The Helsinki summit and its aftermath confirmed once again the pattern driving the development of the Trump administration’s policy toward Russia. That pattern starts with President Trump indicating a willingness to improve relations with Moscow — or mulling a policy that would please the Kremlin — without insisting on improved Kremlin behavior.
This has elicited a sharp congressional and public reaction. Even the administration’s principal national security advisers are struggling to maintain or strengthen administration policy towards Russia.
And as it happens, the result tends to be stronger opposition to Moscow’s provocative policies.
In Helsinki, Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin alone. He chose not to include his advisers, who consider Kremlin foreign policy to be a major challenge to U.S. interests. In the press conference after the meeting, Trump appeared to accept Putin’s claim that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 presidential election and to reject the findings of his own intelligence chiefs. Trump praised Putin’s troublesome proposal that, in exchange for permitting U.S. investigators to question Russian intelligence agents accused of interfering in U.S. elections, Russian agents would be able to question former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul and British businessman Bill Browder. Trump also faulted the U.S. rather than Kremlin aggression for the parlous state of U.S.-Russia relations.
In the immediate aftermath of Helsinki, Trump appeared to double down on his approach. He spoke of the benefits of his exchange with Putin, even as it quickly became clear that he had not briefed his senior advisers on the content of the talks. He also invited Putin to the White House for a second meeting in the fall.
The reaction to Trump’s embarrassing performance was predictable. In Moscow, Helsinki produced elation. Russian political commentators and their Kremlin superiors hoped that Trump’s soft instincts would start to guide U.S. policy. In Washington, Helsinki sparked a firestorm. Some overwrought voices accused the president of treason, but more significant was the clear rebuke that the president faced from his own party.
The Senate quickly passed a resolution, 98 to 0, rejecting the notion that Russian agents could question U.S. officials. A bipartisan group of senators introduced Senate Resolution 571 condemning the Russian seizure of Crimea and not recognizing its “annexation.” And Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J., began writing legislation that would not only impose new sanctions on Russia but also establish a National Center to Respond to Russian Threats and authorize assistance for fighting Russian interference in Eastern Europe.
In short, Helsinki has prompted a toughening of U.S. policy towards Russia. Putin and Trump had hoped that, by meeting in private, they could reach a general understanding to improve relations, even without an end to Kremlin aggression in Ukraine and provocations globally. But the result was just the opposite.
In response to the ongoing criticism, the White House recognized that it had to retreat. A meeting with Putin in the fall would further empower the critics of Trump’s approach. Both Republican congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said that Putin would not be welcome in Congress if he came to Washington in the fall. So the administration announced July 25 that the next meeting with Putin would be put off to next year.
The Kremlin, which watches carefully the policy process in Washington, came to the same conclusion. Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy adviser, told Russia’s Interfax news agency that in the current “atmosphere” in the U.S., “it would be right to wait for the dust to settle before having a businesslike discussion of all issues, but not now.”
The incident also forced the administration to shore up its posture on Crimea. Reaffirming and strengthening U.S. policy in his July 25 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement ruling out the possibility of the United States recognizing Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. The administration also announced publicly that it would be providing an additional $200 million in military assistance to Ukraine.
Partisan and overheated commentary on U.S.-Russia relations has been a hindrance to understanding this, but there is good news. Thanks to Trump’s verbal lapses, U.S. policy has become more robust in responding to Kremlin provocations.
John Herbst was U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2000 to 2003 and to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006.
