Decoding Trump-Putin summit

At a short notice, with little preparation and no real agenda, US President Donald Trump decided to go to Helsinki to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. He did it by riding atop a personal perception of having turned the world on its head through his disruptive leadership and pointing it towards the right direction after the apparent taming of the unpredictable Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Preceding the summit, he attended the NATO summit and visited the UK. After the two summits, the US attitude to the carefully crafted post-World War II and Cold War strategic relationships appears to be destructive rather than disruptive. The urgency for the Helsinki summit did not arise out of any crisis-threatening situations but simply because President Trump appeared upbeat about his success in unconventional diplomacy. Most of America now seems to believe that at the summit and the one preceding it at the NATO event, and even during his UK visit, Trump destroyed for the US much more than what he gained at Singapore. It wasn’t immediately clear before the summit as to what the real agenda was. No doubt, Russia had obliquely projected that it too had a role in the North Korean tangle. Was Trump, therefore, seeking a larger Putin endorsement and support for his stance at Singapore? Evident or not, the follow up to Singapore has been anything but mature. The US think-tank Brookings says that in the first year of the Trump administration, there was some hope that he would be contained by the enormity of the job but now, “it is clear that that containment effort has failed and Trump is unbound”.

All the criticism in the US media comes from the fact that some of what was expected did come true. It was predicted that Trump against the wiliness of Putin and in a one-on-one would come a cropper. He came back singing praises of his counterpart and mouthing conviction that the Russians had nothing to do with the interference in the US elections of 2016. Putin is accused of ordering an influence operation to interfere in the 2016 US election that evolved into a bid to help Trump win. Taken against the word of US investigative and intelligence agencies, Trump’s public stance was obviously awkward but then he believes in that style, the contrarian approach. The US President had to retract from his aggressive stance once it became evident that none at home was approving his endorsement of the Russians.

In one way, the summit was positive from a US angle. The expectation that Trump may just endorse the Russian annexation of Crimea and alter the course of the war in Ukraine, on deterrence and defence of NATO’s eastern periphery, did not come true. On Syria, it is assessed that Putin spoke of a larger Russia-mediated global coalition to help Syrian refugees and secure the Israeli border, which would help solidify Russia’s role as the great power in the Middle East. Trump hasn’t spoken on this and his response is yet unknown, although such a step would be a great enhancement of the Russian leadership in the Middle East and a sure-shot dilutor (a wrap-up of sorts) of longstanding US leadership. Trump also did not apparently promise any effort towards readmission of Russia to the G7/8.

However, what has upset much of America and its European allies isn’t the summit itself and what he did or did not do there. It was the pre and post-summit articulations and actions against the European allies which have left them cringing. It holds especially true of his statement that his meeting with Putin was better than the NATO meetings. It started with his accusation against Germany of being captive to Russian energy supplies and yet wanting the US to defend it. The Germans were quick to point out that they led the efforts against Russian aggression in Ukraine. Trump had also stated that Germany is “making Russia richer”. He then chose to advise the Europeans that they needed to spend more on defence and take the stated NATO intent of 2 per cent to 4 per cent; questioning why only five countries were meeting the 2 per cent level and why Germany did so little for NATO defence. Upon his return to the US, Trump’s unpredictability remained even more persistent. He is quoted to famously have said that defending a tiny European state like Montenegro, a nation known for its aggressive and strong people, was akin to inviting the beginning of the Third World War.

It is not certain what Trump is actually attempting to do. He thinks he knows it all but is obviously deprived of the understanding of what trust and cooperation mean in international relations and partnerships. Even his core support group is apparently upset at the way he handled the affairs of Europe and displayed a wavering mind which lacked finer understanding of US interests. NATO is not just about handling Europe but providing leadership to a major part of the developed world in its endeavours at physical security. A US leadership seeking greater European involvement in its own security is not wrong but it’s the way that the issue has been approached, treading on sensitivities, is being questioned.

The Republican party would least want the shadow of Putin looming over yet another election as the US legislature goes to the polls this year. And now an upset Europe has obviously grabbed headlines and put to rest any perceived gains from the Singapore summit. The US will need to work overtime to regain some of the confidence of Europe. That’s unlikely to happen anytime soon even as Putin smirks at the discomfort of his adversaries.

The author commanded the 15 Corps in Jammu and Kashmir. Views expressed are personal.