Commentary: Trump’s Foreign Policy May Dismay Critics Today, But Future Analysts May View It Favorably

US President Donald Trump (right) awards the Medal of Honor to retired US Marine Corps Sergeant Major John Canley (right) for “unmatched bravery” in Vietnam in 1968. Those responsible for handling the record of his heroic actions wrongfully left it inert in official files. After decades passed, the forgotten record was found. The Marine Corps, the Pentagon, and Trump moved to honor Sergeant Major Canley. Presently, it is de rigueur in the US news media to pan Trump’s foreign policy decision making. In Washington policy circles, thinking is mostly negative about it. Perhaps in time, his efforts will be recognized as having well-served US interests worldwide.

In discussing of treatment of Trump by the media in recent posts, the aim of greatcharlie has certainly not been to simply compile its complaints with hope of discouraging the news media from freely expressing itself. After all, it is the moral duty of the “Fourth Estate”, the virtual fourth branch of government, the press, to speak truth to power, look behind the curtain. Offering opinions and judgments are not wrong. In the US, free thinking is a right. However, using the platform of the news media to promote a singular view or sentiment of an administration’s foreign policy is wrong. Even before the Trump administration began on January 20, 2018, the atmosphere was poisoned by exceptionally negative reports and commentaries about Trump from those known as: expert political observers; his admitted political foes, both Democrat and Republican; veterans of the administration of US President Barack Obama; and, other critics and detractors. If it were only a select few critics, perhaps it could be presumed that some strong psychological disturbance was the cause for their venomous reports and commentaries. However, the numbers of those in the resistance grew daily. Nothing about Trump was too small to find flaw with. Anti-Trump news media pundits were even willing to engage in fiery, banal, on the air colloquia over crowd size at his inauguration. There was an insistence by a considerable number of such individuals that a “resistance” against Trump had to formed. All of his potential decisions, works, and anything he said would be the target of vicious, and very often malicious, attacks. Commentaries and other opinion pieces via television, newspapers and magazines–the legacy platforms, and online, have been used to thoroughly question Trump’s intention and to depict him as amoral and proffer how that shapes his thinking and action. For the resistance, an important goal has been to create a divide and separate Trump from the US public. The strategic objective has been to remove Trump from office.

Still, Trump’s focus has not been the so-called resistance. While serving as US President, he is determined to create a country and a world far better for the US public, and will exert himself as he struggles to accomplish what he feels needs to be done. The Ancient Roman Stoic Philosopher, Gaius Musonius Rufus is quoted as stating: “The man who is unwilling to exert himself almost always convicts himself as unworthy of good, since we gain every good by toil.” However, in order for him achieve the maximum with his capabilities, space must be created for Trump that would allow him to construct something positive. Critics and detractors do not want Trump to have that sort of creative space. They have sought to essentially smother him with “slander, defamation, insult, vituperation, malediction, and curse.”

In hac re ratio habenda est ut monitio acerbitate careat. (Reason should be applied to this matter so that the admonition may be without harshness.) Certainly there are many reasons for critics to harbor such strong, negative opinions of Trump. Some critics have doubtlessly joined their bandwagon and criticize without any authentic feelings of despair about him or his administration’s actions. Theirs is a form of avant garde expression that serves to draw attention and entertain more than anything else. To that extent, the suggestion has even been made for greatcharlie to be more practical, and regardless of its own thinking on issues and follow the popular tact of examining the US president with bitterness. That will not happen, as greatcharlie will never subject its readers to essays designed only to gain its blog a place at the metaphorical “cool kids table”. Its readers are provided essays of varied, out of the box points of view, something different than they are getting everywhere else, with the main hope to contribute to the foreign policy debate. Hopefully, it may encourage some to question what are commonly proffered as certainties about current US foreign and national security policy,  If doing that will ensure greatcharlie’s popularity will be somewhat limited, so be it. Perhaps some solace is found in the fact that just because ones work is not popular today, does not mean one will not receive all due recognition later. When historians in the future look at the complete picture of his success, he may be looked upon more favorably and placed far higher among US Presidents than his present critics and detractors could ever imagine. Hyper-critical reports and commentaries today of his policy approaches, his techniques and methods, may very well become figurative dust in the wind. History is replete with examples of how the works of some renown figures were widely panned in their day and then extolled by future generations.

What should have long ago awakened the consciences of the many critics and detractors who attack Trump is the fact that he is a human being, an individual in a challenging position. Examinations of Trump are more akin to ruthless vivisections than commentaries. There are never any expressions of softness or sentimentality mixed in. As things usually wind up, it is discovered that the trouble critics predict will come from Trump is the trouble that does not happen. One may disagree with Trump, but that is no reason to tear everything about him to pieces, sully the Office of the President of the US in ways that will last beyond him, and disassemble anything left that was special about the office. Eventually, attacking Trump with such venom and adolescent exuberance will recognized by at least some critics as a mistake. Humans are humans and they make mistakes. An alert actually should have been sounded by conscience and heard by the body, soul, and spirit of all of his critics. It leads one to wonder whether their consciences have been seared, no longer able guide them on right from wrong or help them know how much is too much. Rarely have critics turned off their figurative  blow torches and made genuine efforts to be constructive, to support, to encourage, or to comfort Trump. Detractors certainly would have no intention to do so. Making things better would require authentically engaging Trump. Few are open-minded enough to do that or would want to be seen publicly doing so. One cannot solve a problem with the same thinking one used when one created the problem. Perhaps the more reasonable among Trump’s critics and detractors would admit that what they are doing is not designed to correct, but rather only damage and destroy. Once time moves on, their actions will stand as their legacy.

Perhaps some attacks on Trump are efforts by critics and detractors to contend with their emotions on: US policies, Obama’s departure, and Hillary Clinton’s election loss. Trump’s victory has caused them so much emotional harm that there is a desire to strike back, to take vengeance. There is the possibility that their varied attacks may just be projections of character flaws that critics see in themselves. This situation brings back the memory of lyrics from a song that greatcharlie learned in his secondary school years at the Horace Mann School in New York City in the late 1970s. The song “Carry on Wayward Son” by Kerry Livgren was performed by the then very popular Rock group Kansas. Some might conclude that the lyrics only tenuously support greatcharlie’s point here, but the mere knowledge of them should at least serve as evidence that greatcharlie was not always a fuddy-duddy. The second stanza states: “Masquerading as a man with a reason/ My charade is the event of the season/ And if I claim to be a wise man,/ it surely means that I don’t know.”

