Has there ever been such incongruity in foreign policy with respect to Russia between a United States president and, well, just about everyone else? The Trump administration’s mixed messages have raised many questions and created confusion about U.S. policy towards Russia. As well as towards Ukraine.
The bad news: President Donald Trump’s baffling words and behavior on Russia, whether it be his various equivocations on Crimea or disgraceful performance at the July 16 press conference in Helsinki.
The good news: The reaction – and actions – of just about everyone else, including the U.S. Congress and even President Trump’s own administration. These officials understand very well the threat that Russia poses to the United States as well as the importance of an independent, secure, democratic Ukraine.
There has been a flurry of justified criticism about Mr. Trump’s remarks at the now infamous press conference. Among the low points: Mr. Trump’s deference to Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community about Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, and his preposterous “incredible offer” characterization of Mr. Putin’s proposal to allow Russian officials to question 11 Americans (including several of my former colleagues and friends) in exchange for Russia allowing U.S. officials to interview Russians recently indicted by special prosecutor Robert Muller. It took the White House an astounding four days to put the kibosh on that idea, while the State Department, to its credit, called the idea absurd and the Senate passed a resolution condemning any such move by a vote of 98-0.
Mr. Trump’s expression of moral equivalence between Russia and the United States, saying that he held both sides responsible for the breakdown of U.S.-Russian relations, was as ignorant as it was offensive. Sorry, Mr. Trump, the blame for the poor state of relations lies squarely with the Kremlin; among many other reasons are its violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in egregious contravention of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (signed, yes, in the city where the Trump-Putin summit was held).
Also disturbing – and perhaps unprecedented – is the apparent lack of knowledge among U.S. policymakers and even the director of National Intelligence weeks after the Helsinki meeting about what was discussed between Messrs. Trump and Putin.
And what about Ukraine?
At the Helsinki press conference, Mr. Trump failed to mention Ukraine. Mr. Putin did. Prior to Helsinki, Mr. Trump had indicated he might be open to recognizing Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. In response to a reporter’s question, it was actually Mr. Putin who noted that Mr. Trump stands firmly behind the position that the annexation was illegal. But he immediately followed up by saying that the Russian position differs, claiming, with a straight face, that the March 2014 Crimean referendum was held “in strict compliance with the U.N. Charter and international legislation.”
At the press conference, as well as at a subsequent gathering of his diplomats, Mr. Putin mentioned that the two presidents had discussed the Minsk agreements. He blamed Ukraine for non-compliance and lack of progress, asserting that the United States could be more decisive in encouraging the Ukrainian leadership to “be more active.” Aside from the fact that Russia started and continues the war, the majority of Minsk violations are perpetrated by Russia and its proxies, which it leads, arms, trains and equips. Again, silence from Mr. Trump.
Mr. Putin also reportedly proposed holding a referendum in the occupied territories of eastern Ukraine. Thankfully, Mr. Trump’s own National Security Council as well as the State Department did not waste any time in dismissing that idea.
Notwithstanding President Trump’s equivocations and inconsistencies, U.S. policy towards Russia has not appeared to weaken. Exhibit A is the State Department’s unambiguous “Crimea Declaration” of July 25, which confirmed the U.S. position of rejecting Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea. Notably, it cites the Welles declaration of 1940, which repudiated the annexation by the Soviet Union of the three Baltic states. This is something that has been strongly encouraged by Congress, most recently in a Senate resolution on Crimea that had been introduced prior the Helsinki meeting – in part due to fears that Mr. Trump could try to strike some deal with Mr. Putin.
As importantly, key senators introduced the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018, comprehensive bipartisan legislation that will increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Russia in response to its continued interference in U.S. elections, aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, its malign influence in Syria and other activities. It is also a rebuke to Mr. Trump’s conciliatory approach towards Moscow. This legislation builds upon the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) which Mr. Trump, for all practical purposes, was compelled to sign last year as any veto would have been easily overridden. This newly introduced legislation deserves active support from not only the Ukrainian American community and other friends of Ukraine, but, more broadly, from everyone who values human rights, democracy and the rules-based international order.
In another indication of a continuing tough stance, the administration, prodded by Congress, in early August announced new sanctions on Russia over the Skripal poisoning in Great Britain, mandated by a 1991 law on the use of chemical weapons. U.S. assistance to Ukraine, both military and non-military, remains robust, including the just-passed National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 – largely thanks to Congress, which appropriates the funding.
There is a considerable gap between Mr. Trump’s language and attitudes towards Russia and those held by most within his own administration and the overwhelming majority in Congress, including a growing number of frustrated Republicans. The president’s affability towards Mr. Putin – in sharp contrast to his occasional treatment of longstanding U.S. allies – continues to be counteracted by Congress and even his own administration.
Much of the hard stance on Russia and ongoing support for Ukraine has happened despite Mr. Trump and not because of him. Mr. Trump has resisted congressional efforts on more sanctions, and critics argue that the administration has been slow on implementation. Indeed, there have been reports that he has not always been happy with some of the decisions made by his own administration. Thanks to the “grown-ups in the room” at the National Security Council, State Department and the Defense Department, as well as Congress, which has legislated and persistently pressed for more assertive policies, Trump administration actions have thus far been fairly resolute. Because of the solid understanding within the U.S. government, Congress and the larger policy community of the dangers that Russia poses, there are limits to what Mr. Trump can do.
This does not mean, however, that we can breathe a sigh of relief, as some in Ukraine and in the United States seem to be doing. Unfortunately, we have an unpredictable and volatile president and there is no telling what he might attempt to do in the future. While it will be difficult for him to completely reverse U.S. policy, he can still wreak a modicum of havoc. It is not a good thing when the nation’s top elected leader sends mixed, ignorant messages, goes against longstanding U.S. policy and values, engages in moral equivalency, and seemingly favors dictators over dedicated public servants.
The lack of a strong, unified U.S. message greatly complicates the work of our diplomats and national security officials. It undermines confidence in the United States. A devious operator like Mr. Putin will only attempt to exploit divisions in policy approaches within the United States and between the U.S. and its allies. All who care must remain engaged and active – it’s important not only for Ukraine, but for the U.S and other Western democracies that Mr. Putin remains determined to undermine.