Surrender Summit II: Putin Invited to Washington

[Berzerker]

You mean Trump was offering to get rid of the FDA?

 

[Lexicus]

Any other country having higher standards, proving that can work fine, a foe.

A variation on the point Chomsky frequently makes about US intervention in other countries - the US often intervenes in ways that make little sense unless you consider that we are hell-bent on avoiding the power of a good example. Any country that threatens to develop and become wealthy outside the aegis of the US-led world system needs to be destroyed.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

You mean Trump was offering to get rid of the FDA?

I'm not sure he knows exactly what he's offering and what trade barriers are. If you ask him if he'd shut down the FDA there's at least a 50% chance that he'd say yes and later say no and claim he never said yes. We know the drill by now.

A variation on the point Chomsky frequently makes about US intervention in other countries - the US often intervenes in ways that make little sense unless you consider that we are hell-bent on avoiding the power of a good example. Any country that threatens to develop and become wealthy outside the aegis of the US-led world system needs to be destroyed.

*mumbles*...and that's why Europe should increase defense spending and get more nukes...

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not sure he knows exactly what he's offering and what trade barriers are. If you ask him if he'd shut down the FDA there's at least a 50% chance that he'd say yes and later say no and claim he never said yes. We know the drill by now.

Tariffs and quotas

 

[warpus]

Everyone has their own agenda... How does Russia's prevent ours from existing?

You both want to rule the world*, they contradict each other. Poland's agenda can conexist with America's agenda (for the most part) because contradictions are minor.

* It's a lot more nuanced than that. The existence of a powerful U.S. prevents Russia from expanding their influence in Asia, Europe, and beyond. Both countries seek to expand their influence, these are positions that are contradictory.

Poland just wants to sell sausage and shares a lot of the same goals as the U.S. so the agendas aren't contradictory for the most part. Nobody in Warsaw cares if the U.S. has troops in Georgia or somewhere in Africa or Bosnia or Ukraine or wherever. But Moscow cares. They care a lot.

 

[uppi]

Tariffs and quotas

Tariffs and quotas are the easy trade barriers. Just getting rid of those might be possible. But the US government was talking about getting rid of all trade barriers, which involves regulations and enforcement of those. For example, a ban on marijuana sales would be a trade barrier. The requirement that only US nationals are allowed to work on secret projects of the US military would be another example of a trade barrier. These regulations as well as subventions are inherently political. Abolishing all trade barriers would require to closely align the regulations of all participants. Essentially, you would need a world government that is at least as powerful as the EU with regard to its members.

Do you think that the US would voluntarily join the EU (assuming the EU would let them) or a similar organization? If you cannot answer this question with yes, there is no need to seriously consider the proposal get rid of all trade barriers.

 

[innonimatu]

*mumbles*...and that's why Europe should increase defense spending and get more nukes...

If the EU and the US head for conflict (very unlikely, but...) then several of its member countries will side with the US. American military might and their habit of declaring and destroying "enemies" makes it just too much of a strategic imperative to get along with them. The EU is nowhere cohesive enough to act as a nation, as a block, to defend against that threat. And it won't be.

There won't be a hard "Atlantic split" anytime soon. If it happens, it'll cut somewhere across Europe, at least at the start.

 

[Broken_Erika]

If the EU and the US head for conflict (very unlikely, but...) then several of its member countries will side with the US. American military might and their habit of declaring and destroying "enemies" makes it just too much of a strategic imperative to get along with them. The EU is nowhere cohesive enough to act as a nation, as a block, to defend against that threat. And it won't be.

There won't be a hard "Atlantic split" anytime soon. If it happens, it'll cut somewhere across Europe, at least at the start.

You can expect plenty of "Atlantic Spit" though....

 

[metalhead]

And no one knows what was said in Helsinki, either. Sounds an awful lots like collusion if you ask me.

Was there ever an official explanation given as to what the "summit" was even about? Usually when leaders meet at a hyped up summit, they meet about a specific thing. Was there ever a "thing" proffered as the reason for the first meeting?

 

[Berzerker]

probably Syria and sanctions

 

[Hrothbern]

Considering the sharp statements of Rouhani of Iran adressed to Trump not to play with fire.
It could also be that Iran was one of the main topics (in importance).