Many might disagree with the following statement, but the reality is that Trump has a wonderful brain. Those who can discern this regularly stand somewhat in awe of his thinking while in action. Facing constant waves of invective, even calumny, Trump has dug deep inside himself and always found a way. In his election campaign, he left his opponents,very qualified and capable candidates, trailing in his wake. Indeed, this stands in stark contrast to the notions of Trump’s alleged vacuity, which is more often deceitfully served up by a variety angry, aggressive, envious, and ambitious sources camped in all directions. To secure and promote US interests worldwide, Trump adroitly makes use of “guarantors” of US power which include: its economic solidité, the grand puissance of the US military; intelligence services on the qui vive; trés compétent trade representatives and diplomats; and, various law enforcement branches that surveillait l’horizon d’un œil vigilant. To negotiate effectively and successfully in his personal diplomatic efforts with other national leaders, Trump masterfully utilizes a suite of skills, honed and polished after decades of business experience, Trump likes to have room maneuver, innovate, make rapid value judgments on issues and acceptable outcomes, as well as use his intuition and intimations and often combine issues, shape them in a way in the middle of talks that is mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Indeed, on the spot, a remarkable quid pro quo, can be realized.

Except for patriotism and his admitted desire to always win, personal feelings do not impel Trump’s official actions, no matter how his comments on Twitter are interpreted. He acts with logic and reason in the interests of US for both the present and the future. At times, very difficult and even unpleasant choices must be made, choices that can often haunt a president once out of office. However, as the words of Trump’s 2016 Presidential Campaign theme song explained: “You can’t always get what you want.” A decision on an issue is of no value if it creates more problems than it solves. It is not Trump’s intention to make decisions and moves that create more problems, some that may be beyond the sight and impressions of the US public, and then kick those problems down the road for the next president to hopefully resolve. Too much of that has already been done by his predecessors. Moreover, Trump understands well from his business experience that there is usually more than one route to get to a “desired destination”. An alternate route may take longer, it may not be an efficient way to travel, but one ends up in the same place, and typically in far quieter fashion. This notion is certainly applicable to foreign and national security policy issues.

It is apparent that brainstorming is a decision making technique in which Trump often initially engages on an issue with advisers and aides. As a practice, he clearly tends to stoke brainstorming sessions by making suggestions at the far ends of the spectrum. It has the effect of creating intense debates, drawing out explanations from subordinates of their perspectives of a situation as well the basis for their thinking on what might be best. Unfortunately, Trump’s suggestions for action from those sessions are very often leaked and taken out context. His words become the target of criticism, used as examples of Trump’s “extreme” or “dangerous” thinking on issues.

Sola virtus praestat gaudium perpetuum, securum; etiam si quid obstat, nubium modo intervenit, quae infra feruntur nec umquam diem vincunt. (Virtue alone affords everlasting and peace-giving joy; even if some obstacle arise, it is but like an intervening cloud, which floats beneath the sun but never prevails against it.) If Trump can be said to absolutely control anything in the diplomatic and deal-making process, it is ensuring that morality is vested in his own aim. This is another matter with which many would likely disagree. The high standards of his own behavior in negotiations as US President are actually becoming apparent through the success of his diplomatic efforts. Trump is indeed measured and diligent in his interactions with other national leaders. However, what stands out is an honesty, and a forthrightness that opposite parties to negotiations pick up on. Trump’s morality does not serve as method. His morality guides him based on spiritual beliefs, tenets, and instruction on right and wrong received long ago. Trump has a need for God. His conscience may not be perfect, but it has neither been seared nor taken away from him. It may very well be that in the past Trump occasionally strayed from “good ol’ fashioned values.” However, Trump has made the effort to change for the better. Much as the iconic saints, high examples of Godly behavior. Perhaps to some, Trump may not appear to have started well, but he is certainly trying to finish well.

As with the blind men in the allegory of the 13th century Sufi mystic and poet Jalāl Din Muhammed Rūmī, The Elephant in the Dark, no two individuals will have the exact same view. One perceives what one perceives, and it can be difficult for one to convince another of a different opinion. Not even complete awareness of Trump’s successes on the foreign policy front would likely cause critics and detractors to surrender their existing beliefs. As greatcharlie discussed in two previous posts, “Building Relations between Trump and Putin: Getting beyond the ‘Getting to Know You’ Stage” and “Trump Achieved More at Helsinki than Most Noticed: Putin Is Not a Challenge for Him”, that has clearly been the case concerning Trump’s efforts on the US-Russia “front.” When Trump came into office, he had to contend with the legacy of the Obama administration’s work issues. Through its actions and reactions on Russia, for example, the Obama administration greatly polluted and obscured what was already a difficult path to travel. The Obama never put together the right recipe for working well with Putin. He acted on what compelled him personally and incorrectly assessed what would be immediate and long-term benefits and consequences. Indeed, the doors were left open to some aggressive actions by Russia. Seeing those openings, Putin blindsided him more than once. Examples included his actions on Ukraine and on the 2016 US Presidential Election. Obama was caught off-guard and did not have effective responses. Nostalgia is a selective editing of the past. Those who discuss how well Obama’s Russia policy was conduct are not recounting history but engaged in nostalgia. When comparisons are made between the policy approaches during the Obama years and the policies of Trump, memories are flawed. There really is no need for memory because the unsatisfactory conditions in countries and regions in which failed approaches were implemented are more telling of the so-called success than anything else. The failure of veterans of the Obama administration to acknowledge what occurred, the poor planning and disastrous results, has allowed them the wrongly perceived standing to suggest the Trump administration make the same errors in confronting Putin.

Homines libenter id credunt quod volunt. (Men willingly believe that which they wish.) Expressing anger may be gratifying for the psyche short-term, but it is a very poor substitute for the use of intellectual power to resolve a diplomatic matter. This is especially true in diplomacy. Reproaching competitors, opponents, adversaries on the world stage by nagging and striking out with repeated slights accomplishes nothing positive, even when there is some viable follow-on approach to transform the situation over which one is angry. Typically, it will cause the target of that behavior to lash out, sometimes unexpectedly, and in a disproportionate way. The odd insistence of Trump’s political opponents, that he is too soft on world leaders that they find loathsome, is not grounded in real world thinking. It is the same thinking that seems to support their freewheeling, destructive attacks on Trump’s domestic policies, likely hoping that by acting as early as possible, they can shape the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential Election. Seemingly lost in it all is the reality that the 2020 campaign will be won with winning ideas, solutions to problems concerning the US public, not bullying efforts to see if one could both figuratively and literally make Trump cry. Consilio melius contendere atque vincere possumus quam ira. (We can compete and prevail better through wisdom than through anger.

Opinionem quidem et financial eo loco habeamus, tanquam non ducere sed sequi debeat. (As for rumor and reputation, let us consider them as matters that must follow, not guide, our actions.) Nothing stated about Trump has managed to impede him. He sees himself as complete, competent, and worthy of the US presidency. Trump accepts that such will most likely be the course of coverage him. There is very little that he can do to defeat it in the short term. At times, Trump’s best efforts to remain disciplined in the face of the harshest invective and often childlike taunts, every now and then, he emits a reactionary expression of anger on Twitter. That more than anything else confirms that he is only human. The fact that Trump has not allowed himself to be debilitated by incessant polemical news reports, broadcasts, commentaries, speeches, and “resistance” marches has been a key element in his success. He has grown in self-confidence, in wisdom statutory, and in favor with average citizen. He has seemingly begun to glory in performing well in the face of opposition and persecution. Interesting enough, Trump has conversely become the torment if critics and detractors. Their souls were seared first by his election victory, and are further now charred by his mere appearance, his every word, and his accomplishments.

