Новини

A man who identified himself as a working journalist was escorted out a room where a joint press conference in Helsinki between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin was scheduled to be held. Sam Husseini had received press credentials for the event through U.S.-based magazine The Nation. Husseini was holding up a sign that read, “Nuclear weapons test ban.”
…

Read More

THE WHITE HOUSE

 

Office of the Press Secretary

---

For Immediate Release                           July 16, 2018

 

 

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP

AND PRESIDENT PUTIN OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

IN JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE

 

Presidential Palace

Helsinki, Finland

 

 

5:10 P.M. EEST

 

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Distinguished Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: Negotiations with the President of the United States Donald Trump took place in a frank and businesslike atmosphere.  I think we can call it a success and a very fruitful round of negotiations.  

 

We carefully analyzed the current status — the present and the future of the Russia-United States relationship; key issues of the global agenda.  It’s quite clear to everyone that the bilateral relationship are going through a complicated stage, and yet those impediments — the current tension, the tense atmosphere — essentially have no solid reason behind it.  

 

The Cold War is a thing of past.  The era of acute ideological confrontation of the two countries is a thing of the remote past, is a vestige of the past.  The situation in the world changed dramatically.  

 

Today, both Russia and the United States face a whole new set of challenges.  Those include a dangerous maladjustment of mechanisms for maintaining international security and stability, regional crises, the creeping threats of terrorism and transnational crime.  It’s the snowballing problems in the economy, environmental risks, and other sets of challenges.  We can only cope with these challenges if we join the ranks and work together.  Hopefully, we will reach this understanding with our American partners.  

 

Today’s negotiations reflected our joint wish — our joint wish with President Trump to redress this negative situation and bilateral relationship, outline the first steps for improving this relationship to restore the acceptable level of trust, and going back to the previous level of interaction on all mutual interests issues.

 

As major nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility for maintaining international security.  And it made it vital — and we mentioned this during the negotiations — it’s crucial that we fine-tune the dialogue on strategic stability and global security and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  We submitted our American colleagues a note with a number of specific suggestions.

 

We believe it necessary to work together further to interact on the disarmament agenda, military, and technical cooperation.  This includes the extension of the Strategic Offensive Arms Limitation Treaty.  It’s a dangerous situation with the global American anti-missile defense system; it’s the implementation issues with the INF treaty; and, of course, the agenda of non-placement of weapons in space.

 

We favor the continued cooperation in counterterrorism and maintaining cybersecurity.  And I’d like to point out specifically that our special services are cooperating quite successfully together.  The most recent example is their operational cooperation within the recently concluded World Football Cup.

 

In general, the contacts among the special services should be put to a system-wide basis — should be brought to a systemic framework.  I recall — I reminded President Trump about the suggestion to reestablish the working group on antiterrorism.

 

We also mentioned a plethora of regional crises.  It’s not always that our postures dovetail exactly.  And yet, the overlapping and mutual interests abound.  We have to look for points of contact and interact closer in a variety of international fora.  

 

Clearly, we mentioned the regional crisis; for instance, Syria.  As far as Syria is concerned, the task of establishing peace and reconciliation in this country could be the first showcase example of this successful joint work.  Russia and the United States apparently can act proactively and take — assume the leadership on this issue, and organize the interaction to overcome humanitarian crisis, and help Syrian refugees to go back to their homes.

 

In order to accomplish this level of successful cooperation in Syria, we have all the required components.  Let me remind you that both Russian and American military have acquired a useful experience of coordination of their action, established the operational channels of communication which permitted to avoid dangerous incidents and unintentional collisions in the air and in the ground.

 

Also, crushing terrorists in the southwest of Syria — the south of Syria — should be brought to the full compliance with the Treaty of 1974 about the separation of forces — about separation of forces of Israel and Syria.  This will bring peace to Golan Heights and bring a more peaceful relationship between Syria and Israel, and also to provide security of the state of Israel.

 

Mr. President paid special attention to the issue during today’s negotiations, and I would like to confirm that Russia is interested in this development, and this will act accordingly.  Thus far, we will make a step toward creating a lasting peace in compliance with the respective resolutions of Security Council, for instance, the Resolution 338.  

 

We’re glad that the Korean Peninsula issue is starting to resolve.  To a great extent, it was possible thanks to the personal engagement of President Trump, who opted for dialogue instead of confrontation.

 

You know, we also mentioned our concern about the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA.  Well, the U.S. — our U.S. counterparts are aware of our posture.  Let me remind you that thanks to the Iranian nuclear deal, Iran became the most controlled country in the world; it submitted to the control of IAEA.  It effectively ensures the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program and strengthens the nonproliferation regime.

 

While we discussed the internal Ukrainian crisis, we paid special attention to the bona fide implementation of Minsk Agreements by Kiev.  At the same time, the United States could be more decisive in nudging the Ukrainian leadership and encourage it to work actively on this.  We paid more attention to economic ties and economic cooperation.  It’s clear that both countries — the businesses of both countries are interested in this.

 

The American delegation was one of the largest delegations in the St. Petersburg economic forum.  It featured over 500 representatives from American businesses.  We agreed — me and President Trump — we agreed to create the high-level working group that would bring together captains of Russian and American business.  After all, entrepreneurs and businessmen know better how to articulate this successful business cooperation.  We’ll let them think and make their proposals and their suggestions in this regard.

 

Once again, President Trump mentioned the issue of the so-called interference of Russia when the American elections, and I had to reiterate things I said several times, including during our personal contacts, that the Russian state has never interfered and is not going to interfere into internal American affairs, including the election process.

 

Any specific material, if such things arise, we are ready to analyze together.  For instance, we can analyze them through the joint working group on cybersecurity, the establishment of which we discussed during our previous contacts.

 

And clearly, it’s past time we restore our cooperation in the cultural area, in the humanitarian area, as far as — I think you know that recently we hosted the American congressmen delegation, and now it’s perceived and portrayed almost as a historic event, although it should have been just a current affairs — just business as usual.  And in this regard, we mentioned this proposal to the President.

 

But we have to think about the practicalities of our cooperation, but also about the rationale — the underlying logic of it.  And we have to engage experts on bilateral relationship who know history and the background of our relationship.  The idea is to create an expert council that would include political scientists, prominent diplomats, and former military experts from both countries who would look for points of contact between the two countries, that would look for ways on putting the relationship on the trajectory of growth.  

 

In general, we are glad with the outcome of our first full-scale meeting because previously we only had a chance to talk briefly on international fora.  We had a good conversation with President Trump, and I hope that we start to understand each other better.  And I’m grateful to Donald for it.

 

     Clearly, there are some challenges left when we were not able to clear all the backlog.  But I think that we made a first important step in this direction.  