 

[red_elk]

Was there ever an official explanation given as to what the "summit" was even about? Usually when leaders meet at a hyped up summit, they meet about a specific thing. Was there ever a "thing" proffered as the reason for the first meeting?

Syria, Iran, Ukraine and nuclear treaties.

There was a similar Putin-Macron meeting two months ago in St. Petersburg. The only concrete result we know by now, is that French president agreed to send humanitarian aid to Syrian government-controlled areas and Russian side was to provide transport planes for delivery. Otherwise it was the same - hand shaking, press-conference and respectful attitude from both sides. There was no mass hysteria about surrendering and collusion in French press though.

 

[Dachs]

There was a similar Putin-Macron meeting two months ago in St. Petersburg. The only concrete result we know by now, is that French president agreed to send humanitarian aid to Syrian government-controlled areas and Russian side was to provide transport planes for delivery. Otherwise it was the same - hand shaking, press-conference and respectful attitude from both sides. There was no mass hysteria about surrendering and collusion in French press though.

probably because Macron isn't currently under investigation by French government security organs for his ties to Russia?

and because the conduct of the meeting was dramatically different - the office of the French president released discussion points in advance, and Macron was not at any point in a room with Putin with just his interpreters?

and because Macron didn't use the meeting press conference to make comments that would be obviously incendiary for domestic-political purposes?

 

[red_elk]

the office of the French president released discussion points in advance, and

Both Pompeo and Russian FM declared that Syria, Ukraine and bilateral relations will be discussed.

Macron was not at any point in a room with Putin with just his interpreters?

But wasn't he really?
All I can find in the news only mentions that it was a bilateral meeting. Russian media reported that Macron arrived at the meeting with his wife, and she left it soon afterwards.
I'm not very familiar with usual diplomatic protocol of such events - is the tete-a-tete discussion really that extraordinary?

 

[metalhead]

I'm not very familiar with usual diplomatic protocol of such events - is the tete-a-tete discussion really that extraordinary?

Yes, it is highly unusual, and it should be obvious why. Both the Russians and North Koreans have used these meetings with Trump to their advantage by simply claiming things were discussed and agreed to. With no witnesses or note-takers in the room, there is nobody on our side who can either confirm or deny the accounts of the meetings that are being disseminated by Putin and Kim in their respective countries.

So it basically leaves us as sitting ducks to get taken advantage of. Trump is too illiterate in foreign affairs to offer any pushback or challenge the other side's version. So what ends up going down as being agreed upon is whatever the person opposite Trump claims was agreed upon.

Just another way we are getting taken advantage of.

 

[Berzerker]

I thought it was Trump who said NK agreed to denuclearization when they allegedly didn't... What did NK and Russia claim Trump agreed to?

 

[red_elk]

Both the Russians and North Koreans have used these meetings with Trump to their advantage by simply claiming things were discussed and agreed to. With no witnesses or note-takers in the room, there is nobody on our side who can either confirm or deny the accounts of the meetings that are being disseminated by Putin and Kim in their respective countries.

The only information Putin "disseminated" so far was that the talks were (allegedly) successful. And this sounds more like another diplomatic ritual rather than disclosing anything about actual results.
All this sounds to me like assumption that Trump is weak in diplomacy and Putin can take advantage of him. While this may be true, I just don't see indication that this is what really happened.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I thought it was Trump who said NK agreed to denuclearization when they allegedly didn't... What did NK and Russia claim Trump agreed to?

DPRK, and Trump, claimed that denuclearization was agreed to. Trump was just so unprepared that he didn't know that the denuclearization the DPRK agreed to was the same denuclearization they have been discussing for decades; ie withdrawing US troops from RoK and Japan, removing nuclear armed bombers and missiles from Guam, and withdrawing FBM submarines from the Pacific...after which the DPRK won't need a defensive nuclear program and will abandon it. Kim can make the valid point that he has always made it very clear what he means when he says denuclearize, and since Trump didn't ask for any clarification before he agreed there is no reason to think that isn't what Trump was agreeing to. When Pompeo showed up to say "now that you agreed to denuclearize here's our definition of what it means" he was rightfully sent packing. Now, without acknowledging that he agreed to something without bothering to find out what it was, Trump will just renege and call it "winning."