Within Thomas Paine’s extraordinary January 10, 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense, is found the sentence: “Time makes more converts than reason.” If the cause for the refusal to acknowledge Trump’s achievements is simply comprehension diffidence, it is possible that the reality of his accomplishments will themselves challenge, knock down negative as well as hostile premises about Trump, not at the moment, but perhaps in the near future. This was the case for many great Western musical composers. Ludwig van Beethoven, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and Béla Bartók provide good examples. Contemporary reviewers of their work, so eager to offering a jarring, eye catching reviews, stated nothing positive, and seemingly sought to silence composers or convince audiences to reject their artistry. Those reviewers escaped the real challenge of encouraging audiences to enrich their perspectives by exposing themselves to what is new, different.

In August 1823 in London, Harmonicon published a trenchant review of Beethoven’s final piano sonata. The Harmonicon reporter declared the sonata a musical disaster, and cruelly assessed that the failure was due to Beethoven’s inability to hear. The review stated: “Beethoven is not only still numbered amongst the living, but is at a period of life where the mind, if in corpore sano, is in its fullest vigor, for he has not yet completed his fifty-second year. Unfortunately, however, he is suffering under a privation that to a musician is intolerable – he is almost totally bereft of the sense of hearing; insomuch that it is said he cannot render the tones of his pianoforte audible to himself. The Sonata, op. 111 consists of two movements. The first betrays a violent effort to produce something in the shape of a novelty. In it are visible some of those dissonances the harshness of which may have escaped the observation of the composer….” While it was true that by the time Beethoven wrote the sonata, he had lost his hearing. However, as for the quality of the piece, today it is recognized as being innovative and brilliant, well ahead of its time. Experts today point to the second movement that includes variations towards the end that resemble Ragtime, a music style that would be developed 80 years later.

On October 31, 1898, a Boston Evening Transcript review attacked Tchaikovsky’s 6th Symphony. It was the master composer’s final completed work. He died nine days after its 1893 premiere. In the review, the symphony is compared to the French novelist and playwright Emile Zola’s 1865 book, La Confession de Claude (Claude’s Confession). In his “experimental novel”, the main character destroys himself by remaining with a demimondaine with which he fell in love and sought to rescue. The book was banned in the US and the United Kingdom. The review also compares the symphony in quality to Tchaikovsky’s decomposing corpse. The review stated: “The Pathetique Symphony threads all the foul ditches and sewers of human despair; it is unclean as music well can be. One might call the Zola’s Confession de Claude set to music! That unspeakable second theme may tell of what Heine called ‘Die verschwundene, susse, blode Jugendeselei‘: the impotent senile remembrance of calf love. But of what a calf love! That of Hogarth’s lazy apprentice. Indisputably there is power in it: who but Tchaikovsky could have made the vulgar, obscene phrase powerful? The second movement, with its strabismal rhythm, is hardly less ignoble; the third, sheer billingsgate. In the finale, bleary-eyed paresis meets us face to face; and that solemn closing epitaph of the trombones might begin with: ‘Here continues to rot…'” Even today, some experts describe the 6th symphony’s ending as depressive, point to the controversy of its implied program. Still, most also call the symphony Tchaikovsky’s greatest musical work.

On May, 13th 1923 in London, a review in The Observer cruelly and severely attacked Bartók’s compositions as well as his abilities on the piano. The review stated: “”I suffered more than upon any occasion in my life apart from an incident or two connected with ‘painless dentistry.’ To begin with, there was Mr. Bartok’s piano touch. But ‘touch,’ with its implication of light-fingered ease, is a misnomer, unless it be qualified in some such way as that of Ethel Smyth in discussing her dear old teacher Herzogenberg – ‘He had a touch like a paving-stone.’ I do not believe Mr. Bartok would resent this simile . . . If Bartok’s piano compositions should ever become popular in this country, there will have to be established a special Anti-Matthay School to train performers for them, and I believe that it will be found that piano manufacturers will refuse to hire out pianos for the recitals of its alumni, insisting that these shall always be bought outright, and the remains destroyed on conclusion . . . .” Although many of Bartók’s contemporaries misunderstood his style of music composition, today, Bartok is generally understood to be one of the greatest composers of the 20th century. He is renowned for being a pioneer of ethnomusicology, the study of different cultural approaches to creating and composing music. Thematic material from the folk songs of other cultures were incorporated into Bartók’s compositions. They were mixed with 20th Century classical music techniques.

Nam qui peccare se nescit, corrigi non vult. (If one doesn’t know his mistakes, he won’t want to correct them.) The foreign and national security policy of the US is in pretty good shape, but that would be difficult for some to discern given what is generally being broadcasted, published, and posted about it. Trump’s successes so far have been unheard of in the past. They seem like mirages, but his accomplishments are very real. To that extent that situation is very different, the US public can hardly imagine that their world has improved so much. Instead, many have a sense that there is too much insecurity in the world. Indeed, the world seems to be moving too fast for some, everything appears harder to control, and ones life, money, children, everything, seems transient. The world also seems to be a wilderness in which predators, in the form of telemarketers, government officials at federal, state, and local levels, and political leaders, ruthlessly exercise powers of manipulation, lurk. No one wants to become one of their victims. Such concerns among the US public have been tapped into by Trump’s critics and detractors. The negative monologue of their critiques and complaints about Trump is that he should not serve as US President. It is very easy to jump to conclusions about the thoughts, beliefs, motivations and actions of others based solely on one interpretation. The width of the spectrum of human behavior is great, one should not be perfect limited especially to the prism of those who are admittedly disappointed, discontented, and discouraged. They may very well be on the wrong side of history. On its own, the US public must recognize the unappealing penchant of Trump’s critics and detractors to more or less amplify this sentiment. The public will not be able to get anywhere near the whole picture until it gets clear of the destructive voices of critics and detractors which can be found everywhere and seek out, and take into consideration, different points of view; solid, well-considered reports and discussions that are positive and optimistic. (In that process, may God protect them from Russian operatives and operatives of other countries attempting to influence US public opinion.) Examinations and analyses that might look deeper and with some empathy with regard to what Trump is doing and why, will likely be more complete and far more edifying.

Building Relations between Trump and Putin: Getting beyond the “Getting to Know You” Stage

US President Donald Trump (left) shakes hands with Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin (right) in Paris at the 100th Anniversary of World War I Armistice. Trump began the process of engaging Putin by looking beyond outward appearance, seeking to discover what is in his heart, and grasping the necessities of his positions fully. After every encounter and after being read-in on every new report, Trump would assess where things stood. At this point, Trump undoubtedly would like to push further out from the “getting to know you” stage in his efforts.

