Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, March 25, 2019

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Can Donald Trump relight the fire with his Russian brother Vladimir Putin?

Once upon a time they were a mutual admiration society. In 2013, Trump expressed hope that Putin would attend his Miss Universe contest in Moscow and wondered if he would become “my new best friend.” In 2015, he compared Putin favorably to President Obama.

“In terms of leadership, he [Putin] is getting an ‘A,'” he told Bill O’Reilly. Putin returned the favor in 2016 by calling Trump “talented and brilliant.”

Today their relationship is less chummy. The multiple investigations of Russian meddling in U.S. elections have made Washington more hostile, much to the Russian leader’s annoyance. Trump’s aides now want him to keep his distance from the Russian president, advice Trump seems unlikely to follow.

The two leaders plan to meet at a multinational conference in Germany next month. Trump is reportedly eager for a meeting with all the pomp and circumstance of a bilateral meeting. Putin seems less enthusiastic about the idea.

That’s a signal that Trump and Putin’s differences are getting harder to paper over. Those differences are the product of complex geopolitical realities and a legacy of the 200-year-old relationship between the two countries. Putin bristles with resentment over the way the United States ran roughshod over Russia in the 1990s. Trump presides over a divided and dysfunctional government that is actively investigating Russia’s role in the 2016 election.

Over time, national interests have a way of trumping personalities. Witness the latest headlines from Syria.


On Monday the White House announced the Syrian government would pay a “heavy price” if it launched another chemical weapons attack against its enemies.

Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “such threats to Syria’s legitimate leaders are unacceptable.”

This is not the language of mutual admiration, but of cold geopolitics. Russia is Assad’s patron. Putin’s use of the Russian air force turned the tide in a civil war that Assad was losing. Putin sided with Assad when he denied responsibility for a reported chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of people in Idlib province April 4. Putin is not going to abandon an ally under fire for the sake of a friendship, no matter how chummy.

One of the Russian goals of intervening in the 2016 election was to prevent a more aggressive U.S. policy in Syria touted by Hillary Clinton. Putin has long sought U.S. help for a peace agreement that will preserve the Syrian government, if not President Assad, in power.

Durng the campaign, Trump seemed amenable. He savaged the Bush family for lying about the disastrous invasion of Iraq. He denounced Clinton for her hawkish agenda in Syria. When Trump mused in the first week of his presidency about joint U.S.-Russia action against ISIS, Putin had reason to think he would be helpful.

Trump inherited the same policy options as his predecessor. He could do what Obama did: argue long and hard behind closed doors to limit U.S. intervention in Syria and to explore the possibility of a peace talks. Or he could do what Hillary Clinton did: side with Pentagon and CIA officials who advocated aiding anti-Assad rebels and taking control of Syrian air space.

Trump did not hesitate. He jettisoned his campaign views and is now doing exactly what he told voters he would not do. He is pursuing Clinton’s aggressive Syria policy agenda in service of Bush’s dream of “regime change” in the Middle East.

The 45th president has discovered the eternal Washington truth that deferring to the global military machine (now active in 137 countries) is much easier than trying to restrain it. He has also learned that the Washington press corps, agressive with questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election, tends to go soft when it comes to “beautiful” cruise missile attacks on Arab tyrants suspected of having weapons of mass destruction.

Trump’s policy of escalation, however, challenges Putin’s primacy in Russia’s proverbial backyard.

Putin played the kingmaker in Syria. His goal was—and is—to prevent the emergence of a jihadist bastion or a failed state that could serve as a platform for terror attacks in Russia. Now that success is in sight, Trump is threatening to disrupt Putin’s accomplishment with a war on Iran fought on Syrian soil. That’s not what geopolitical friends are for.


Perhaps the primary reason Putin backed Trump in 2016 was the hope—no, the expectation—that he would lift the sanctions Obama imposed after the Russian invasion of Crimea. The sanctions, which isolate Russia from the international economy, pose a long-term threat to Putin’s autocracy.

