Trump's friendly-to-frustrated relationship with Putin takes the spotlight at the Alaska summit
Trump has long boasted that he's gotten along well with Putin and spoken admiringly of him, even praising him as 'pretty smart' for invading Ukraine. But in recent months, he's expressed frustrations with Putin and threatened more sanctions on his country.
At the same time, Trump has offered conflicting messages about his expectations for the summit. He has called it 'really a feel-out meeting' to gauge Putin's openness to a ceasefire but also warned of 'very severe consequences' if Putin doesn't agree to end the war.
For Putin, Friday's meeting is a chance to repair his relationship with Trump and unlace the West's isolation of his country following its invasion of Ukraine 3 1/2 years ago. He's been open about his desire to rebuild U.S.-Russia relations now that Trump is back in the White House.
The White House has dismissed any suggestion that Trump's agreeing to sit down with Putin is a win for the Russian leader. But critics have suggested that the meeting gives Putin an opportunity to get in Trump's ear to the detriment of Ukraine, whose leader was excluded from the summit.
'I think this is a colossal mistake. You don't need to invite Putin onto U.S. soil to hear what we already know he wants," said Ian Kelly, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the U.S. ambassador to Georgia during the Obama and first Trump administrations.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a longtime Russia hawk and close ally of Trump's, expressed optimism for the summit.
'I have every confidence in the world that the President is going to go to meet Putin from a position of strength, that he's going to look out for Europe and Ukrainian needs to end this war honorably,' Graham wrote on social media.
A look back at the ups and downs of Trump and Putin's relationship:
Russia questions during the 2016 campaign
Months before he was first elected president, Trump cast doubt on findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian government hackers had stolen emails from Democrats, including his opponent Hillary Clinton, and released them in an effort to hurt her campaign and boost Trump's.
In one 2016 appearance, he shockingly called on Russian hackers to find emails that Clinton had reportedly deleted.
'Russia, if you're listening,' Trump said, 'I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.'
Questions about his connections to Russia dogged much of his first term, touching off investigations by the Justice Department and Congress and leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller, who secured multiple convictions against Trump aides and allies but did not establish proof of a criminal conspiracy between Moscow and the Trump campaign.
These days, Trump describes the Russia investigation as an affinity he and Putin shared.
'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' Trump said earlier this year. 'He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, ever hear of that deal?'
Putin in 2019 mocked the investigation and its ultimate findings, saying, "A mountain gave birth to a mouse.'
'He just said it's not Russia'
Trump met with Putin six times during his first term, including a 2018 summit in Helsinki, when Trump stunned the world by appearing to side with an American adversary on the question of whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
'I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said. 'He just said it's not Russia. I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be."
Facing intense blowback, Trump tried to walk back the comment a full 24 hours later. But he raised doubt on that reversal by saying other countries could have also interfered.
Putin referred to Helsinki summit as 'the beginning of the path' back from Western efforts to isolate Russia. He also made clear that he had wanted Trump to win in 2016.
'Yes, I wanted him to win because he spoke of normalization of Russian-U.S. ties,' Putin said. 'Isn't it natural to feel sympathy to a person who wanted to develop relations with our country?"
Trump calls Putin 'pretty smart' after invasion of Ukraine
The two leaders kept up their friendly relationship after Trump left the White House under protest in 2021.
After Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Trump described the Russian leader in positive terms.
'I mean, he's taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I'd say that's pretty smart,' Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort. In a radio interview that week, he suggested that Putin was going into Ukraine to 'be a peacekeeper.'
Trump repeatedly said the invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in the White House — a claim Putin endorsed while lending his support to Trump's false claims of election fraud.
'I couldn't disagree with him that if he had been president, if they hadn't stolen victory from him in 2020, the crisis that emerged in Ukraine in 2022 could have been avoided,' he said.
Trump also repeatedly boasted that he could have the fighting 'settled' within 24 hours.
Through much of his campaign, Trump criticized U.S. support for Ukraine and derided Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a 'salesman' for persuading Washington to provide weapons and funding to his country.
Revisiting the relationship
Once he became president, Trump stopped claiming he'd solve the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. In March, he said he was "being a little bit sarcastic' when he said that.
Since the early days of Trump's second term, Putin has pushed for a summit while trying to pivot from the Ukrainian conflict by emphasizing the prospect of launching joint U.S.-Russian economic projects, among other issues.
'We'd better meet and have a calm conversation on all issues of interest to both the United States and Russia based on today's realities,' Putin said in January.
In February, things looked favorable for Putin when Trump had a blowup with Zelenskyy at the White House, berating him as 'disrespectful."