According to an Associated Press story reported on October 26, 2018 in the New York Times, US National Security Adviser John Bolton stated that same day that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited to visit Washington next year. The article entitled, “US Official Says Putin Invited to Visit Washington Next Year”, quoted Bolton as saying, “that “We have invited President Putin to Washington after the first of the year for, basically, a full day of consultations.” Bolton, speaking in Tblisi, Georgia, did not offer any date for the meeting. Still, it is generally understood by US and Russian officials concerned that the Washington meeting would likely take place in early 2019. The proposed meeting It would be Putin’s first trip to the US since 2015 when he met with US President Barack Obama. It is unclear whether Putin would come to  the White House to meet Trump. Other options likely include: Camp David, Mar-A-Lago, and the Trump National Golf Club. Putin’s last visit to the White House was in 2005 when he met with US President George Bush. The proposed 2019 meeting would not be the first between Trump and Putin following the July 12, 2018 Helsinki Summit. On November 2, 2018, Yuri Ushakov, Aide to the President of the Russian Federation responsible for International Affairs, announced from the Kremlin that Trump and Putin would hold substantive meeting at G-20 in Argentina. Ushakov told reporters the meeting on the sidelines of the G-20, taking place over November 30, 2018 and December 1, 2018 would be “lengthy and substantive.” In Argentina, the two presidents would likely talk more about Trump’s recent decision to pull the US out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Trump has stated that Russia is not abiding by the treaty and that the US needs to build up its nuclear arsenal to meet the threats of the Russians and the Chinese. Russia, on the other hand, has contended it is in compliance with the accord.

Plus tamen tibi et viva vox et convictus quam oratio proderit; in rem praesentem venias oportet, primum quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla. (Of course, however, the living voice and the intimacy of a common life will help you more than the written word. You must go to the scene of action, first, because men put more faith in their eyes than in their ears, and second, because the way is long if one follows precepts, but short and helpful, if one follows patterns.) Immediately after Helsinki, a second Trump-Putin meeting in Washington was initially bandied about between Trump and his advisers and aides, but it was put on hold. Trump’s insistence on meeting with Putin is a manifestation of his desire to begin a new era of US-Russia relations with cooperation and partnership with the Russian President. Trump’s expectations do not appear too great or out of order. However, he understands that he must put considerable effort into the process creating positive relations. The Trump administration has amassed a number of foreign policy successes, to name a few: the destruction of ISIS’ so-called “Islamic Caliphate” and destruction of ISIS as a fighting force; the liberation of Iraq; the strengthening of ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel; the suspension of DPRK nuclear weapons and missile testing; gaining big increases in NATO spending; and, the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Those successes have hardly been acknowledged by his many critics and detractors who have not as yet turned away from their predictions that the Trump administration would rendezvous with failure and catastrophe on foreign policy. While unable to criticize Trump over his performance during the summit meetings because they were not present, critics and detractors, many in the US news media, and members of his own party, heavily criticized his performance at a follow-on joint press conference. Many of them, upon hearing Trump’s comments, alleged that he was siding with Putin and accepting his denials on Russia’s election interference over the conclusions of US intelligence officials who say Russia certainly did so meddle, ostensibly to benefit Trump.

As it was explained in the September 30, 2018 greatcharlie post entitled, “Trump Achieved More at Helsinki than Most Noticed: Putin Is Not a Challenge for Him“, Helsinki was not the great disaster for Trump that most critics and detractors assert it was. Trump most likely wants to make the correct adjustments in his approach, exploit success already achieved by finding more points at which their thoughts touch. As he prepares to meet Putin in Argentina and considers how to shape the meeting in Washington in 2019 will take, greatcharlie look at some of the considerations unique to this ongoing diplomatic process with Putin. As he observes Putin’s moves during the process such as forming the delegation for talks and toning down his hostile rethoric on the US that was regularly heard during his interactions with Obama and has carried over to his administration. Trump also has kept a watchful eye on Putin use his conventional military forces and his nuclear forces. Trump knows a lost cause and would certainly be willing to declare his efforts with Putin as such if that becomes the case. Still, Trump is very likely heartened by the fact that through their meetings and telephone calls since 2017, he understands Putin better and that there is a chemistry developing between them. As long as his efforts continue to bear fruit, he can remain sanguine and as best as possible, continue to shut out the array hostile voices attacking him, Concerning Putin’s interest in improving relations, there is the hope that Putin has learned a bit more about Trump, not just through contacts, but also through misjudgments and missteps, such as Putin’s gifting of the football at Helsinki press conference. Faux pas! Optimistically, the result of these developments will be a fruitful, edifying, and satisfying set of future meetings in which some important and urgent transnational, regional, and bilateral matters may be resolved. Accomplishing that would be one more promise to the US public kept. Eo animo quidque debetur quo datur, nec quantum sit sed a quali profectum voluntate perpenditur. (Our feeling about every obligation depends in each case upon the spirit in which the benefit is conferred; we weigh not the bulk of the gift, but the quality of the good-will which prompted it.)

Trump is very likely heartened by the fact that through their meetings and telephone calls since 2017, he understands Putin better and that there is a chemistry developing between them. As long as his efforts continue to bear fruit, he can remain sanguine, continue to shut out the hostile voices. There is the hope that Putin has learned more about Trump. Optimistically, the result of these developments will be a fruitful, edifying, and satisfying future meetings in which important and urgent transnational, regional, and bilateral matters may be resolved.

Trump Pushes ahead with Putin

Trump began engaging Putin well-aware that Putin is not a moral paragon. He was surely familiar with varied reports from nongovernmental organizations, civil society watchdogs in Russia, journalists, and US government agencies that indicate a considerable number abuses of civil and human rights have occurred under Putin’s reign. Activists in Russia would explain that the soul of the Russian people has grieved during the nearly years of Putin’s rule. Putim’s grip on the Russian public is strong, and he is utilizing all the old security systems with which he is most familiar. In the West, some analysts would not go as far as to call Putin a modern day tyrant, but they would still call him an awful man. Civil rights and human rights are issues that no US President, the leader of free world, could ever eschew concerning Russia or any other country for that matter. Trump would certainly be willing to discuss civil rights and human rights issues concerning Russia with Putin. Indeed, he most likely has already shared his perspectives with him on: how reported government abuses within Russia have left the world a very negative impression of the country as a whole; why it is difficult for anyone to see Russia as a decent constitutional society; why considerable doubt exists in the minds of top Russia hands and his close advisers and aides that Russia could ever be a honest broker and good partner in tackling transnational issues; and, how tough it will be for Russia to ever overcome such views on its own. Trump, knowing Putin as he does now, would be the one US president who could reach Putin on matter without simply prodding him with the “high road” and ensuring nothing good would be achieved. (This is another matter in which the lack of a viable plan of action is most telling of the critics and detractors flawed understanding of the situation.)