 

     And in conclusion, I want to point out that this atmosphere of cooperation is something that we are especially grateful for to our Finnish hosts.  We’re grateful for Finnish people and Finnish leadership for what they’ve done.  I know that we’ve caused some inconvenience to Finland, and we apologize for it.

 

     Thank you for your attention.  

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  

 

     Thank you.  I have just concluded a meeting with President Putin on a wide range of critical issues for both of our countries.  We had direct, open, deeply productive dialogue.  It went very well.  

 

     Before I begin, I want to thank President Niinistö of Finland for graciously hosting today’s summit.  President Putin and I were saying how lovely it was and what a great job they did.  

 

     I also want to congratulate Russia and President Putin for having done such an excellent job in hosting the World Cup.  It was really one of the best ever and your team also did very well.  It was a great job.  

 

     I’m here today to continue the proud tradition of bold American diplomacy.  From the earliest days of our republic, American leaders have understood that diplomacy and engagement is preferable to conflict and hostility.  A productive dialogue is not only good for the United States and good for Russia, but it is good for the world.

 

     The disagreements between our two countries are well known, and President Putin and I discussed them at length today.  But if we’re going to solve many of the problems facing our world, then we are going to have to find ways to cooperate in pursuit of shared interests.

 

     Too often, in both recent past and long ago, we have seen the consequences when diplomacy is left on the table.  We’ve also seen the benefits of cooperation.  In the last century, our nations fought alongside one another in the Second World War.  Even during the tensions of the Cold War, when the world looked  much different than it does today, the United States and Russia were able to maintain a strong dialogue.  

 

But our relationship has never been worse than it is now.  However, that changed as of about four hours ago.  I really believe that.  Nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to meet, to refuse to engage.  But that would not accomplish anything.  As President, I cannot make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics or the media, or Democrats who want to do nothing but resist and obstruct.   

 

     Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia affords the opportunity to open new pathways toward peace and stability in our world.  I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics.  As President, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for the American people.

 

     During today’s meeting, I addressed directly with President Putin the issue of Russian interference in our elections.  I felt this was a message best delivered in person.  We spent a great deal of time talking about it, and President Putin may very well want to address it, and very strongly — because he feels very strongly about it, and he has an interesting idea.  

 

     We also discussed one of the most critical challenges facing humanity: nuclear proliferation.  I provided an update on my meeting last month with Chairman Kim on the denuclearization of North Korea.  And after today, I am very sure that President Putin and Russia want very much to end that problem.  They’re going to work with us, and I appreciate that commitment.

 

     The President and I also discussed the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism.  Both Russia and the United States have suffered horrific terrorist attacks, and we have agreed to maintain open communication between our security agencies to protect our citizens from this global menace.  

 

     Last year, we told Russia about a planned attack in St. Petersburg, and they were able to stop it cold.  They found them.  They stopped them.  There was no doubt about it.  I appreciated President Putin’s phone call afterwards to thank me.  

 

     I also emphasized the importance of placing pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear ambitions and to stop its campaign of violence throughout the area, throughout the Middle East.  

 

     As we discussed at length, the crisis in Syria is a complex one.  Cooperation between our two countries has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives.  I also made clear that the United States will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS.  We have just about eradicated ISIS in the area.

 

     We also agreed that representatives from our national security councils will meet to follow up on all of the issues we addressed today and to continue the progress we have started right here in Helsinki.

 

     Today’s meeting is only the beginning of a longer process.  But we have taken the first steps toward a brighter future and one with a strong dialogue and a lot of thought.  Our expectations are grounded in realism but our hopes are grounded in America’s desire for friendship, cooperation, and peace.  And I think I can speak on behalf of Russia when I say that also.  

 

     President Putin, I want to thank you again for joining me for these important discussions and for advancing open dialogue between Russia and the United States.  Our meeting carries on a long tradition of diplomacy between Russia, the United States, for the greater good of all.  

 

And this was a very constructive day.  This was a very constructive few hours that we spent together.  It’s in the interest of both of our countries to continue our conversation, and we have agreed to do so.  

 

     I’m sure we’ll be meeting again in the future often, and hopefully we will solve every one of the problems that we discussed today.  

 

So, again, President Putin, thank you very much.

 

     MODERATOR:  (As interpreted.)  Distinguished Presidents, now the journalists would have a chance to ask two questions, two sets of question each.  First, the Russian journalist will ask the question.  Please give your affiliation.  

 

     Q    (As interpreted.)  Good afternoon, my name is Alexei Meshkov, Interfax information agency.  I have a question to President Trump.  During your recent European tour, you mentioned that the implementation of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline makes Europe the hostage of Russia.  And you suggested that you could free Europe from this by supplying American LNG.  But this cold winter actually showed that the current model — current mechanism of the supply of fuel to Europe is quite viable.  At the same time, as far as I know, U.S. had to buy even Russian gas for Boston.  

 

I have a question.  The implementation of your idea has a political tinge to it, or is this a practical one?  Because there will be a gap formed in the supply and demand mechanism, and first it’s the consuming countries who will fall into this gap.

 

     And the second question: Before the meeting with President Putin, you called him an adversary, a rival, and yet you expressed hope that you would be able to bring this relationship to a new level.  Did you manage to do this?

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Actually, I called him a competitor.  And a good competitor he is.  And I think the word “competitor” is a — it’s a compliment.  I think that we will be competing, when you talk about the pipeline.  I’m not sure necessarily that it’s in the best interest of Germany or not, but that was a decision that they made.  We’ll be competing — as you know, the United States is now, or soon will be — but I think it actually is right now — the largest in the oil and gas world.  

 

     So we’re going to be selling LNG and we’ll have to be competing with the pipeline.  And I think we’ll compete successfully, although there is a little advantage locationally.  So I just wish them luck.  I mean, I did.  I discussed with Angela Merkel in pretty strong tones.  But I also know where they’re all coming from.  And they have a very close source.   So we’ll see how that all works out.

 

     But we have lots of sources now, and the United States is much different than it was a number of years ago when we weren’t able to extract what we can extract today.  So today we’re number one in the world at that.  And I think we’ll be out there competing very strongly.

 

     Thank you very much.

 

    PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  If I may, I’d throw in some two cents.  We talked to Mr. President, including this subject as well.  We are aware of the stance of President Trump.   And I think that we, as a major oil and gas power — and the United States, as a major oil and gas power as well — we could work together on regulation of international markets, because neither of us is actually interested in the plummeting of the prices.  

 

And the consumers will suffer as well, and the consumers in the United States will suffer as well, and the shale gas production will suffer.  Because beyond a certain price bracket, it’s no longer profitable to produce gas, but nor we are interested in driving prices up because it will drain juices, life juices, from all other sectors of the economy, from machine building, et cetera.  So we do have space for cooperation here, as the first thing.

