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
- AI in Outer Space: Opportunities, Risks, and the Governance GapCommentary
How is AI reshaping space security, creating governance challenges, and where does international diplomacy stand today?
Tejas Bharadwaj, Almudena Azcárate Ortega
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