It would be gossamer fantasy to belIeve that Putin would metaphorically wake and  smell the coffee, simply clear his head, reason everything out, decide to forgive and forget, and see the advantage of cooperating fully with Trump. To that extent, it is difficult to determine exactly where the Kremlin is on developing better relations. Trump apparently senses that a general change in the approach toward Putin will create new conditions that will stimulate positive reactions by the Russian leader. Peelng back the layers of negativity from US-Russian interactions with the previous US administration, he has tried to create a clean slate and has offered to work with Putin fairly and with mutual respect. With any luck, Putin will eventually recognize what Trump is doing and recognize the great opportunity that lies before him to let Russia be seen as doing some good for the world. While it would only be natural to remain somewhat skeptical about his progress with Putin, it seems that he gotten his attention and has him thinking about what he is saying.  According to the renowned Ancient Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus: “Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases, is the wise man’s task.” Putin can be counselled but, of course, in the end he must come to the right understanding of the matter on his own.

Trump certainly does not desire to lure Putin to his way of thinking or manipulate him in any way. Even if Putin’s desire is to seek better ties only for the purpose of doing more wrong, Trump would not seek in a similar way to take some type of advantage of Putin to score some short-term victory. Trump also does not want to commit any errors or missteps with Putin that would result in creating opportunities for him to harm US interests or gain some major advantage over the US that could spell catastrophe. Trump’s goal is to create something best for the long-term, to genuinely transform the relationship between the US and Russia. All of his efforts must not result in the type of understandings and set of agreements that would fall apart with the coming of a new administration, Republican or Democrat.

Trump began the process of engaging Putin by looking beyond outward appearance, seeking to discover what is in his heart, and grasping the necessities of his positions fully. After every encounter with Putin and after being read-in on every new report received from government agencies responsible for studying those encounters, Trump would assess where things stood, look for ways to move things forward and if possible, identify issues on which he might be able to do some real open field running to advance his cause. With that, Trump would then look within himself to design the next best steps he would  take with the Russian leader, steps with which he would feel most comfortable. At the same time that he was working with Putin, Trump was learning about other competitors, rivals, and adversaries in the same way. For example, he has interacted positively with President Xi Jinping of China, and is cautiously optimistic about how the relationship will shake out. He met with Kim Jong-un of the DPRK. He has spoken with leaders who have gone some distance to appear problematic for US policy such as Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan. His interactions with them have led to real improvements in relations with those respective countries. He contended with the initial recalcitrance of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. However, relations steadily improved with both. The US Mexico, Canada Agreement proved that with the right words, the right touch, their respective disagreements could be overcome. Those leaders looked at the repercussions of an new agreement, what their respective countries might lose, what they might gain. Consideration of the needs of their people and the national interests came to the fore. Surely, Trump has grown considerably in wisdom about many leaders and on how to proceed on policy since his contact with them. Trump has options regarding his approach to Putin beyond diplomacy, but it appears his choice is to continue trying to find a way to work with him. A rough road often leads to great things. Thomas Paine, the US political theorist and revolutionary, wrote in his pamphlet series The Crisis in December 23, 1776, “the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

It would be gossamer fantasy to belIeve that Putin would metaphorically wake and smell the coffee, simply clear his head, reason everything out, decide to forgive and forget, and see the advantage of cooperating fully with Trump. To that extent, it is difficult to determine exactly where the Kremlin is on developing better relations. Peeling back any layers of negativity from US-Russian interactions with the previous US administration, he has created a clean slate and has offered to work together with Putin fairly and with mutual respect.

At this point, Trump undoubtedly would like to push further out from the “getting to know you” stage in his efforts with Putin. In every meeting with Putin so far, Trump has broached important and urgent issues ranging from, Syria, Ukraine, nuclear forces, ISIS, terrorism in general, energy, economic sanctions, and perhaps Magnitsky. In Argentina, the two presidents may discuss Trump’s recent decision to pull the US out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The INF prohibits the US and Russia from possessing, producing, or deploying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 kilometers and 5,500 kilometers. On October 20, 2018, Trump explained to reporters following a rally in Nevada, “Russia has not, unfortunately, honored the agreement. So we’re going to terminate the agreement and we’re going to pull out.”

On October 22, 2018 at the White House, Trump made similar statements concerning his decision to withdraw from the INF as a result of Moscow’s alleged violations and a need to respond to China’s nuclear buildup. He told reporters that “Russia has not adhered to the agreement . . . . Until people come to their senses — we have more money than anybody else, by far. We’ll build it up.” Trump added: “Until they come to their senses. When they do, then we’ll all be smart and we’ll all stop.” When asked by reporters if that was a threat to Putin, Trump replied: “It’s a threat to whoever you want. And it includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can’t do that. You can’t play that game on me.” China was never a party to the 1987 INF, which was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev four years before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump explained that China should be included in the accord. Nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles were eliminated by the US and the Soviet Union under the INF treaty, but China has been building up its capabilities to field the same kinds of weapons. It is estimated that nearly 95 percent of China’s missiles would violate the INF treaty if Beijing were a signatory. Additionally, Trump stated that Russia was not abiding by the treaty, and that the US needed to build up its nuclear arsenal to meet the threats of Russia and China. The Kremlin has claimed it has only acted in accord with the treaty’s terms.

Even if Putin’s desire is to seek better ties only for the purpose of doing more wrong, Trump would not seek in a similar way to take some type of advantage of Putin to score some short-term victory. Trump also does not want to commit any errors or missteps with Putin that would result in creating opportunities for him to harm US interests or gain some major advantage over the US that could spell catastrophe. Trump’s goal is to create something best for the long-term, to genuinely transform the relationship between the US and Russia.

Putin Pushed ahead with Trump

Simulatio delet veritatem, sine qua nomen amicitiae valere non potest. (Pretense obliterates the truth, without which the name of friendship cannot survive.) Putin has repeatedly said that improvements in US-Russian ties have been thwarted by US political infighting, but voiced hope that Trump could eventually move to repair the fractured relations. Earlier this month, the Russian leader said “playing the Russian card” was a convenient instrument in US politics ahead of the midterm election in November 2018. However, that view is not very precise. Causality aside, it was Russia that drove into Crimea and later interfered with the 2016 US Elections. Putin’s statement skirts these gargantuan issues. The Kremlin has left little doubt that over the years, officials their have not learned much about the actual multifaceted inner workings of the US government and the dynamics of US politics. It was likely that a misunderstanding of how the system worked in the US that may have led officials there to believe that they could ever influence a US Election, not only while US intelligence services and law enforcement agences were watching over everything, but with so many in the US with considerable interests staked on the election’s outcome, and not be detected. The covert operation was discovered and responded to with expulsions and closures of Russian Federation facilities. So much was discovered about the operation that Putin was left with little ability to plausibly deny his knowledge of those particular activities of Russia’s intelligence services.