Trump has not only failed to lift the sanctions, his Russia-related problems have nervous Republican looking for ways to distance themselves from the erratic chief executive. On June 15, the Senate voted 98-2 to slap new sanctions on Russia and limit the White House’s power to lift them. Putin’s goal of sanctions relief is growing more distant, not more likely.

Putin has every reason to be happy about Trump’s indifference to America’s treaty committments to European allies. He can count on Trump’s support in his efforts to undermine German prime minister Angela Merkel. But as a transactional politician, Putin is looking for results, not love. On Syria and sanctions Trump has delivered nothing but trouble, and that is not good for the future of a bromance.

Jefferson Morley is AlterNet’s Washington correspondent. He is the author of the forthcoming biography The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton (St. Martin’s Press, October 2017) and the 2016 Kindle ebook CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files.

This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 2

9 responses to “So Much For The Idea Of A Trump-Putin ‘Bromance’”

  1. dbtheonly says:

    It is difficult to decide if Putin felt he could interfere in the US election and no one would notice; or if he felt that, if successful, there’d be no reprocussions.

    Neither half makes much sense to me.

    Then there’s the issue if Putin thought his cyber-attack on Ukraine would go unattributed.

    For an ostensible genius, he’s blowing some calls badly.

    • kep says:

      Isn’t it strange that there is NO evidence of ANY Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, and how much evidence IS coming out about collusion with Emperor Obama and Russia? And after Comey illegally leaked info that would get his Bud appointed as special prosecutor, we now are starting to see evidence of obstruction of justice by Lynch, the Clintons, and Emperor Obama? Isn’t this fun?

      • dbtheonly says:

        Snort of derision.

        You and Trump, seriously, are asserting, that President Obama failed in his duty or colluded with Russia to not release evidence concerning Russian attempts to get Trump elected.

        You’re using the right words but it’s abundantly clear that you don’t know what they mean.

        • kep says:

          Lol. Right words and I know what they mean because English is my language, like Russian is your primary language.
          Yes, Emperor Obama knew about Russian interference and kept silent because of politics, instead of national security. On an open mike, Obama told the Russian president that after he was reelected, he would be able to be more flexible with Russia. That IS collusion.

          • dbtheonly says:

            Flunked logic Old Boy?

            President Obama colluded with Russia to elect Trump? Because President Obama’s reelection in 2012 allowed him to be more flexible in 2017?

            You string the words together well enough. It’s the meaning of those words, used in those combinations, that’s lacking.

            Спасибо, я стараюсь

  2. If Trump thinks he has a bromance with Putin, he’s a bigger ninny than expected. Putin is using Trump like soap—whenever he feels he needs to clean off the dirt he keeps getting on his hands, he can rely on Trump to help by diverting attention to himself. That way, Putin and company can keep finding ways to destabilize America, the Ukraine, and other nations, while Trump plays the buffoon who needs attention.

  3. On another level, Trump and Putin need to be treated by all nations as the pariahs they truly are by their very nature. Both Trump and Putin are major factors in contributing to world instability, and both the GOP and the Kremlin operatives are assisting.

    Nations of the world must realize that both the US government and Russia, along with China, Iran, and Syria, are countries that need sanctions placed on them to the point that these nations start feeling some real pain and give up their expansionist dreams and fanatical religious tendencies. A united front condemning the US on a regular basis by employing selective punitive measures for not curbing our desire to destroy the environment, and drawing world condemnation for the US’s hostile police activities and our rabid nationalist sentiments prompted by a misanthropic agenda, will go a long way to divert the current Trump Administration from continuing on a mission that will doom the planet if unchecked.

  4. Dominick Vila says:

    Putin’s decision to interfere in the 2016 election, and several European elections, has more to do with the goal to destroy confidence in our democratic values, than help elect useful idiots to high office. Interestingly, a segment of our population remains indifferent to what happened, and is more inclined to blame those most affected by Russian interference for their demise, than the puppet we ended up with whose demeanor, character, and decisions represent a victory for the Rasputin of the 21st century.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.