 

     Then, about the Nord Stream 2, Mr. President voiced his concerns about the possibility of disappearance of transit through Ukraine.  And I reassured Mr. President that Russia stands ready to maintain this transit.  Moreover, we stand ready to extend this transit contract that is about to expire next year, in case — if the dispute between the economic entities dispute will be settled in the Stockholm Arbitration Court.

 

     MS. SANDERS:  (Inaudible) goes to Jeff Mason, from Reuters.

 

     Q    Thank you.  Mr. President, you tweeted this morning that it’s U.S. foolishness, stupidity, and the Mueller probe that is responsible for the decline in U.S. relations with Russia.  Do you hold Russia at all accountable for anything in particular?  And if so, what would you consider them — that they are responsible for?  

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yes, I do.  I hold both countries responsible.  I think that the United States has been foolish.  I think we’ve all been foolish.  We should have had this dialogue a long time ago — a long time, frankly, before I got to office.  And I think we’re all to blame.  I think that the United States now has stepped forward, along with Russia.  And we’re getting together.  And we have a chance to do some great things, whether it’s nuclear proliferation, in terms of stopping — because we have to do it.  Ultimately, that’s probably the most important thing that we can be working on.  

 

     But I do feel that we have both made some mistakes.  I think that the probe is a disaster for our country.  I think it’s kept us apart.  It’s kept us separated.  There was no collusion at all.  Everybody knows it.  People are being brought out to the fore.  

 

So far, that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign.  And they’re going to have try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign.  That was a clean campaign.  I beat Hillary Clinton easily.  And frankly, we beat her — and I’m not even saying from the standpoint — we won that race.  And it’s a shame that there can even be a little bit of a cloud over it.  

 

     People know that.  People understand it.  But the main thing, and we discussed this also, is zero collusion.  And it has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers in the world.  We have 90 percent of nuclear power between the two countries.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s ridiculous what’s going on with the probe.  

 

     Q    For President Putin, if I could follow up as well.  Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election, given the evidence that U.S. intelligence agencies have provided?  And will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a U.S. grand jury?

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I’m going to let the President answer the second part of that question.  But, as you know, the whole concept of that came up perhaps a little bit before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election — which, frankly, they should have been able to win, because the Electoral College is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans.  

 

     We won the Electoral College by a lot — 306 to 223, I believe.  And that was a well-fought — that was a well-fought battle.  We did a great job.  

 

And, frankly, I’m going to let the President speak to the second part of your question.  But just to say it one time again, and I say it all the time: There was no collusion.  I didn’t know the President.  There was nobody to collude with.  There was no collusion with the campaign.  And every time you hear all of these — you know, 12 and 14 — it’s stuff that has nothing to do — and frankly, they admit, these are not people involved in the campaign.

 

     But to the average reader out there, they’re saying, “Well, maybe that does.”  It doesn’t.  And even the people involved, some perhaps told mis-stories or, in one case, the FBI said there was no lie.  There was no lie.  Somebody else said there was.  

 

     We ran a brilliant campaign, and that’s why I’m President.  Thank you.  

     

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted).  As to who is to be believed and to who is not to be believed, you can trust no one, if you take this.  Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him?  He defends the interests of the United States of America, and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation.  

 

     We do have interests that are common.  We are looking for points of contact.  There are issues where our postures diverge, and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences; how to make our effort more meaningful.

 

We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries.  We should be guided by facts.  Can you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion?  This is utter nonsense.

 

     Just like the President recently mentioned — yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign, but there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about it.  That’s the usual thing.  

 

     President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia-U.S. relationship, and it’s clear that a certain part of American society felt sympathetic about it, and different people could express their sympathy in different ways.  But isn’t that natural?  Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?  

 

     We heard the accusations about the Concord country [sic].  Well, as far as I know, this company hired American lawyers.  And the accusations doesn’t — doesn’t have a fighting chance in the American courts.  So there’s no evidence when it comes to the actual facts.  So we have to be guided by facts and not by rumors.

 

     Now, let’s get back to the issue of these 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia.  I don’t know the full extent of the situation, but President Trump mentioned this issue, and I will look into it.

 

     So far, I can say the following, the things that — off the top of my head: We have an acting — an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999, the Mutual Assistance on Criminal Cases.  This treaty is in full effect.  It works quite efficiently.  

 

On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.  For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case, upon the request, sent by the United States.  So this treaty has specific legal procedures.  

 

     We can offer that the appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller — he can use this treaty as a solid foundation, and send a formal, an official request to us so that we would interrogate — we would hold the questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes.  And our law enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States.

 

     Moreover, we can meet you halfway; we can make another step.  We can actually permit official representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller — we can let them into the country and they will be present at this questioning.  

 

But in this case, there is another condition.  This kind of effort should be a mutual one.  Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate and they would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe are — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia, and we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.  

 

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case.  Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia.  They never paid any taxes, neither in Russia nor in the United States, and yet the money escaped the country.  They were transferred to the United States.  They sent a huge amount of money — $400 million — as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.  Well, that’s their personal case.  It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal.

 

     So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions.  So we have an interest of questioning them.  That could be a first step, and we can also extend it.  Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

 

     Q    And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?

 

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Yes, I did.  Yes, I did.  Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.  

 

I think there can be three questions from the Russian pool.

 

Russia Today, you have the floor.

 

Q    (As interpreted.)  (Speaks Russian.)  Thank you so much.  And good evening to everyone.  My name is Ilya Petrenko, RT TV Channel.  

 

(Speaks English.)  In English, Mr. President, would you please go into the details of possibly any specific arrangements for the U.S. to work together with Russia in Syria, if any of these kind of arrangements were made today or discussed?

 

(As interpreted.)  (Speaks Russian.)  And my question to President Putin, in Russian: Since we brought up the issue of football several times, I ask — I use the football language.  Mr. Pompeo mentioned that, when we talk about the Syrian cooperation, the ball is in the Syrian court.  Mr. Putin, in the Russian court, is it true?  And how would you use this fact — the having the ball?

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I guess I’ll answer the first part of the question.  We’ve worked with Israel long and hard for many years, many decades.  I think we’ve never — never has anyone, any country been closer than we are.  President Putin also is helping Israel.  And we both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu, and they would like to do certain things with respect to Syria having to do with the safety of Israel.  So in that respect, we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel, and Israel will be working with us.  So both countries would work jointly.