In late March, Trump still spoke of trusting Putin when it came to hopes for a ceasefire, saying, 'I don't think he's going to go back on his word."
But a month later, as Russian strikes escalated, Trump posted a public and personal plea on his social media account: 'Vladimir, STOP!'
He began voicing more frustration with the Russian leader, saying he was 'Just tapping me along.' In May, he wrote on social media that Putin 'has gone absolutely CRAZY!'
Earlier this month, Trump ordered the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines 'based on the highly provocative statements' of the country's former president, Dmitry Medvedev.
Trump's vocal protests about Putin have tempered somewhat since he announced their meeting, but so have his predictions for what he might accomplish.
Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump described their upcoming summit not as the occasion in which he'd finally get the conflict 'settled' but instead as 'really a feel-out meeting, a little bit.'
'I think it'll be good,' Trump said. 'But it might be bad.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
GOP senator on DC carjacking fears: ‘I don't buckle up'
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Wednesday expressed his fear of being carjacked in the nation's capital, as the Trump administration ramps up its federal takeover of local law enforcement. 'And by the way, I'm not joking when I say this, I drive around in Washington, D.C., in my Jeep, and yes, I do drive myself, and I don't buckle up. And the reason why I don't buckle up, and people can say whatever they want to, they can raise their eyebrows at me again, is because of carjacking,' Mullin said during an appearance on Fox News's 'The Ingraham Angle.' 'I don't want to be stuck in my vehicle when I need to exit in a hurry, because I got a seatbelt around me and that — and I wear my seatbelt all the time,' he told host Brian Kilmeade, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. 'But in Washington, D.C., I do not, because it is so prevalent of carjacking,' the Oklahoma Republican continued. 'And I don't want the same thing [to] happen to me what's happened to a lot of people that work on the hill.' President Trump announced earlier this week that his administration was taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deployed hundreds of National Guard soldiers to the area to combat crime and violence in the city. The move, sparked after a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffer was attacked by teenagers during a carjacking — has received heavy blowback from Democrats and local officials. A provision in Washington's ' Home Rule Act ' allows the president to federalize the police force for up to 30 days — but any additional time requires Congressional approval. During a speech Wednesday from the Kennedy Center, Trump said he will seek a 'long-term' extension. 'Well, if it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said, when asked about whether he's talked to lawmakers about extending the takeover. He added that he expects meet with Congress 'very quickly' and snag GOP support. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) signaled in a post online Wednesday that he and fellow Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) were working with the Trump administration on a safety package for the district. 'Together, we will try to shepherd the DC Security Fund through Congress to give President Trump the resources he will need to improve the safety and quality of life in our nation's capital,' he wrote on social platform X. 'Every American should be behind this effort to make Washington, DC clean and safe so that it can truly become the shining city on the hill.' For such a move to advance, however, it would likely need support from some Senate Democrats. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made clear that his caucus would not back the measure. 'No f‑‑‑ing way,' he told podcast host Aaron Parnas. 'We'll fight him tooth and nail. … He needs to get Congress to approve it, and not only are we not going to approve it, but there are some Republicans who don't like either.' D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has also pushed back on Trump's moves, calling them an 'authoritarian push' as data shows the crime rate declining in the nation's capital. The mayor has also used the national attention as a platform to reup the district's quest to gain statehood.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump must not give anything away in Alaska
Many commentators have likened President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to the 1938 Munich meeting between Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Eduard Daladier over the fate of Czechoslovakia. There certainly are similarities. The Munich meeting took place without the presence of Czech President Edvard Benes, and the Alaska summit will not include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. And there is widespread fear, especially in Europe, that Trump will yield to Putin's demands for Ukrainian territory — both that which his armed forces have already seized in Crimea and the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk, and those still held by Ukraine there and in the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. As the Institute for the Study of War points out, should Putin successfully obtain control of all four oblasts — and especially all of Donetsk, which contains what the Institute terms Ukraine's 'fortress belt' — he would control several potential vectors of attack on the remainder of Ukraine. This would enable Russian forces to seize the country, just as Hitler ultimately took all of Czechoslovakia. Yet there are significant differences as well. Hitler was determined to seize the Sudetenland, and ultimately all of Czechoslovakia, without firing a shot. He had already effectively incorporated Austria that way in the 1936 Anschluss. And he succeeded in doing so. While Putin also wants to be handed over territories that his forces have not yet occupied without having to fight for them — in this regard following Hitler's precedent — he faces a very different set of circumstances. Russian forces have been fighting a determined Ukrainian military since