On July 16, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a controversial summit in Helsinki, Finland. The two leaders met privately for more than two hours with only two interpreters in the room. It is unclear what they spoke about or agreed to, although Putin later said Trump agreed to secure Syria's border with Israel and that Russia and the United States would cooperate in Syria in other ways as well. The White House also announced that Trump invited Putin to Washington, D.C., for further talks this fall.

What is the world to make of the Putin-Trump summit in Helsinki? This article addresses several questions raised by the meeting. Given the highly subjective nature of the topic, these points of view are stylistic and not definitive.

What is the significance of President Trump’s statements in Helsinki?

U.S. counterintelligence and social media companies have publicly concluded that the Kremlin wanted to foment uncertainty about the U.S. electoral process, amplify political discord in the country, and undermine the election prospects of Hillary Clinton. The American president has been briefed on the details of what Russian intelligence has done. Given the closeness of the election, this evidence makes the basis of Trump’s victory debatable—a concept that is untenable for the president. This has likely motivated Trump’s freewheeling statements.

Despite all the outrage, Trump’s Helsinki gambit, so far, is winning with his political base. According to an Axios/Survey Monkey poll released on July 19, 79 percent of Republicans approved of Trump’s performance at the Helsinki news conference, and 85 percent believe the 14-month inquiry led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is a distraction. This points to the effectiveness of Trump’s efforts to cloud the legitimacy of the investigation, muddle the findings of the intelligence community, and spur populist fears of a deep state.

Putin's cryptic assertion that the Russian government did not monitor the activities of all foreign businessmen in Russia left the door open to the allegation that the government has compromising material on Trump.

In addition, Republican opposition to the president’s statements was muted and short-lived. Approval or tolerance of Trump’s Helsinki performance can be seen in the context of his tight hold on the GOP due to the strong economy and low unemployment, robust consumer and business confidence, the tax reform bill, deregulation, conservative court picks, and aggressive attacks on opposing forces.

Putin seemed to be taken by surprise in Helsinki and at times sought to temper Trump’s warm statements. His cryptic assertion that the Russian government did not monitor the activities of all foreign businessmen in Russia left the door open to the allegation that the government has compromising material on Trump.

Why has Trump been partial to Russia and Putin while his relations with most other global leaders have been volatile and strained?

The Helsinki summit reflects Trump’s evolving approach to international relations—the latest phase of which can be described as "Trump Unchained."

The first 15 months of the Trump administration led to few legislative accomplishments, save for the tax reform bill, and the president has been constrained and in some ways countered by Congress (e.g. enhanced Russia sanctions and limited funding for the border wall). The courts have blocked or delayed key initiatives and trade negotiations have produced little movement on Trump’s priorities. As part of his effort to loosen the chains on his power, Trump has relied increasingly on his executive authority and jurisdiction over foreign policy—reflected in his pushing for the Singapore summit with Kim Jong-un, driving forward on tariffs, and seeking to meet Putin.

According to scholarly research, leaders should take in a diverse set of views if they are to be successful in international affairs. Yet, the Trump administration’s foreign policy and national security teams are thinly staffed and the administration has had a hard time attracting and retaining talent. Advisors that have challenged the president have been pushed out—most notably Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in March. Those that remain realize that to have the president’s ear, they must align their views with his.

In the White House, Trump has personalized and rebranded the presidency, rather than treating it as a public institution or as the representative of the United States.

Trump’s presidential decision-making style reflects his history as the leader of a family business. He has little interest in listening to stakeholders or large staffs, and he has developed a reputation for going against advisors’ recommendations. Shooting from the hip and being contrarian bolsters his image as an independent and decisive leader that he is cultivating for his political base.

Trump is transactional and he has displayed disdain for the traditions and nuance of diplomacy, as well as the complexity and obligations of global governance and multilateralism. He is more focused on tangible flows of goods and money (e.g. trade and investment) rather than intangibles such as free trade, alliances, and human rights. The world is real estate: North Korea is an undeveloped parcel on Asia’s bustling coast, while Syria and Ukraine are problematic and costly lots that the Kremlin can have.