 

And I think that, when you look at all of the progress that’s been made in certain sections with the eradication of ISIS, we’re about 98 percent, 99 percent there — and other things that have taken place that we’ve done, and that, frankly, Russia has helped us with in certain respects.  But I think that working with Israel is a great thing, and creating safety for Israel is something that both President Putin and I would like to see very much.  

 

One little thing I might add to that is the helping of people — helping of people.  Because you have such horrible, if you see — and I’ve seen reports and I’ve seen pictures, I’ve seen just about everything.  And if we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter and — on a humanitarian basis.  And that’s what the word was, really, a humanitarian basis.  I think that both of us would be very interested in doing that, and we are.  We will do that.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Q    Excuse me, but, for now, no specific agreements?  For instance, between the militaries?

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, our militaries do get along.  In fact, our militaries, actually, have gotten along probably better than our political leaders for years.  But our militaries do get along very well, and they do coordinate in Syria and other places.

 

Okay, thank you.

 

PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  Yes, we did mention this.  We mentioned the humanitarian track of this issue.  Yesterday, I discussed this with French President, Mr. Macron.  And we reached an agreement that, together with European countries, including France, we will step up this effort.  

 

On our behalf, we will provide military cargo aircraft to deliver the humanitarian cargo.  And today, I brought up this issue with President Trump.  I think there is plenty of things to look into.  

 

     The crucial thing here is that a huge amount of refugees are in Turkey, in Lebanon, in Jordan — in the states that border — are adjacent to Syria.  If we help them, the migratory pressure upon the European states will drop; it will be decreased many-fold.  And I believe it’s crucial from any point of view — from humanitarian point of view, from the point of view of helping people, helping the refugees.  

 

And in general, I agree, I concur with President Trump: Our military cooperate quite successfully together.  They do get along, and I hope they will be able to do so in future.  And we will be keep working in the Astana format — I mean Russia, Turkey, and Iran — which I informed President Trump about.  

 

     But we do stand ready to link these efforts to the so-called “small group” of states so that the process would be a broader one, it would be a multi-dimensional one, and so that we will be able to maximize our fighting chance to get the ultimate success in the issue of Syria.

 

     And speaking about the having the ball in our court in Syria, President Trump has just mentioned that we’ve successfully concluded the World Football Cup.  Speaking of the football, actually — Mr. President, I’ll give this ball to you, and now the ball is in your court.  All the more that the United States will host the World Cup in 2026.  

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  We do host it.  And we hope we do as good a job.  That’s very nice.  That will go to my son, Barron.  We have no question.  In fact, Melania, here you go.  (Laughter.)    

 

     Okay.  

 

     MS. SANDERS:  The final question from the United States will go to Jonathan Lemire, from the AP.

 

     Q    Thank you.  A question for each President.  President Trump, you first.  Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016.  Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did.  What — who — my first question for you, sir, is, who do you believe?  

 

     My second question is, would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin — would you denounce what happened in 2016?  And would you warn him to never do it again?  

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So let me just say that we have two thoughts.  You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server.  Why haven’t they taken the server?  Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?  I’ve been wondering that.  I’ve been asking that for months and months, and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media.  Where is the server?  I want to know, where is the server?  And what is the server saying?  

     

     With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.  My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia.  I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.  

 

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server.  But I have — I have confidence in both parties.  I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server.  What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?  Where are those servers?  They’re missing.  Where are they?  What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails?  Thirty-three thousand emails gone — just gone.  I think, in Russia, they wouldn’t be gone so easily.  I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails.  

 

     So 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.  And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people.  I think that’s an incredible offer.  

 

Okay?  Thank you.

 

PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  I’d like to add something to this.  After all, I was an intelligence officer myself, and I do know how dossiers are made up.  Just a second.  That’s the first thing.  

 

Now, the second thing: I believe that Russia is a democratic state, and I hope you’re not denying this right to your own country.  You’re not denying that United States is a democracy.  Do you believe the United States is a democracy?  And if so, if it is a democratic state, then the final conclusion in this kind of dispute an only be delivered by a trial by the court, not by the executive — by the law enforcement.  

 

     For instance, the Concord company that was brought up is being accused — it’s been accused of interference.  But this company does not constitute the Russian State.  It does not represent the Russian State.  And I brought several examples before.  

 

     Well, you have a lot of individuals in the United States — take George Soros, for instance — with multibillion capitals, but it doesn’t make him — his position, his posture — the posture of the United States?  No, it does not.  Well, it’s the same case.  There is the issue of trying a case in the court, and the final say is for the court to deliver.  

 

     We’re now talking about the private — the individuals, and not about particular states.  And as far as the most recent allegation is concerned about the Russian intelligence officers, we do have an intergovernmental treaty.  Please, do send us the request.  We will analyze it properly and we’ll send a formal response.  

 

And as I said, we can extend this cooperation but we should do it on a reciprocal basis, because we would await our Russian counterparts to provide us access to the persons of interest for us whom we believe can have something to do with intelligence services.

 

     Let’s discuss the specific issues, and not use the Russia and U.S. relationship as a loose change — the loose change for this internal political struggle.  

 

     Q    My question for President — for President Putin.  Thank you.  Two questions for you, sir.  Can you tell me what President Trump may have indicated to you about officially recognizing Crimea as part of Russia?

 

     And then secondly, sir, does the Russian government have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?

 

     PRESIDENT PUTIN:  (As interpreted.)  (Laughs.)  President Trump and — well, the posture on President Trump on Crimea is well known, and he stands firmly by it.  He continued to maintain that it was illegal to annex it.  We — our viewpoint is different.  We held a referendum in strict compliance with the U.N. Charter and the international legislation.  For us, this issue — we (inaudible) to this issue.

 

     And now to the compromising material.  Yeah, I did heard these rumors that we allegedly collected compromising material on Mr. Trump when he was visiting Moscow.  

 

Now, distinguished colleague, let me tell you this: When President Trump was at Moscow back then, I didn’t even know that he was in Moscow.  I treat President Trump with utmost respect.  But back then, when he was a private individual, a businessman, nobody informed me that he was in Moscow.

 

     Well, let’s take St. Petersburg Economic Forum, for instance.  There were over 500 American businessmen — high-ranking, high-level ones.  I don’t even remember the last names of each and every one of them.  Well, do you remember — do you think that we try to collect compromising material on each and every single one of them?  Well, it’s difficult to imagine an utter nonsense of a bigger scale than this.

 

     Well, please, just disregard these issues and don’t think about this anymore again.  

 

     PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It would have been out long ago.  And if anybody watched Peter Strzok testify over the last couple of days — and I was in Brussels watching it — it was a disgrace to the FBI, it was a disgrace to our country, and, you would say, that was a total witch hunt.

 

     Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you.

