乐鱼 体育

The chummy joint news conference of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Helsinki seemed to suggest that the Russian president had scored a major victory over his U.S. counterpart in their one-on-one meeting on July 17. Indeed, the optics could go a long way toward Putin鈥檚 purposes: he badly wants the Kremlin to be seen as the White House鈥檚 equal on the world stage.

But in the summit鈥檚 aftermath it appears that Trump鈥檚 coziness with Putin could actually undermine Russia鈥檚 prospects of realizing substantive gains from the summit.

The Russians had modest expectations, seeing the summit as primarily an opportunity to display Putin as an equal to the U.S. president, but it also presented at least a slim chance to open up much-needed channels of bilateral dialogue on everything from Syria to the sanctions imposed on Russia after its annexation of Crimea and incursion into Ukraine in 2014. Both the confrontation between Russia and the West following the annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin鈥檚 meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections have narrowed these channels, to say the least: the two sides are communicating, but with mistrust compounded by confusion over U.S. diplomatic positions.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, does talk often with his Russian opposite number, General Valery Gerasimov, particularly about deconfliction in Syria. But a rider in the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act prohibits 鈥渂ilateral military-to-military cooperation鈥� with Russia as a result of its actions in Ukraine in 2014. Although the prohibition can be by the U.S. secretary of defense, there has been little contact between the two countries鈥� ministers or legislators.

Immediately after the summit, Moscow seemed to hope things were looking up. The Defense Ministry saying it was 鈥渞eady to intensify contacts with American colleagues at the level of the General Staffs and through other available channels of communication to discuss the extension of the START treaty, the interaction in Syria and other topical issues of military security.鈥� Russian state-run news reports on the Helsinki meeting cited 鈥渁greements鈥� ostensibly reached between Putin and Trump. Such 鈥渁greements鈥� could be a useful first step in widening the bilateral dialogue. But because there appears to have been very little internal preparation and goal setting on the U.S. side, and very little internal communication afterward about what happened at Helsinki, U.S. officials in the days following the summit to understand what had been agreed to, much less how to implement any agreements that might have been reached.  

The combination of suspicion about Trump鈥檚 motives and confusion about his actions is such that some in Congress have made to question Trump鈥檚 translator about what transpired in the closed-door meeting with Putin. Amid the hubbub, U.S. defense secretary James Mattis hinted at the possibility of meeting with his counterpart, Russia鈥檚 defense minister Sergei Shoigu, but made no commitment to do so.

The hesitancy should not be surprising. With his widely panned performance in Helsinki, Trump has made rapprochement with Russia more toxic than usual among the American political class. The backlash has yet to include concrete consequences, but for the time being, few U.S. politicians other than the president are embracing closer ties with Russia. At the Pentagon, there is bewilderment at Trump鈥檚 seeming embrace of a country named in the National Security Strategy as a 鈥渞evisionist power鈥� out to 鈥渟hape a world antithetical鈥� to U.S. interests and stated values. And while public discussion of new sanctions legislation flared only briefly after the Helsinki visit, the closer Trump draws to Moscow, the more Congress may feel tempted to send Moscow a disapproving signal by taking matters into its own .

In Moscow, this state of affairs causes considerable frustration. On the one hand, many policymakers echo Trump鈥檚 remarks that his Washington detractors are out to undermine what should be welcome attempts at warmer bilateral relations. But if it really was Trump鈥檚 intention to strengthen ties with Russia, then he 鈥渇ared badly,鈥� one policy adviser here remarked. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not that there was a lot of desire to increase contact in the U.S. establishment to begin with. Trump鈥攁nd Putin only played along鈥攎ade this only worse.鈥� On the other hand, these same policymakers often say that Russia would benefit from closer contact not just at the presidential level but at the congressional and ministerial levels as well. Ahead of the summit, in fact, observers touted the Moscow visit of a delegation of Republican senators as exactly what is needed.

But even from the Russian perspective, there is a disconnect between these objectives. If the aim is to rebuild institutional links between Moscow and Washington, then the appearance that has been created鈥攖hat Putin has expertly manipulated Trump鈥攎ay in the medium term do the Kremlin a disservice. Putin鈥檚 proposal to hold a joint on the conflict in eastern Ukraine may have been intended as a test of Trump鈥檚 flexibility, but now that it has been made public, Kremlin advisers recognize there is little chance the issue will be discussed further.

There is an expression in Russian鈥�medvezhya usluga, 鈥渁 bear鈥檚 service鈥濃�攄escribing a gesture that appears well-meaning but ultimately does more harm than good. Putin should hope that Trump has not done him that sort of favor with his overtures, making him look good momentarily but sabotaging the substantive dialogue Russia is after.