Finally, Trump’s entire career has been focused on building a business around his highly personalized brand. In the White House, he has personalized and rebranded the presidency, rather than treating it as a public institution or as the representative of the United States. Drawing on his experience from television, ratings represent power, and Trump has proven to be a master of political theater in which he is the central character. His dramatic moves on the stage in Singapore, Quebec, Brussels, London, and Helsinki, regardless of their content or constructiveness, have proven gripping for both loyalists and antagonists alike.

Issues to watch

Trump has long courted investors with ties to Russia and the former Soviet Union. They have provided an alternative funding when banks have been resistant to lending. Trump has sought business from investors in the former Soviet region; those investors reportedly make up a notable share of the tenants in his U.S. properties. Given its small staff, it is unlikely that the Trump Organization engaged in rigorous risk and compliance management. Thus, the Justice Department’s investigation of Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen is significant in the context of Trump’s broader Russia relationship.

The details about Russian hacking revealed in the July 13 indictment of 12 Russian intelligence operatives suggest that the Mueller investigation will produce more revelations about the extent of Russian intelligence activities in the United States. What is not yet clear is how directly the Kremlin promoted the candidacy of Donald Trump and how it may have engaged with his campaign or surrogates to this end.

Material findings of collusion would likely generate an irreconcilable political storm given Trump supporters’ belief that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated and illegitimate.

Material findings of collusion would likely generate an irreconcilable political storm given Trump supporters’ belief that the Mueller investigation is politically motivated and illegitimate. Democratic-led impeachment efforts likely would be resisted by GOP lawmakers and stymied should they retain control of the House or Senate after the midterm election this November. In such a scenario, the Kremlin’s strategic objective of disabling American political institutions would be realized.

What are the geopolitical and business implications?

Despite Trump’s talk about reaching an agreement on a number of strategic relationship issues, a significant warming in U.S.-Russia relations is highly unlikely given the current state of domestic politics and hostile rhetoric in each country. Trump faces countervailing pressures in his administration and in Congress regarding coordination with Russia in Syria, resisting Russian control over parts of Ukraine, weakening NATO, pursing new arms control initiatives, and easing sanctions.

Putin’s curt quip—"You can trust no one"—at the end of the press conference in Helsinki highlighted his longstanding and fundamentally cynical view of the United States, and suggested he might be playing Trump. That said, the Kremlin will gamely welcome the White House’s warm rhetoric and continue to argue that Russia is open for business, although the opportunities are limited. Rising oil prices are bolstering growth in Russia, albeit from a modest 2018 IMF forecast base of only 1.7 percent.

Paradoxically, the Kremlin may have overplayed its hand by agreeing to such an unstructured summit, as U.S. sanctions against Russian firms and individuals are now more likely to be expanded. Democratic lawmakers are tripping over themselves to show how tough they can be on Trump and Russia, while new sanctions enable GOP lawmakers to distance themselves from the White House in a challenging election year.

The Mueller investigation, a potential Putin visit to Washington, and the midterm elections will continue to keep Russia front-of-mind, despite the White House’s recent efforts to change the narrative.

For instance, the DETER Act is presently working its way through the Senate and could come up for a vote before the midterm election. It mandates new sanctions on Russian business leaders and the financial services, energy, and mining industries should the U.S. Director of National Intelligence find evidence of election meddling—something he has already done.

The Mueller investigation, a potential Putin visit to Washington, and the midterm elections will continue to keep Russia front-of-mind, despite the White House’s recent efforts to change the narrative. In the coming weeks, however, Russia will recede in importance as other pressing topics on the international economic policy agenda garner attention: tariffs, China tensions, FDI oversight, NAFTA renegotiation, and Iran sanctions. President Trump has dramatically expanded the field of play, but his administration’s capacity to successfully manage all of these tasks is limited.

_______________________

DJ Peterson is a Pacific Council member and president of Longview Global Advisors.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.