 

                               END                 
…

Read More

Donald Trump, standing alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin, has declared he cannot see any reason to believe Moscow meddled in the election that led to him becoming U.S. president in 2016.

Every major U.S. intelligence agency has concluded there was such interference by Russia during the election and the matter is the focus of a major federal investigation that has targeted not only Russians, but members of Trump’s election campaign staff.

“President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump said of his query to Putin on Monday about the issue. “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”  

Putin said he told Trump during their talks that “the Russian state never interfered and does not plan to interfere in the internal American electoral process.”

Trump informed reporters at a news conference in Finland’s presidential palace that he spent a “great deal of time” addressing the Russian meddling issue.

The U.S. president said he did not directly criticize his Russian counterpart over that issue or any other on which Washington and Moscow have significant differences.

American politicians on both sides of the aisle, as well as former U.S. intelligence officials and diplomats, began sharply criticizing Trump’s remarks, even before the president had boarded Air Force One for the flight back home.

Hours later, on the trip back to Washington, Trump tweeted he has “GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” He added, “However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past. …”

​Leaders optimistic

Both leaders characterized their talks as having gone well.

“Our expectations are grounded in realism, but our hopes are grounded in America’s desire for friendship, cooperation and peace,” Trump said. “And I think I can speak on behalf of Russia when I say that, also.”

The two presidents spent more than two hours speaking face to face with only their translators present. That discussion was followed by wider talks involving aides.

“Our relationship has never been worse than it is now. However, that changed as of about four hours ago,” the U.S. president declared at the news conference.

Continuing investigation

The Monday meeting came three days after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers, accusing them of meddling in the election to help Trump win the White House.

Putin on Monday, alongside Trump at the news conference, invited Mueller’s investigators to visit Russia.

The Russian leader also suggested Mueller send a request to Russian authorities concerning those indicted in America.

“Our law enforcement is perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States,” Putin said.

Russia has no extradition treaty with the United States, so it is unlikely it would turn the suspects over to the United States to stand trial.

The fresh indictments had prompted a number of U.S. senators, all but one of them Democrats, to request Trump cancel his summit with Putin.

At the news conference, Putin was asked whether his government had compromising information on the U.S. president — a reference to the so-called Steele dossier that contains unverified salacious information about one of Trump’s visits to the country as a businessman.

“I was an intelligence officer myself, and I do know how dossiers are made up,” replied Putin. He added that it is “utter nonsense” to imagine that Russia tries to collect compromising material on every important American business figure who visits the country.

During his week in Europe, Trump was combative with traditional U.S. allies — beginning at a NATO summit in Brussels, where he chastised European leaders for not spending more on defense.

He put himself in the middle of a domestic political controversy in London, where he told a tabloid newspaper that Prime Minister Theresa May had ignored his advice about how to pursue Britain’s exit from the European Union. He also stated Boris Johnson, who had quit May’s Cabinet as foreign minister over disagreement with her Brexit plan, “would be a great prime minister.” 
…

Read More

The United States has reportedly rejected requests from European allies that are seeking exemptions from U.S. sanctions imposed on countries doing business in Iran. 

According to diplomats and other officials, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wrote a letter to Britain, France and Germany saying the U.S. would not provide widespread protection from sanctions to countries doing business in Iran. 

Pompeo and Mnuchin said in their letter, first reported by NBC News, that they are seeking “to provide unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime.” 

The U.S. did add, however, that it would grant limited exceptions, based on national security or humanitarian grounds. The letter came in response to a request last month from Britain, France and Germany.

The U.S. pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal earlier this year. The deal sought to limit Iran’s nuclear activity in exchange for sanctions relief. 

The U.S. said it plans to reimpose tough sanctions on Iran, beginning in early August, targeting Iran’s automotive sector, trade and gold, and other key metals. 

A second set of sanctions are set to begin in early November. Those sanctions will focus on Iran’s energy sector and petroleum related transactions and transactions with the central bank of Iran. 

The U.S. has warned other countries that they will also face sanctions if they continue to trade with sanctioned sectors of the Iranian economy. 

The Trump administration’s hard stance on Iranian sanctions is part of a growing list of contentious moves that the U.S. has engaged in with its allies. On a recent trip to Europe, Trump complained members of the NATO alliance are not fiscally responsible. The U.S. leader also criticized British Prime Minister Theresa May’s handling of Brexit. He has also called the European Union a “foe” on trade issues.
…

Read More

The outcome of the first summit between the unpredictable first-term American president and Russia’s steely-eyed longtime leader is anybody’s guess. With no set agenda, the summit could veer between spectacle and substance. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin head into Monday’s meeting in Helsinki, here’s a look at what each president may be hoping to achieve:

What Trump wants

What Trump wants from Russia has long been one of the great mysteries of his presidency.

The president will go into the summit followed by whispers about his ties to Moscow, questions that have grown only more urgent since the Justice Department last week indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers accused of interfering in the 2016 election in an effort to help Trump.

And while most summits featuring an American president are carefully scripted affairs designed to produce a tangible result, Trump will go face-to-face with Putin having done scant preparation, possessing no clear agenda and saddled with a track record that, despite his protests, suggests he may not sharply challenge his Russian counterpart over election meddling. 

“I think we go into that meeting not looking for so much,” Trump told reporters last week.

Trump has strenuously insisted that improved relations with Russia would benefit the United States. But much of the appeal of the Finland meeting is simply to have the summit itself and to bolster ties between Washington and Moscow and between Putin and Trump, who places his personal rapport with foreign leaders near the heart of his foreign policy.

“The fact that we’re having a summit at this level, at this time in history, is a deliverable in itself,” said Jon Huntsman, the U.S. ambassador to Russia. “What is important here is that we start a discussion.” 

Trump has been drawn to the spectacle of the summit and has expressed an eagerness to recreate in Helsinki the media show of last month’s Singapore summit when he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. 

Even as many NATO leaders made supportive noises this week, the Helsinki summit has raised fears in many global capitals that Trump will pull back from traditional Western alliances, allowing Putin to expand his sphere of influence. 

Back home, too, there is wariness on Capitol Hill, with a number of Democrats and a handful of Republicans urging Trump to cancel the summit in the wake of the explosive indictments.

But Trump has vowed that he can handle Putin, whom he has taken to referring to as a “competitor” rather than an adversary.

And Trump in recent days has outlined some of the items he’d like to discuss, including Ukraine. Though the president has said he was “not happy” about Russia’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, he puts the blame on his predecessor and says he will continue relations with Putin even if Moscow refuses to return the peninsula.

Trump also said he and Putin would discuss the ongoing war in Syria and arms control, negotiations that White House officials have signaled could be fruitful. 

