia.

Sessions, not that long ago, was calling for more sanctions against an expansionist Russia that was rattling U.S. allies in Europe. And he regularly blamed the Obama administration for what he argued was an overly optimistic and weak foreign policy, including a decision to scale back planned missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland.

“There’s no good solution now. The bottle of milk has shattered on the floor and you can’t put it back together,” the Alabama senator said about relations with Russia in the aftermath of the annexation of Crimea.

Sessions has also pointed to Russia’s record as justification for a robust missile defense system, which has deep roots in north Alabama.

“Russia’s recent actions in Georgia remind us that country, which we once hoped was on a path to greater integration into the global world community, might again be seeking to restore old Soviet ideas of dominance throughout their neighbors and in Eastern Europe, all of which should serve as a motivation to move ahead with the necessary capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies from missile attack, in particular,” Sessions said on the Senate floor in 2008.

Two years later, Sessions voted against the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, in part because he thought Obama conceded too much ground to the Russians.

“Just signing an agreement on a piece of paper does not create security,” Sessions said. “A consistent, principled, just approach to our legitimate national defense, advocated clearly and forthrightly without misunderstanding, is the best way to have security in this dangerous world.”

Russians: Trump more 'fun' than Clinton and would improve U.S.-Russia ties

Trump to consider recognizing Russian control of Crimea

Trump says he hopes Russia can find 'missing' Clinton emails

Bill Stewart, a retired professor at the University of Alabama and longtime observer of Alabama politics, said he didn’t think Sessions had changed his views on Russia, just muted them while he’s on the Trump bandwagon.

“Campaign surrogates basically have to find a means of accommodation that lasts through the November election and not make them appear to be totally inconsistent with their previously expressed views,” Stewart said.

It is not inconsistent for Sessions to hope for a better relationship between Russia and the United States, Stewart said.

“Yes, we would like to get along with everybody and to have peace, but what we like and what is feasible may be very different,” Stewart said.

Efforts to reach Sessions for comment Friday and Monday were unsuccessful.

In a May interview about his endorsement of Trump, Sessions said Trump is correctly redefining conservatism away from interventionist foreign policies and nation-building.

“People don’t have to endorse all of his rhetoric but he’s correct on the issues substantively and he’s where the American people want to be, and we as a party should celebrate this and join this movement,” Sessions said.

Contact Mary Troyan at mtroyan@usatoday.com