Putin is likely well aware now that he cannot live off the intellectual support of any of his subordinates when it comes to dealing with Trump and the US. At the dawn of the Trump administration, Putin appears to have been egged on by certain advisers in his cabinet who harbored strong anti-Western and believed Trump could be pressed on certain issues. They likely want to create the impression that they had an easy handle on things.Since that time, a few of them, such as the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for military and space industries, Dmitry Rogozin, have been removed from his Cabinet. However, there is still room for advisers with a mindset that is very suspicious of US actions and intentions. Consider that of the figurative high priest of Russian Federation security, Alexander Bortnikov, director of the Federal’naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsi (Russian Federation Federal Security Service) or FSB. Bortnikov is not well-known for his contributions to Russia’s foreign policy making and stays out from the public eye. Unknown to greatcharlie is the degree to which Putin might refer to him on foreign policy beyond how an issue might relate to state security. Yet, he is a confidant of Putin, as his trust in Bortnikov has been sustained. Bortnikov would only see traps in what Trump offers. If the attempt at subversion cannot be easily seen, Bortnikov would only assume that it is cloaked. Counsel from other key advisers such as Russian Federation Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, and Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Nikolai Patrushev are two members of Putin’s inner circle that are also figurative deep-wells of skepticism and paranoia concerning the US. As part of Patrushev’s mantra, the US constantly seeks to have levers of pressure on Russia and contain his country’s growing influence as means to hold on its waning global leadership. Some might disagree with the notion that Shoigu is very hardline as he most often presents himself as an elegant, dignified general officer, who speaks cordial and measured words. Yet, statements and military strategic concepts produced by his Defense Ministry leave no doubt that he views the US as a serious threat to Russia and it’s interests and everything possible must be done to mitigate that threat which is directed from points 360 degrees around Russia with a deterrence posture and if necessary respond as violently and shrewdly as possible to that threat with all resources available. His Plan of Defense of the Russian Federation, signed into law by Putin on January 29, 2013, expresses his country’s defense needs in this fashion. (Shoigu is certainly a man that Trump should keep one eye on.) The key for Putin is to well-manage how much the appraisals of Shoigu and Patrushev should be allowed to insinuate into Russia’s foreign policy making concerning the US. There would be little hope relations could advance in a positive direction if no limits were put on their influence. Theirs is the sort of thinking that might have more value on foreign policy matters concerning other Western countries and the rest of the world. Their verbiage would certainly be of better use in communicating the message that Putin’s aim is to restore Russia to greatness to his political supporters, his wily political adversaries, and mostly hidden, influential elites domestically. Perhaps an answer that might best explain how Putin manages all of his responsibilities as Russian Federation President in any given day would need to be drawn from “metaphysics”. Certain natural talents, unique to Putin, are always in play.  Managing relations with the US as led by the Trump administration, with all of the new approaches and its more businesslike way thinking, has required a lot more effort than likely anticipated. If the Russian President could pardon greatcharlie’s freedom, so far, there has been little sophistication in the moves he and his advisers and aides have made with regard to the US.

What would likely be useful to Putin and his Kremlin advisers and aides would be to make a strenuous effort to move away from the thinking they found necessary during the Obama administration. At that time, they ostensibly sought to assert Russia’s power and identity, to fight back against what they perceived were Obama administration efforts to hurt and humiliate Putin and their country. Looking at Russia’s annexation of Crimea and it’s 2016 US Election interference, it would seem incredulous to consider Putin as a victim. He could easily be called the aggressor in both instances. However, it could be, as Trump has posited, that moves by Obama and his administration directed at reigning in Putin, executed with type of adolescent exuberance by many his administration’s officials, backfired immensely. Behavioral scientist, psychologists, and psychiatrists in the US foreign and national security policy establishment, looking at Putin, very likely understood and explained that there would be a considerable negative reaction from Putin to any “narcissistic injuries” or slights. This issue was covered in greatcharlie’s September 30, 2018 post entitled, “Trump Achieved More at Helsinki than Most Noticed: Putin Is Not a Challenge for Him“. When Putin reacted, and that reaction included in part the capture of Crimea and the 2016 Election interference, it was in ways completely unexpected by the Obama administration. One could posit harshly that the Obama administration found was it was looking for when it poked the “Russian bear”. Undoubtedly, Putin also has his government behavioral scientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists analyzing Obama. It is very likely that they, along with Putin, concluded with certitude, that beyond economic sanctions and dismissals of diplomats and intelligence officials, Obama would do precious little in response that would be comparable to the election interference and certainly he would not do anything more aggressive. In fact, the Obama administration was repeatedly caught completely “flat-footed” and totally unprepared to cope with the consequences of its poor relations with Putin. Gladiator in arena consillium capit. (The gladiator is formulating his plan in the arena.)

No joy! Former US President Barack Obama (left) and Putin (right). What would likely be useful to Putin and his Kremlin advisers and aides would be to make a strenuous effort to move away from the thinking they found necessary during the Obama administration. At that time, they ostensibly sought to assert Russia’s power and identity, to fight back against what they perceived were Obama administration efforts to hurt and humiliate Putin and their country.

Within the Kremlin, the psychic wounds of its winter actions with the Obama administration may not be soon forgotten. To that extent, they must be given a chance to heal. Putin is the one who must lead the way in Russia. It is a clear aim of Trump’s diplomatic efforts to provide Putin with the necessary space and and calibrated amount of pressure needed to help create the conditions for change. A foundation must be created from which constructive change in support of US and Russian respective and mutual interests. To achieve that, both sides would need to reach some mutual understanding of what is reality and what is truth. Hyperbole would no longer have a place at the table. Sciant quae optima sunt esse communia. (The best ideas are common property.)

Reaching that type of mutual understanding within the Kremlin would not only require Putin’s wishes and his will, but also the supportive efforts of thoughtful advisers such as: Ushakov; Sergey Lavrov, Russian Federation Foreign Minister; Anton Siluanov, Russian Federation Finance Minister; Dmitry Peskov, Press Secretary for the Russian Federation President; and Russian Federation Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The counsel of Ushakov, Lavrov, and Peskov was visibly relied upon by Putin at Helsinki. They are the sort of thinkers who are able to breathe the fresh air of Realpolitik into their analyses. Theirs is a unique ability in an environment of authoritative men in which assessments offered are colored by nationalistic-based theorizing and unoriginal, unimaginative ideas. Perhaps at times, Putin may feel somewhat limited or smothered by such thinking. He may desire a higher order thinking that would result in solid concepts and viable policy options. This is not to state that Ushakov, Lavrov, and Peskov are not any less nationalistic or patriotic than others in Putin’s immediate advisory circle. Rather it would only mean that when it comes the big picture, their thinking is a bit more incisive, of a higher order, than the others. Overall success for both sides will be signalled by contradictions in traditional ways of thinking and acting on both sides. Recede in te ipse quantum potes; cum his versare qui te meliorem facturi sunt, illos admitte quos tu potes facere meliores. Mutuo ista fiunt, et homines dum docent discunt. (Withdraw into yourself, as far as you can. Associate with those who will make a better man of you. Welcome those whom you yourself can improve. The process is mutual; for men learn while they teach.)