“I will be talking about nuclear proliferation,” the president said alongside British Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday. “We’ve been modernizing and fixing and buying. And it’s just a devastating technology. And they, likewise, are doing a lot. And it’s a very, very bad policy.”

But it is the matter of election meddling, including fears Russia could try to interfere in the midterm elections this fall, that could play a central role in the summit talks or loom even larger if not addressed. In neither of Trump’s previous meetings with Putin — informal talks on the sidelines of summits last year in Germany and Vietnam _ did the president publicly upbraid the Russian leader, prompting questions about whether he believed the former KGB officer’s denials over his own intelligence agencies’ assessments of meddling. 

Trump repeatedly has cast doubt on the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacking of his Democratic rivals and disparaged special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible links between Russia and his campaign as a “witch hunt.” But he said in Britain that he would raise it with Putin even as he downplayed its impact.

“I don’t think you’ll have any ‘Gee, I did it. I did it. You got me,”‘ Trump said, invoking a television detective. “There won’t be a Perry Mason here, I don’t think. But you never know what happens, right? But I will absolutely firmly ask the question.” 

What Putin wants

For Putin, sitting down with Trump offers a long-awaited chance to begin repairing relations with Washington after years of spiraling tensions. 

Putin wants the U.S. and its allies to lift sanctions, pull back NATO forces deployed near Russia’s borders and restore business as usual with Moscow. In the longer run, he hopes to persuade the U.S. to acknowledge Moscow’s influence over its former Soviet neighbors and, more broadly, recognize Russia as a global player whose interests must be taken into account. 

These are long-term goals, and Putin realizes that no significant progress will come from just one meeting. More than anything else, he sees Monday’s summit as an opportunity to develop good rapport with Trump and set the stage for regular high-level contacts. 

“Russia-U.S. ties aren’t just at their lowest point since the end of the Cold War, they never were as bad as they are now,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, who chairs the Council for Foreign and Defense Policies, an influential Moscow-based association of policy experts. “It’s unhealthy and abnormal when the leaders of the two nuclear powers capable of destroying each other and the rest of the world don’t meet.” 

Moscow views Trump’s criticism of NATO allies and his recent comments about wanting Russia back in the Group of Seven club of leading industrialized nations with guarded optimism but no euphoria. Initially excited about Trump’s election, the Kremlin has long realized that his hands are bound by the ongoing investigations into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow. 

Konstantin Kosachev, the Kremlin-connected head of the foreign affairs committee in parliament’s upper house, wrote in his blog that Russia won’t engage in vague talk about “illusory subjects,” such as the prospect of lifting Western sanctions or Russia’s return to the G-7.

Putin knows it would be unrealistic to expect U.S. recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea or a quick rollback of sanctions approved by Congress. Instead, he’s likely to focus on issues where compromise is possible to help melt the ice. 

Syria is one area where Moscow and Washington could potentially reach common ground. 

One possible agreement could see Washington give a tacit go-ahead for a Syrian army deployment along the border with Israel in exchange for the withdrawal of Iranian forces and their Hezbollah proxies, whose presence in the area represents a red line for Israel. 

There is little hope for any quick progress on other major issues.

Kosachev said it would be “pointless” to discuss Russian meddling in the U.S. election, which Moscow firmly denies. He also warned that demands for Russia to return Crimea to Ukraine or revise its policy on eastern Ukraine would be equally fruitless. The Kremlin sees Crimea’s status as non-negotiable and puts the blame squarely on the Ukrainian government for the lack of progress on a 2015 plan to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Putin has held the door open for a possible deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to separate the warring sides, but firmly rejected Ukraine’s push for their presence along the border with Russia. 

On arms control, one area where the U.S. and Russia might reach agreement is a possible extension of the New START treaty, set to expire in 2021, which caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550 for each country. 

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, is supposed to last indefinitely but has increasingly run into trouble. The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the terms of the treaty by developing a new cruise missile, which Moscow has denied. 

Russia has pledged adherence to both treaties, but it has become less focused on arms control agreements than in the past, when it was struggling to maintain nuclear parity with the U.S. 

After complaining about U.S. missile defense plans as a major threat to Russia, Putin in March unveiled an array of new weapons he said would render the U.S. missile shield useless, including a hypersonic intercontinental strike vehicle and a long-range nuclear-powered underwater drone armed with an atomic weapon. 

“Russia was much weaker, and the weak always try to appeal to international law,” Lukyanov said. “But the atmosphere is different now, and Russia is much more self-confident.” 
…

Read More

Five EU countries have agreed to accept some of the nearly 450 migrants being transported aboard two military ships stuck off the coast of Sicily, Italian Prime Minister Giueseppe Conte said Sunday.

Germany, Spain and Portugal each agreed Sunday to accept 50 of the migrants after France and Malta agreed to do the same on Saturday.

But the Czech Republic rebuffed the appeal, calling the distribution plan a “road to hell.”  

The two ships, one belonging to the European Union border agency Frontex and another to the Italian border police, have been stranded in Italian waters after hardline Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini said the vessels should be sent to Malta, “or better Libya,” from where the migrants had originally set sail.

Italy’s new populist government, which came to power on June 1, has upended years of migrant policy by banning ships run by migration charities from docking in Italian ports, accusing them of aiding human traffickers.

Salvini, who has vowed not to take in any more migrants unless the burden is shared by other EU countries, repeated that Sunday, telling reporters the “aim was for brotherly redistribution” of the 450 rescued passengers on the two ships.

The number of migrants arriving in Italy so far this year is down about 80 percent compared to 2017. Salvini has vowed to stop all arrivals except for war refugees and a few other exceptions.

 
…

Read More

U.S. President Donald Trump advised British Prime Minister Theresa May to sue the European Union instead of negotiating with the bloc, as part of her Brexit strategy.

 

“He told me I should sue the EU,” May told BBC television. “Sue the EU. Not go into negotiations — sue them.”

Her revelation about how Trump advised her ended several days of speculation about what advice the U.S. leader had offered the prime minister.

Trump said last week in an interview with The Sun newspaper that he had given May advice, but she did not follow it. The president told the newspaper ahead of his meeting with May that she “didn’t listen” to him.

“I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route,” Trump said.

Trump did not reveal what advice he offered May in a press conference with her Friday. Instead, he said, “I think she found it too brutal.”

He added, “I could fully understand why she thought it was tough. And maybe someday she’ll do that. If they don’t make the right deal, she may do what I suggested, but it’s not an easy thing.”

May also told the BBC that the president had advised her not to walk away from the negotiations “because then you’re stuck.”

For the past few months, British politics have been obscured by squabbling, irritability and bravado about how, when and on what terms Britain will exit the European Union, and what the country’s relationship will be with its largest trading partner after Brexit.

Britons narrowly voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June 2016.