We can expect the same sort of results in Syria. The Russians will proceed to bomb the rebels out of existence and Assad will secure his despotism. Putin will say "this is what I meant when I agreed to cooperate on Syrian peace."

 

[metalhead]

Right. And that's another reason you don't send your head of state in there alone. Pompeo appears to be relatively competent; at the critical juncture where an agreement is imminent, he can pull the president aside and explain to him what the metes and bounds are of the thing he is agreeing to.

Even if the president isn't Trump, it's reasonable and expected that he isn't going to know a lot of the details that senior foreign policy people who have been working on DRPK policy for decades know. So you want to have those people in the room, so they can guide the president to make informed decisions. Not having those people around is just an absurd way to go about these high level talks, and would be for any president.

 

[Dachs]

Both Pompeo and Russian FM declared that Syria, Ukraine and bilateral relations will be discussed.

Sure, but that's vague enough as to be basically irrelevant.

Usually, these sorts of summits are highly choreographed, not off-the-cuff rambling. It's the old saw: "I handed him my brief, and he handed me his brief, and we just read each other's briefs, smiled, and shook hands." It's a joke, because there's obviously substantive area for discussion, but the substantive area is defined beforehand so that the two participants know what not to say to avoid going off the reservation. The respective foreign ministries schedule everything to make sure the heads of state don't do anything stupid. It's the same story with face-to-face meetings in business. Failing to prepare is a sign of rank unprofessionalism.

For example, for the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Reykjavik in 1986, the State Department worked overtime with a team of staffers to make sure the President was fully prepared for the discussion. The bureaucracy was put into motion. Everybody up to the Secretary was involved. The meeting would have had no value if the only preparation was "well, we might talk about Afghanistan, Europe, and bilateral relations". Instead, even though the talks famously collapsed, the highly specific nature of the discussions meant that both sides came away from the discussion with a complete understanding of the other side's negotiating position, leading directly to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty the following year.

Yet up to the Helsinki summit, virtually no one, including Trump, was even willing to confirm or deny any topics of discussion, let alone what the American position would be. Four days before the meeting, at a press conference during the Brussels NATO conference, he was asked whether the discussion would include NATO exercises in the Baltic states; his response was "maybe we'll talk about that". He admitted at the same conference that it would be a "loose meeting". It went ahead with minimal preparation: only one visit by Pompeo to Moscow beforehand, with nothing decided upon; no National Security Council principals-level meetings beforehand; no use made of the various advisors in place (Fiona Hill, for example, was in Helsinki but not even in the part of the meeting that included advisors; she probably could've submitted a drawing of a squirrel instead of her actual brief with no negative consequences). The list goes on and on. Obviously, Trump's opposite number did not treat the meeting so cavalierly.

A relevant quotation from a New Yorker article that came out shortly before the meeting in Helsinki:

Needless to say, one preparatory trip, no formal agenda, and no “deliverables” is not normal for a summit between the heads of the world’s two biggest nuclear-armed nations. Washington usually spends months, or even years, working up to a meeting between the President and the leader of Russia. But not this time. During the past few days, I’ve asked sixteen former U.S. government officials who have worked with every American President going back to Ronald Reagan, including a former national-security adviser, four U.S. Ambassadors to Russia, the former top U.S. national intelligence officer for Russia, and two Deputy Secretaries of State, about summit preparation. The former officials, who often disagree about Russia, do not now: they are as united as I’ve ever heard them, in nearly two decades of Russia-watching, that there is no historical precedent for Trump’s meeting with Putin. Especially concerning is the fact that the U.S. government is headed into such a summit with a degraded and disregarded policy apparatus that has been systematically marginalized and excluded from the President’s actual foreign policy. Many of the former officials told me they were genuinely alarmed at the hostile state of relations between Russia and the United States, a state of affairs almost invariably described these days as the worst since the Cold War, and said they would welcome a productive face-to-face meeting between the two leaders. But few expect that to be the case.

The article, of course, was sadly prescient. There was virtually no substantive agreement associated with the meeting. Trump threw out a lot of sound bites that showed how insubstantial the conversation actually was, along with a couple more sound bites that almost sounded as though they were calculated to convince Americans that he was, in fact, guilty of collusion.