For the moment, it may very well be that Putin has little genuine interest in adhering to existing agreements or would likely hold fast to any new ones eventually reached. Certainly, that is understood by the Trump administration. For that reason, along with existing attitudes, biases, about Russia and the Soviet Union from the past, entrees from Putin, new steps, will still at first blush be suspected as chicken feed, deception, until they have been highly scrutinized and determined otherwise. To build confidence and eventually some degree of trust, both sides must approach each other, beginning on small issues, with honesty, morality, and even fidelity. Yet, they must also retain the ability to verify that promised steps are actually taken. That is the fascinating type of cooperation actually seen between the space programs of both countries. It is interesting that despite the cooperation that exists between the two countries on a big issue as space, they remain far apart on foreign and national security policy. Trump’s insistence on talks generates real hope for change.

In an intriguing July 17, 2018 article Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported that in an interview on Ekho Moskvy radio, Aleksei Venediktov, a foreign policy scholar and the radio station’s editor in chief, offered an interesting perspective on how the line up of advisers who sat at the table with Trump and Putin at Helsinki revealed the two countries’ differing agendas. He concluded that the delegations showed the main US concerns at Helsinki were strategic security and election interference, while Putin’s concerns were Syria and “public relations.”

Advisers and Aides Are Involved in There Special Ways

In an interview on Ekho Moskvy radio, Aleksei Venediktov, a foreign policy scholar and the radio station’s editor in chief, offered an interesting perspective on how the line up of advisers who sat at the table with Trump and Putin at Helsinki revealed the differing agendas of the two countries. Venediktov analyzed the seating arrangements as follows: “On the Russian side at that lunch . . . there was, of course, Lavrov and [US Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo. They are equals. But further down sat Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov.” Venediktov went on to note: “Then there was, of course, the ambassador to the United States, [Anatoly] Antonov and the director of the Foreign Ministry’s North America department, Georgy Borisenko.” He added: “I would draw attention to the fact that none of these people directly deal with security or global strategy, not counting the foreign minister . . . . Not one person in the Russian delegation did this work full-time. [Nikolai] Patrushev of the Security Council wasn’t there. The defense minister wasn’t there. The head of the General Staff wasn’t there. No one.” Discussing the US delegation, Venediktov stated: “If you remove Pompeo and [US Ambassador to Russia Jon] Huntsman, then we see that there is the president’s national-security adviser, [John] Bolton, and senior adviser to the national-security adviser on Russia affairs, Fiona Hill. And, and this is important, we see White House Chief of Staff John Kelly . . . You can see how these delegations differ. John Bolton is in charge of global security. Fiona Hill is in charge of security issues between Russia and the United States. And John Kelly is in charge of the interference in the [US presidential] election. Domestic politics. That is what John Kelly does. You can see how the delegations are at cross-purposes. Different agendas, differing delegation compositions. On one side, security experts. On the other, people from the Foreign Ministry.” Venediktov concluded that the delegations showed that the main US concerns at Helsinki were strategic security and the election interference, while Putin’s concerns were Syria and “public relations.” He concluded: “Peskov — that’s public relations,” adding, “Peskov is about selling the summit results.”

It may be as Venediktov as posited that Putin’s contacts with Trump serve some limited public relations purpose. He may be simply building himself up on the international stage by creating the optics of having some equivalence to the US President. On the other hand, there could still be a variety of other reasons for the composition of the Russian delegation at Helsinki. Much as greatcharlie mentioned earlier, Putin may believe the counsel of Ushakov, Lavrov, and Peskov, is most useful in his talks with Trump as their thinking on the US is more incisive, and that mindset may have been evinced in the composition of his Helsinki delegation. It is possible that Putin may be showing deference to the Foreign Ministry and top officials such as the Russian Federation Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov and the director of the Foreign Ministry’s North America department, Georgy Borisenko, given their knowledge about the US is not politically based, is erudite, and they have authentic expertise in US affairs. Perhaps Putin’s selection could be an expression of his effort to keep the reactions and words of Shoigu and Patrushev, away from the observant, probing eyes of Trump and his advisers and aides, knowing how strong the anti-US sentiments of those two are. A suspicious mind might suggest Putin deliberately limited the access of certain advisers to Trump and other US officials as a form of information control. Advisers absent from the talks would have less ability to later gauge, influence, or question Putin’s policy approaches with the US. Their views would be limited, inferred from the abstract. They would remain reliant on Putin’s appraisals of the situation. It is possible that Putin’s choices may simply reflect the routine management of his team, for example, he may have selected one adviser over an another based on their schedules or there may have been an urgent need to have his other key advisers cover important matters that fell within their portfolios, that he could not personally attend to. Lastly, there is the possibility that the composition of the delegation could have been the result of a combination of all of these possibilities as well as many others. A certain amount of caution and paranoia is programmed into the Russian leader’s decision making in general. However, Putin’s actions regarding the delegations composition were unlikely an effort to signal that he questioned the loyalty of Shoigu or Patrushev. He knows that their allegiance is strong. Both men would prefer to sleep at his doorstep than rest in their own homes.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton (left) and Russian Federation Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (right) in Moscow. Just as their figurative “kings go forth” to resolve matters, top foreign and national security policy officials of both governments have met to discuss and find answers to important and urgent matters. Russian Federation Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had a call with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo following Helsinki. Bolton had meetings in Moscow with Putin and Lavrov, as well as Shoigu and Patrushev who were absent in Helsinski.

The respective advisers and aides of Trump and Putin have worked feverishly to set up meetings between the two leaders. Yet, just as their figurative “kings go forth” to resolve matters, advisers and aides, who are the top foreign and national security policy officials in both governments, have met to discuss and find answers important and urgent matters. As it happened, Lavrov had a call with Pompeo following Helsinki. In a statement from the Russian Federation Foreign Ministry, the two diplomats discussed “acute issues on the international agenda and bilateral ties in the context of preparations for planned contacts between the presidents.” More intriguing were contacts between Bolton and Putin and Lavrov, as well as Shoigu and Patrushev in Moscow between October 22,2018 and October 23, 2018. Long before meeting Bolton, Shoigu and Patrushev were surely read-in on all available profiles to include any classified case files on him. They also likely took a good look at his many essays, articles, and editorials on policy, reviewed the greater portion of Bolton’s presentations and panel discussions at policy conferences, and read ttanscripts of his interviews with the US and foreign news media, at academic institutions, and by think tanks. While Bolton is not Trump, both Shoigu and Patrushev likely hoped to gain insight from him into the inner thinking of the administration on foreign and national security policy making: the thinking behind its conceptualization of new policies and how issues, events, and crises are analyzed. From that, they might get a better sense of the possibilities and capabilities of the administration as its presently staffed. Reportedly, US plans for withdrawal from the treaty were discussed in talks with both officials as well as with Putin and Lavrov. He explained to the Russians that the US decision to pull out of the treaty was logical given that Russia has been violating it and other countries, including China, Iran, and the DPRK are free to develop weapons that would be prohibited under the agreement. He explained that US did not intend to restrict itself of INF while other were not. Bolton also told the Russians that the INF, a bilateral treaty of the Cold War was outdated because technologies have changed and geostrategic realities have changed.