 

 
…

Read More

As the 2018 World Cup reached its climax Sunday, no one could draw more satisfaction from the tournament than Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The mega sporting event, which Putin personally lobbied to secure for Russia, has allowed the Kremlin to burnish the country’s image abroad, say analysts and even Putin’s domestic critics.

And Monday the Russian leader will once again be center stage with a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, ending in some ways the international ostracism the Russian leader has faced since his forcible annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Monday’s meeting in Helsinki for the first face-to-face summit between the leaders of the World’s two biggest nuclear-armed nations has been a hastily-pulled together encounter. European leaders are apprehensive about what may come out of it, fearing Trump may bank too much on personal chemistry and gloss over substance. Former U.S. government officials worry there’s been too little preparatory work by the White House ahead of the high-stakes sit-down.

Both U.S. and Russian diplomats have been playing down expectations for the four-hour summit in the Finnish capital, which will include a lengthy one-on-one discussion between the two leaders, saying they expect no breakthroughs on contentious issues — including on accusations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential race.

No set agenda

With no set formal agenda, President Trump has suggested the encounter is more about breaking the ice between the two men, who have met briefly twice before on the sidelines of international summits, than anything else. He told reporters last week that he’s going into the meeting “not looking for so much.”

And that is what America’s European allies and some former U.S. officials, who have publicly expressed doubts about the wisdom of holding the summit, hope is the end result, too — namely, nothing much.

They have expressed fears that Trump, who last week berated NATO allies, and hinted unless they increased their defense spending rapidly, he’d consider pulling the U.S. out of the nearly 70-year-old security alliance, will be lured by the more experienced summiteer Vladimir Putin into offering concessions — possibly agreeing to lift sanctions imposed on Russia for the 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea.

Some media commentators have suggested Trump might even agree to recognize formally the annexation — predictions the freewheeling U.S. President prompted after telling reporters on Air Force One on June 29 that he might consider doing so. “We’re going to have to see,” Trump said.

Crimea

In June, too, at an ill-tempered G-7 summit in Quebec, Trump reportedly told other Western leaders — possibly to shake them up — that Crimea might as well belong to Russia because most people living there speak Russian.

The White House, though, has firmly denied that Crimea’s status is up for grabs.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told a July 3 press briefing in Washington: “We do not recognize Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea.” She added: “sanctions against Russia remain in place until Russia returns the peninsula to the Ukraine.”

And Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko, who met with Trump for 20 minutes during last week’s NATO meeting, has discounted Trump offering any concessions on Crimea, saying he’s satisfied with the assurances he got from the U.S. President.

He told France 24 that he’s certain Trump won’t negotiate about Crimea during his meeting with Putin.

So what will the two men talk about in Helsinki? Trump has declared no issue off the table. And in the past few days he has reiterated his desire to establish warm relations with Putin, saying he doesn’t see him as an enemy but as a competitor, who might one day become a friend.

European concerns

But it is remarks like that which are prompting European apprehension and the alarm especially not only of the British, French and Germans but also Baltic and Polish leaders. They view Putin’s Kremlin as an implacable foe, one determined to sow divisions in the West, drive a wedge between America and Europe and to reassert Russian influence over Central Europe.

Trump’s position is that dialogue is important. The U.S. leader has said in the past that “getting along with Russia [and others] is a good thing, not a bad thing” to explain why he wants to improve relations with Moscow. And his ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman, has pressed the importance of channels of communication being open between Washington and Moscow, saying not to talk would be irresponsible.

Tense relations

Not since the Cold War have relations between the West and Moscow been so fraught with clashes over Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and its pro-separatist operations in eastern Ukraine, as well as its military intervention in Syria. There are also ongoing disputes over nuclear arms treaties, NATO policy, and cybersecurity.

On Saturday, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov seemed to echo Washington’s position — that the summit is about initiating U.S.-Russian dialogue. “The ideal outcome would be to agree to engage all the channels on all divisive issues…and also on those issues where we can already usefully cooperate,” he said.

Lavrov also said Putin is “ready to answer any questions” about the alleged involvement of Russian military intelligence officers in the hacking of Democratic Party computers in 2016. His comment came less than 24 hours after the U.S. Justice Department issued criminal indictments of a dozen Russians for interfering in U.S. politics.

Trump’s domestic foes fault him for shying away from criticizing Putin personally, arguing it gives credence to claims made by a former British spy that the Kremlin holds compromising information on the U.S. president. Trump has angrily dismissed the claims.

Russian officials say Putin has no intention of raising Ukraine and Crime. But it seems clear that NATO will come up. Lavrov pointedly criticized Saturday NATO expansion, saying it was “swallowing countries” near Russia’s borders. “Today we have common threats, common enemies. Terrorism, climate change, organized crime, drug trafficking. None of this is being effectively addressed by NATO expansion.”

European officials worry that Putin will seek to exploit disunity within NATO days after last week’s contentious summit in which President Trump clashed repeatedly with European leaders, shaking them up with demands for defense spending hikes beyond previously agreed targets.

European officials worry Trump may during his meeting with Putin offer to axe planned NATO war games in Baltic in a gesture of goodwill. On Thursday, the U.S. President said: “Well, perhaps we’ll talk about that.” In June, Trump shocked South Korea and Japan by telling North Korean leader Kim Jong-un during their meeting in Singapore that he would pause joint military exercises.

Mideast

U.S. and Russian officials say Syria will figure prominently in the discussions between Trump and Putin— including ways to wind down the multi-sided conflict in the Middle East.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Putin in Moscow last week for talks focusing on the Iranian presence in Syria, prompting speculation that he was laying the groundwork for the Russian leader and Trump to reach a deal that would see the withdrawal of Iranian forces and their proxy Hezbollah militia from areas bordering Israel.

Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that he had spoken by phone with Trump on Saturday to discuss Syria and Iran. The prime minister said Trump reaffirmed his commitment to Israel.

But it is arms control that’s likely to prove the most fruitful issue for the two leaders. Despite the Cold War-style strains between the U.S. and Russia, the two countries met a February verification deadline required by the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which among other things requires both countries to limit their deployed strategic nuclear warheads and bombs to 1,550 apiece. U.S. ambassador Huntsman told VOA in April that he saw the meeting of the deadline as “a kind of opening,” adding he hoped it would lead to broader discussions on nuclear arms control, something he believes can be built on to help improve U.S.-Russia relations.
…

Read More

As Russian President Vladimir Putin prepares for his first one-on-one summit with President Donald Trump in Helsinki this week, Russian political observers said Kremlin expectations are low but for one key issue: Russia’s symbolic return from international isolation to global powerbroker.