February 2022. Moreover, despite ceaseless and heavy bombardment of Ukrainian formations and military infrastructure, coupled with terror attacks on cities and civilian institutions, Russia has gained remarkably little territory over the past three years of intense combat. Furthermore, just as Putin mistakenly thought that a Spetsnaz (special forces) attack on Kyiv at the start of the war would decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and install a pliant pro-Russian regimen, he also appears to have erroneously thought that Russian-speaking Ukrainians, many of them in the four provinces he seeks to annex, would also take Moscow's side. Yet Russia's attacks have actually united most of Ukraine's population, most notably those selfsame Russian speakers who once held positive attitudes toward Moscow. For its part, Ukraine not only has limited Russian advances in over three years of war, it has inflicted severe damage to Russia's military infrastructure, hit targets deep inside Russia including Moscow and has killed or wounded hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers and North Korean personnel. Still another difference relates to Ukraine's neighbors and partners. Whereas the leading European powers in 1938 hastily acquiesced to Hitler's demands, France, Germany, Britain, the Nordic and Baltic states and the European Union have all made it clear that they stand by Kyiv's determination to preserve its territorial integrity and that Ukraine must have a seat at any table that would determine its future. In addition, NATO has not closed the door on the prospect, however remote, of Ukrainian accession; Putin wants that door shut tight and permanently. That Trump has spoken of concessions in the form of land swaps, while Putin has never indicated anything like an exchange of territory, has deepened European concerns that a deal would legitimate a Russian land grab. It also worries Europeans that Trump is so eager to achieve an agreement, regardless of how its terms affect Ukraine, because he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, whose members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; since Norwegians generally view Trump unfavorably, it is highly unlikely that the Committee would ever award him the prize. Hitler interpreted Daladier and Chamberlain's willingness to fold at Munich as a signal that he would not encounter British opposition to either his seizure of all of Czechoslovakia or his planned attack on Poland. He viewed both men as 'poor worms,' and Nazi documents released subsequent to World War II reveal that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as so weak that he worried that British prime minister would preemptively give away Poland, thereby robbing Germany of the ability to seize the country by force. Trump needs to demonstrate to Putin when they meet in Alaska that he is no Neville Chamberlain. He must avoid any giveaway to the Russian dictator, which would only whet Putin's clearly insatiable appetite for more conquests, be they remainder of Ukraine, neutral Moldova or one of NATO's Baltic members. As Hitler sought 'lebensraum' — 'living space' for Germans — Putin seeks to restore the Czarist Empire. Whatever the term, the objective was and is the same: territorial expansion. It took a global war to stop Hitler. Hopefully, a strong-willed Trump will obviate the prospect of another devastating conflict. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Los Angeles Times
11 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Secretary's willingness to tamper with past climate reports is dangerous
To the editor: U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is intending to review and potentially alter the nation's next climate science report ('Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments,' Aug. 7). He's already removed the climate assessments from the government websites. He has accused the previous reviews (even the ones made during the first Trump administration) as being 'politically biased.' Just wondering if Wright has actually looked outdoors recently or at least kept abreast of the weather reports. Has he not seen the spate of unprecedented tornadoes razing towns and communities? Or witnessed the deadly floods throughout the country? Or the wildfires from hell in the West? Or the unbearable heat waves hitting the Northeast? Or the approaching hurricanes that signal widespread death and destruction on the way? It is clear that Wright is on a leash, eager to do the bidding of his master — old 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' His stated intentions, as well as his removal of the climate assessments from years past from governmental websites, make him complicit in the disaster that is to come. Lanore Pearlman, Claremont ... To the editor: I see that Wright, previously the CEO of a company that did fracking, says that the government climate reports have been politically driven and are not accepted by 'a credible economist or scientist.' I am sure he is right that some economists do not wish to contemplate the possibility of climate change, but I would challenge him as to what the majority scientific opinion might be. Hundreds of scientists have studied the issue. Most published articles note that change is occurring. The evidence is everywhere: shrinking glaciers in every part of the globe, shrinking polar and Greenland ice sheets, the melting of the Russian tundra, bleaching coral reefs, longer, hotter summers, disruption of rain patterns, even the opening of the Northwest Passage. The actual debate appears to be whether human activity is causing it. In other words, conservatives do not believe we can stop the process. Erica Hahn, Monrovia ... To the editor: Wright's changes might misinform some, but if our extreme weather-related events continue at their enhanced pace, eventually the public will demand action. Those events are devastating and deadly to the affected population and the economic damage is astounding. I find it disingenuous and devious that the Energy secretary is considering changes to previous scientific-based reports. Going back to scrub past reports won't change the facts that our climate has changed and fossil fuel emissions are exacerbating this change. Jonathan Light, Laguna Niguel
