Trump’s Growing Affinity for Putin Becomes More Impactful

In early 2017, U.S. intelligence agencies reached a decisive conclusion regarding the motives behind Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s extensive efforts to undermine the recent American presidential election. According to their analysis, Putin aimed to damage Americans’ trust in their electoral processes and challenge the United States-led liberal world order, which Russia perceives as a threat to its security. To effectuate this disruption, the assessment indicated that Russia sought to aid Donald J. Trump in his presidential bid.

Fast forward eight years, and Trump found himself in the Oval Office once again, where he conveyed a remarkably different narrative about that tumultuous period. During a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump dismissed the Russian interference claims as a mere “phony witch hunt,” of which he and Putin were unwitting victims, stating, “Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell of a lot with me.” This statement reflects Trump’s perception of a shared alliance with Putin, born from a common struggle against what he views as mutual adversaries, including Democratic lawmakers and European leaders.

The intricate relationship between Trump and Putin has been the subject of extensive scrutiny from American governmental inquiries, foreign intelligence assessments, and journalistic investigations. These investigations have revealed a tapestry of evidence that helps elucidate Trump’s peculiar affinity for the Russian leader, a strongman known for eroding American interests and values. Despite the multitude of investigations, a coherent explanation for this bond remains elusive; however, Trump’s initial public actions upon returning to office indicate few foreign policy decisions that haven’t been met with Kremlin approval, underlining the significance of his stance toward Putin.

This evolving dynamic is particularly disconcerting for former CIA counterintelligence chief Susan Miller, who helmed the agency’s intelligence assessment on Russian election interference in 2017. Miller believes that Trump’s admiration for Putin stems from what she characterizes as “autocrat envy”—a desire for the unchecked authority that Putin wields in Russia. “Trump likes Putin because Putin has control over his country,” she remarked, adding that Trump yearns for a similar level of control domestically.

In a controversial twist, Trump has also accused Zelensky of instigating the war initiated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a conflict that has resulted in the gruesome deaths of countless Ukrainian civilians. Notably, Trump has discontinued sharing crucial intelligence with Ukraine, which it desperately needs to combat Russian forces.

Trump’s approach to foreign aid has significantly shifted; he has cut American foreign aid programs that antagonize Putin, especially initiatives promoting democracy in Eastern European nations like Hungary. This distancing from allies has led Trump to label them as untrustworthy and insinuate that they may need to rely on themselves moving forward. He defends these actions as prerequisites for facilitating negotiations with Russia, positioning himself as a peace broker. However, his pressure on Zelensky for concessions has been markedly more intense than any exerted on Putin.

Recently, Trump sparked controversy with a social media post threatening economic sanctions against Russia due to its military actions in Ukraine. Yet, moments later in the Oval Office, he seemed to endorse Putin’s aggression, interpreting Russia’s bombings as a sign of its desire to resolve the conflict. Trump critiqued Ukraine’s apparent lack of urgency in ending hostilities.

Scholars and commentators observe that Putin has gained significantly from the unfolding geopolitical landscape. Calder Walton of Harvard’s Kennedy School notes that we are witnessing the disintegration of the U.S.-led international order, a goal that Putin has pursued throughout his career. The Kremlin’s sentiments were echoed by Dmitry Peskov, who praised the Trump administration’s actions, suggesting a remarkable alignment with Russian interests.

Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, shared a revised view of historical grievances, placing responsibility for many of history’s tragedies on European nations rather than the U.S. “If we look at history in retrospect,” he claimed, “the Americans did not play any instigating, let alone incendiary, role.”

Miller underscored the determination of her team to accurately assess Russia’s intentions in the 2016 elections, aiming to confront disinformation and chaos aimed at undermining trust in democracy. Despite the political scrutiny during Trump’s presidency, the 2017 intelligence assessment remained unblemished by bias accusations, according to Miller.

However, Trump’s long-standing grievance over the so-called “Russia hoax” has solidified his alignment with Putin in a shared sense of victimization, positioning the Russian leader as an ally. Over the years, Putin has attempted to sway Trump’s viewpoint on Ukraine, leading to a noticeable convergence in their public statements.

In July 2017, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump did not push back against Putin’s disparagement of Ukraine, a country described by the Russian president as corrupt. This tacit endorsement was notably voiced by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who expressed concern about Trump’s lack of rebuttal to Putin’s assertions.

The implications of Trump’s perspectives and policies have extended beyond his tenure, leading to significant shifts among Republican positions regarding Ukraine, often echoing narratives propagated by Putin. Most recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the Ukraine conflict not as Russian aggression but as a dangerous proxy war involving the U.S. This sentiment was met with agreement by Peskov, further signaling the increasing synchronization of the U.S. and Russian narratives on this global crisis.