The indignation has not died down since President Donald Trump appeared with his Russian counterpart in a press conference in Helsinki following their meetings in the Finnish capital on July 16. There are many reasons for that, including his seeming unwillingness to accept the assessment of his own intelligence agencies about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, his comment on the “incredible offer” by Vladimir Putin that his government could work with the U.S. Justice Department on the case of the 12 indicted Russian intelligence officials charged with hacking Democratic e-mails, and the latest news – that the White House is considering a Russian proposal to interrogate Americans, including former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, about financial crimes.
Reaction to what occurred in Helsinki ranged from that of ex-Director of the CIA John Brennan, who tweeted: ““Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous,” to that of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who commented in a release from his office: “The president’s comments in today’s press conference were troubling. He failed to stand up to Vladimir Putin on some of the most critical security issues facing our country and our allies. …When given the opportunity, President Trump did not hold President Putin to task for election meddling, for the illegal annexation of Crimea, or for the continued aggression in eastern Ukraine. …” Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) issued a joint statement: “As co-chairs of the bipartisan [Congressional] Ukraine Caucus, we are deeply troubled by the president’s subservient behavior towards President Putin. The United States must never tolerate actions that seek to weaken democratic institutions in the U.S. and our allies abroad. …”
There was powerful reaction also to what was not said. The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, for example (see page 1), noted that Mr. Trump “demonstrated a shocking ignorance of Russia’s international crimes, failing to condemn the Russian Federation’s continuing war against Ukraine, or to reiterate the United States’ support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova’s internationally recognized borders.”
In fact the only mentions of Russia’s war on Ukraine came in Mr. Putin’s remarks: “While we discussed the internal Ukrainian crisis, we paid special attention to the bona fide implementation of Minsk agreements by Kyiv. At the same time, United States could be more decisive in nudging the Ukrainian leadership, and encourage it to work actively on this.” (NB: Mr. Putin also commented on gas transit: “Then about Nord Stream 2, Mr. President voiced his concerns about the possible end of transit through Ukraine. And I reassured Mr. President that Russia stands ready to maintain this transit.”) And there was this answer to a direct question posed to Mr. Putin: “The posture of President Trump on Crimea is well known, and he stands firmly by it. He continued to maintain that it was illegal to annex it. Our viewpoint is different. We held a referendum in strict compliance with the U.N. charter and international law. For us, the Russian Federation, this issue is closed.”
The U.S. president did not utter the word “Ukraine.”
Why didn’t Mr. Trump publicly raise the issue of Ukraine? We surmise that it’s because, as the president himself said, he just wants to “get along” with Russia. And yet, it could have been worse… Prior to the Helsinki meeting, Mr. Trump suggested he might consider recognizing Russia’s claim on Crimea. “We’re going to have to see,” he said on June 29. Others in his administration quickly explained that U.S. policy continues to be non-recognition of Crimea’s annexation by Russia. Still, there was fear that somehow Crimea would be used as a bargaining chip in the U.S.-Russia talks. Thankfully, it wasn’t. As far as we know.
After all, we do not know what was discussed during the two hours when the two leaders met one-on-one (with only their translators present). But there is speculation and warranted concern about any deals that might have been struck. Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov told reporters that “important verbal agreements” were reached on bilateral arms control treaties and cooperation regarding Syria. Here in the U.S., State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert cited “three take-aways”: the establishment of a high-level working group of business leaders and of an experts’ council on foreign policy, and follow-up meetings involving the national security council staffs of the U.S. and Russia. But is there more? And which President Trump was present in the tête-à-tête with Mr. Putin: was it the strong leader who said “nobody’s been tougher on Putin than Donald Trump,” or was it the deferential leader who said “both countries are responsible” for the currently poor bilateral relations?
In the meantime, the over-all assessment in Russia appears to be that the re-establishment of normal relations appears to be on track. What that really means is that Mr. Putin, clearly pleased with the results of the so-called summit, now seems to have the green light to continue doing what he’s been doing: meddling, cyberattacking, invading, annexing, killing. That any U.S. leader would allow this to continue is simply indefensible.