Bolton (left) and Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Nikolai Patrushev (right). Bolton has reportedly discussed US plans for withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in his meetings with Shoigu and Patrushev, as well as with Putin and Lavrov. He explained that the US decision was logical given that Russia has been violating it and countries including China, Iran, and the DPRK, can develop weapons the treaty prohibits. Bolton also explained that technologies and geostrategic realities made the treaty outdated.

Critics and Detractors Remain Ineffective Dream-Killers

Negative perspectives of political rivals, critics, and detractors of Trump have not been mitigated since Helsinki, In fact the October 26, 2018 New York Times article reminded that Trump was widely criticized in the aftermath of Helsinki for failing to publicly denounce Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election and alleged that Trump seemingly accepted Putin’s denials of such activity. Indeed, reports alleging that his administration has performed poorly on foreign policy serve more than adequately as an impediments, and perhaps even prevents, many in the US public from recognizing what he has actually achieved. There is unlikely much that Trump could ever do directly to relieve critics and detractors of their more creative than fact based impressions of Putin as a “super spook” still on the beat. No matter what success might be achieved by Trump at Helsinki or on any issue on the foreign policy front, it would not overcome existing impressions of critics and detractors. US Vice President Mike Pence and Trump advisers and aides such as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and White House Press Secretary Sarah Saunders have explained fervently that Trump has been wholeheartedly engaged in an effort to advance the interests of the US public in his meetings and negotiations with his foreign counterparts. Trump’s plans for handling the meeting diligently were worked out with his high qualified foreign and national security policy team. They were executed along the lines of excellence. However, lacking confidence that Trump would do things right in Helsinki, Trump’s political opponents warned him about having an overly friendly meeting with Putin, particularly after Trump had picked trade battles with longtime US allies. A NATO meeting ahead of the Putin summit was widely panned as being contentious after Trump pressed members of the alliance to increase their defense spending.

Just days before the first summit, Democrats in Congress urged Trump in a letter to hold Putin accountable for Russia’s destabilization efforts, including election meddling, support for the Syrian regime and the annexation of Crimea. US Senate Democrats Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, Mark Warner, and Jack Reed wrote to Trump: “While there is a place for dialogue between nations on disagreements and common challenges, such as reducing nuclear dangers, we are deeply concerned that your Administration continues to send mixed messages regarding the Russian security threat.” They added: “During your meeting with President Putin, we ask that you convey that there will be clear consequences for Russia’s interference in democratic processes in the United States and elsewhere, its support for violence and bloodshed in Ukraine and Syria, and the illegal occupation of Crimea.”

If Trump had thought it prudent, he would have had little problem meeting the demands of critics and detractors by repeatedly and enthusiastically admonishing Putin over election interference in the two leaders furtive meetings or publicly. However, the reality is that the steps Trump’s political opponents and other critics and detractors suggest that he take, would never be part of an effective plan for dealing with Putin. Their approaches would guarantee disaster and a set back with Russian leader who is very reactive to slights and who may respond negatively in a very disproportionate way, raising the stakes for everyone. This was discovered by the Obama administration but oddly denied as a reality. Moving in retrograde, back to the disasterous “my way or the highway”, “bullying” approach to the somewhat sensitive Putin used by the Obama administration, which was what US Senate Democrats were recommending, was undoubtedly recognized by Trump as the recipe for disaster. Indeed, the letter amounted to an exposition of the Obama administration’s unsuccessful policy. Consilio melius contendere atque vincere possumus quam ira. (We can compete and prevail better through wisdom than through anger.)

Under Trump’s leadership, US foreign and national security policy, in its spirit, is brand new. Trump will not be soft on Russia. He will act with determination when he sees the need to promote or defend US interest against moves by Moscow. However, while he is in office, he will as best as possible, create space for the US and Russia to do great things together. Hopefully, the process of trying to find a very positive, working relationship with Putin will not in the long run become the equivalent of trying find a way to sleep on the top of a flagpole.

The Way Forward

In Act 1 scene 3 of William Shakespeare’s play Much Ado About Nothing, Leonato, a kindly, respectable nobleman in the Italian town of Messina, shares his house with his daughter, Hero, his niece, Beatrice, and his elderly brother, Antonio, who is Beatrice’s father. Leonato welcomes a few friends home from a war as the play begins, to include They include: Don Pedro, a prince who is a close friend of Leonato;  Claudio, a young nobleman; Benedick, a wit; and, Don Pedro’s illegitimate brother, Don John who is sullen and bitter. Almost immediately upon arriving at Leonato’s home, Claudio quickly falls in love with Hero and decide to be married. Through at trick, they manage in the weeks before the wedding to bring together Beatrice and Benedick who knew each other in the past. However, Don John decides to create problems for the others. He acknowledges that his actions against them, as well as his brother, are inspired by jealousy and envy and his bad nature in general when he states: “I had rather be a canker in a hedge than a rose in his grace, and it better fits my blood to be disdained of all than to fashion a carriage to rob love from any: in this, though I cannot be said to be a flattering honest man, it must not be denied but I am a plain-dealing villain. I am trusted with a muzzle and enfranchised with a clog; therefore I have decreed not to sing in my cage. If I had my mouth, I would bite; if I had my liberty, I would do my liking: in the meantime let me be that I am and seek not to alter me.” The predominant amount of evidence available in abstract indicates that Putin has the propensity to devise to do evil. Any negative actions taken by Putin during the process of building better relations with Trump and the US would hardly be sudden considerations. Sin is conceived long before sin on committed. Putin’s attitude and behavior toward the US could be considered, not completely, but to a great degree to be the result of a further trust lost during the Obama administration. Actions have consequences and can have rippling effects over time.

When one side in a relationship feels offended or wronged, things will rarely return to normal or even cool off until there is some recognition of the offense or wrong by the offender. Even if the offense or wrong has been forgiven, even after the offender has humbled himself or herself, the relationship may no longer be viable or have room for growth. Much as a broken pot, a relationship can be put together again but it may not hold water the same. In a situation in which a party has been offended or feels wrongly done in some extreme way, it will usually take time before trust is rebuilt. Regarding Russia, Trump came into office refusing to be held captive to the failed approach that the Obama administration took. He would not persist in the same behavior of engaging in very real, needling slights. Under Trump’s leadership, US foreign and national security policy, has a new spirit. There is a better to build better relations with countries around the world. That certainly does not mean Trump will be soft on any countries or on any issue. He will as best as possible, create space for the US and other countries to do great things together. When he sees the need to promote or defend US interest against moves by another country, including Russia, he will act with determination. This may be a key to success of Trump’s approach to Putin. Hopefully, the process of trying to find a very positive, working relationship with Putin will not in the long run become the equivalent of trying to find a way to sleep on the top of a flagpole. Recto actio non erit, nisi recta fuit voluntas, ab hac enim est actio. Rursus, voluntas non erit recta, nisi habitus animi rectus fuerit, ab hoc enim est voluntas. (An action will not be right unless the intention is right, for from it comes the action. Again, the intention will not be right unless the state of the mind has been right, for it proceeds the intention.)