Trump and Putin at Helsinki - story of (not) a treason


Presidents Trump and Putin eventually had their first bilateral meeting, yesterday 07/16/2018 in Helsinki [full video of the press conference]. Supposedly, the Summit was going to set of a new course in the relationships between USA and Russia, marking the inversion of the negative trend established during Obama’s Presidency. Many Trump’s critics – in USA, most Democrat and Neocon politicians and commenters – questioned the opportunity of the Summit itself. They reacted with outrage to the final declarations that Trump released to the press, even going as far as ousting Trump as a traitor to the USA1,2.

So, here we will look at facts and their implications. Was the Summit a success for any party? Who got the best advantages? Can Trump count it as a victory or was it a defeat? In which direction can we expect USA and Russia to evolve their foreign politics?

First, of course, the meeting was an evident success of image for Russia and a personal success of Vladimir Putin. It was a first step in obtaining what is his stated goal, making Russia recognized as an equal among equals. Back in 2007, Putin postulated that we need to overcome a bipolar or unipolar world order – as in during or after the Cold War, respectively – to achieve a multipolar one3. Indeed, that would mean to acknowledge the role of other world Powers; as a side effect, USA would concede not to be the only Superpower anymore. Besides his accommodating words to Putin, besides his apparent isolationist politic, is Trump ready to make USA step down from their dominant role? So far, Putin’s success from the Summit has been a formal one. USA and Russia mutual relationships will have to improve, and foreign politics to change, before the success can become substantial. It is not granted.

Then, what could jeopardize such a change? I think that the Summit was a success for Trump too. Even if his tour in Europe was heavily criticized, he was able to make clear several important points. Trump can and will criticize allies if it is useful. Briefly:

i, he evidently considers NATO against Russia as an outdated concept to be revised or removed; the polemic on how much money each State member of the Alliance should invest in military is instrumental to this;

ii, he does not trust the European Union, as a non-entity where the Union itself is less than the sum of its State members, with no clear leadership and indecisive politics; and hence he supports Brexit;

iii, he can ignore prominent and vocal sides of USA politic, intelligence and public opinion if they disagree with his choices, at least in foreign politic; indeed, he did not give up to his goal to build more positive relationships with Russia.

All these points for sure concurred in setting the mood of most Liberals and Neocons already critic toward Trump. The third point was especially triggered during the Summit, when Trump made clear that he did not believe the reconstruction made by USA intelligence about Russian interference in 2016 American election. Such meddling is presented by Trump’s critics as a proven fact – a dozen Russian people indicted by Robert Mueller made USA democracy trip. If it was true, then USA democracy in 2016 was not very stable to begin with – hardly Trump’s fault, even less Putin’s. In order to attack a President they do not like, those many critics accept to slander American democracy. Then they point out others as traitors.
Fine example of circular logic.

Anyway, USA intelligence discovered the supposed Russian interference – it did, right? Investigations are still ongoing, but Trump does not necessarily trust them. He still considers some splinters of the intelligence as part of the ‘Deep State’ opposed to his Presidency. The questionable conduct held by FBI officials like Andrew McCabe4, James Comey5, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok6 can only make Trump’s doubts look justified. At the Summit, Trump was directly confronted by the press over this – having to publicly and bluntly choose between cutting loose his attempt to get better relationships with Russia or ignoring USA intelligence outlook.

The time has come that making USA best interest does not coincide with saving USA face. Divergent interests within USA agencies and politics are leading to divergent plots developing. At this point, in the context of the relationships with Russia, only one approach can prevail – bringing forth further attrite or a distension. In his electoral campaign Trump insisted that he would work for better relationships between USA and Russia. Now he is President and it is his right and duty to act in that sense – if he is able to. So far, he did it by words. With Trump being contested this hard by critics, politicians and media, facts may be harder and longer to come. That would easily explain why Trump’s words and manners to Putin have been so accommodating – he knew that, beyond those, he will be unlikely to have anything else to give for some time.



References









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How and why the West supports Muslim extremists – a double-edge sword

Image
First of all, happy New Year everyone.     Unfortunately, we closed our 2017 fearing terror attacks. It has not been the first year this happens.     Then let us ask ourselves: are Muslim extremists a threat?     The honest answer is yes .     After the 9/11/2001, in theory the War on Terror was an attempt to answer some of the actions they inspired and carried out.      However, the War lead to even more instability in the Middle East and in the world at large.     Something did not work out. How? Why?     Was - and is - the West really serious and dedicated to fight and counter Muslim extremists? Muslim integralists' communities in Western cities First, let's consider what happens in our own cities. There are many communities inspired to fundamentalist teachings of the Quran all through Western countries. These communities are tolerated to varying degrees. They are Muslim enclaves in Western cities, where it is not always clear if Sharia prevails ove
Read more

8 - Anatomy, physiology and pathology of the State - kidneys

Image
And here is another piece in our series - our puzzle of how a State would look like if it was a human body.    We last talked about about lungs as investments , bringing money in the system; and before that, we compared blood to money and the heart to trade .     A major player in regulating blood homeostasis is the kidney. What would a good equivalent be in a State?     Let us unravel it. Anatomy - Kidneys filter blood as Central Banks check on finance and economy from Johnson MD, Human Biology, Concepts and Current Issues, 7th Edition; the Urinary System [https://slideplayer.com/slide/6204959/] Kindeys are remarkable organs. Their functional unit is the nephron, made of the glomerulus, the Bowman's capsule and the renal tubule. The filtration process is carried by the glomerulus, with an arteriole that enters and divides to form a net of capillaries. Those then recompose themselves in another arteriole which exits the glomerulus. The whole surface of
Read more

On the nature of power – where it comes from, how it spirals out of control

Image
Power. That is the abstract concept behind the one of leadership, fundamental to understand the evolution of human sociality. The nature of power is elusive and yet fascinating.  Everyone wants power . There are the ones who want to rule, and they need power; the ones who strive to accomplish, and they need power; even the ones who just wish to live quiet and unnoticed, they need the power to have someone else manage responsibilities in their place. Any ambition has to be sustained by power. And power is in the first place the power to choose; who to be, what to do, how to act or even to not act at all. What is power? So many variables and just one word, then. What is power? How would you define it? ‘Power’ has many possible facets, depending on the contexts. In general, we can say that power is the capability to bend and shape specific aspects of reality according to one’s will. This is magnified when people work together – humans are a social spec
Read more