Article
Paul Stronski
{
"authors": [
"Paul Stronski"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
History Shows Why Trump Needs Clear Objectives for Putin Summit
A conciliatory approach with Russia has not worked out for the past three U.S. presidents or a long list of European leaders, and it likely won’t for Trump either.
Published on Jul 15, 2018
Source: Axios
Next week's Helsinki summit poses the risk that President Trump could make a rash offer to Vladimir Putin in an attempt to improve U.S.–Russian relations. It's possible he might recognize Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, assent to Syrian President Assad’s continued rule or waver on America’s commitment to NATO.
The big picture: As much as Trump may want to turn the page with Putin, his recent call for a one-on-one meeting without aides is risky. Putin is a shrewd negotiator. A conciliatory approach with Russia has not worked out for the past three American presidents or a long list of European leaders, and it likely won't for Trump either.
Putin has been playing leaders for years:
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel spearheaded the Minsk agreement in 2015 to end the Ukraine war, which Russia never seriously implemented.
- Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy brokered the end to the Russian–Georgian war in 2008. Putin reportedly signed off on the ceasefire, but Russia flouted it nonetheless.
- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all thought maintaining a personal rapport with their Russian counterpart would advance U.S. interests. In most cases, it didn't. (Clinton's attempt to cultivate Russia ended in bitterness over the Kosovo war, while Bush's own infamous overtures preceded Russia's invasion of Georgia.)
Trump wants splashy deliverables to show he can go toe-to-toe with Putin on the global stage. But instead of agreeing to whatever Putin wants on Ukraine or Syria for the sake of a deal, Trump should articulate a vision for how his administration plans to secure U.S. interests vis-à-vis Russia. Reviving arms-control discussions or agreeing to increase educational, cultural and scientific exchanges would be good places to start. Both would help rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for future improvements in relations.
The bottom line: Trump boasts of not “preparing very much” for high-stakes diplomacy — an approach that has not secured results with North Korea's denuclearization. To avoid getting played again, he should approach the Helsinki summit with concrete objectives to avoid improvising a costly deal.
About the Author
Paul Stronski
Former Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Paul Stronski was a senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program, where his research focuses on the relationship between Russia and neighboring countries in Central Asia and the South Caucasus.
- Russia’s Growing Footprint in Africa’s Sahel Region
- Russia in the Balkans After Ukraine: A Troubling ActorCommentary
Paul Stronski
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?Commentary
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
- The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil ImportsCommentary
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai
- NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions SimmerCommentary
On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.
Tejas Bharadwaj
- TRUST and TariffsCommentary
The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.
Arun K. Singh
- Indian Airstrikes in Pakistan: May 7, 2025Commentary
On May 7, 2025, between 1:05 and 1:30 a.m. (IST), airstrikes carried out by the Indian Air Force hit nine locations inside Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). It was codenamed Operation Sindoor.
Rudra Chaudhuri