Ahead of the summit, President Trump — after a contentious week of meetings with traditional U.S. allies in Brussels and London — has suggested his talks with the Russian leader “may be the easiest of them all.”

Yet, Russian analysts warn that Trump will be faced with a shrewd negotiator whose arguments have been well-honed during his 18-year reign of power.

“For Putin, there’s always a way to repeat what he’s always said: ‘Russia has never done anything wrong. Russia does not have to improve or change anything,’” said Maria Lipman, Moscow-based editor of Counterpoint, a journal published by the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at George Washington University. 

“If America wants to change its policy, we welcome that. We have nothing to regret, nothing to correct,” she added, describing the Kremlin’s view in recent years.

Relations turnaround

The Helsinki summit comes amid a political fallout in often-contentious relations that nosedived over Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and further eroded over allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

Russia’s actions in east Ukraine, Syria, and allegations the Kremlin may be responsible for the poisoning of a former Russian spy — and the related death of a British national just last week from a Russian-made nerve agent on British soil — has only exacerbated the distrust.

In the face of Kremlin denials, the Trump White House has nonetheless expelled dozens of Russian diplomats and ratcheted up sanctions, moves that have led Trump to claim “no one has been tougher on Russia than I have.” 

Yet those penalties have often clashed with Trump’s oft-stated desire to improve relations with Moscow.  It was Trump, observers note, who sent emissaries to Moscow to negotiate the summit with Putin on short notice. 

Adding further intrigue, a federal investigation revealing the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian government surrogates amid his election to the White House in 2016.    

Both Trump loyalists and the Kremlin have adamantly denied wrongdoing.

Optics, for now

Given that backdrop, Kremlin officials have joined the White House in setting the bar low for the upcoming summit.

“Putin does not expect too much from the summit from a practical point of view,” said Nadezhda Arbatova, a foreign policy specialist with the Institute for World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. “But the summit is important for Moscow, since it will be viewed as a recognition of Russia’s great power status.”

Less clear is what the two sides have to offer one another beyond platitudes aimed at better relations. 

“There can be a compromise on Syria, if Russia agrees to American requirements in exchange for preserving (Syrian leader Bashar) al-Assad at his current position,” Arbatova said. 

“As for Ukraine, no compromise is visible for the time being, since President Trump cannot lift sanctions while bypassing Congress,” she noted. 

Officials on both sides have hinted at a possible deal on arms control, a goal both Trump and Putin have endorsed without mentioning specifics. 

One thing that Kremlin officials don’t put much stock in: Trump’s tweet diplomacy, which has shown passing support for pro-Russian positions on everything from sanctions relief to recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. 

“By now, there was quite enough evidence for Russia to realize that what Trump says should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least,” Lipman said. 

“I think everyone realizes that it cannot be taken as his intentions or U.S. policies, or even a declaration of intentions,” she said.

What Russians want

Key to Putin’s negotiating tactics: an insistence that Russia is no longer subject to American demands or pressure. 

Yet some analysts argue that it is Russian public opinion that presents its own restraints on Putin. 

“With Putin, there is no direct accountability, but policies are settled on what public opinion allows the government and Putin to do,” said Denis Volkov, a researcher at Levada Center, a leading independent polling research agency in Moscow. 

A recent study co-authored by Volkov and the Moscow Carnegie Center showed Russians support their president’s combative stance with the West, while simultaneously are eager to lessen hostilities.

“People are getting tired of foreign policy, Putin’s foreign agenda. They want the state to spend more resources at home,” Volkov said. “The view of the majority is that we help other countries too much, spend on other countries too much, and it is time to spend more money at home.”   

In other words, a Russian mirror of Trump’s own “American First” platform, where threats and largesse are doled out in pursuit of deals in the national interest. 

“It’s not the case that Putin’s only legitimacy comes from confrontation,” Volkov said. “Legitimacy also comes from cooperation, if it’s done in the proper way.” 
…

Read More

Norway renewed its financial commitment to NATO after U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis met Saturday with Norwegian officials in Oslo.

Norwegian Defense Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen said “Norway is committed to the two percent goal in NATO,” and added without offering specifics, “We will continue to increase defense spending substantially in the coming years.” Currently the oil-rich country spends about 1.6-percent of its GDP on defense.

NATO agreed in 2014 that each member nation would raise military spending to 2-percent of their gross domestic product by 2024. But diplomats say only two-thirds of the 29-nation alliance, excluding the U.S., have a realistic plan to reach the 2-percent level in 2024. The U.S. spent 3.57-percent of its GDP on defense in 2017.

Norway’s recommitment comes after U.S. President Donald Trump again demanded at a two-day NATO summit this week in Brussels that member nations increase their defense spending. Trump claimed to have won assurances from NATO leaders during intense talks.

Norway, which Trump has described as NATO’s “eyes and ears” in northern Europe, is considered one of America’s most valuable allies. In addition to partnering with U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Norway helps gather intelligence on Russia’s Maritime military activities.

 

While Trump has criticized Norway, which shares a border with Russia, for not having a plan to boost defense spending, Mattis has praised the Scandinavian country.

After talks Saturday with Bakke-Jensen and Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soereide, Mattis said Norway’s commitment to the 2-percent goal was encouraging.

“Norway’s leadership in the Nordic region and especially up in the Arctic where you serve as NATO’s sentinel … you are definitely contributing beyond your weight class,” he said.

In addition to hosting one of NATO’s largest exercises in decades this fall, Norway will host up to 700 U.S. marines beginning next year, more than double the number who are presently stationed there.

Russia’s embassy in Oslo said the additional marines “makes Norway less predictable and could cause growing tensions, trigger an arms race and destabilizing the situation in northern Europe.” The embassy also said,” “We see it as clearly unfriendly, and it will not remain free of consequence.”

Trump is scheduled to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin Monday in Helsinki.
…

Read More

The U.S. intelligence chief warned on Friday that the threat was growing for a devastating cyber assault on critical U.S. infrastructure, saying the “warning lights are blinking red again” nearly two decades after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are launching daily cyber strikes on the computer networks of federal, state and local government agencies, U.S. corporations, and academic institutions, said Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

Of the four, “Russia has been the most aggressive foreign actor, no question,” he said.

Coats spoke at the Hudson Institute think tank shortly after the Department of Justice announced the indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers on charges of hacking into the computers of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party organizations.

The indictment and Coats’ comments came three days before U.S. President Donald Trump was to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin for talks in Helsinki, Trump’s first formal summit with Putin.

The summit will begin with one-on-one talks between the two leaders in which Trump has said he will raise the U.S. intelligence assessment that Russia used cyber attacks and other means to meddle in the 2016 election, a charge Moscow denies.

Coats warned that the possibility of a “crippling cyber attack on our critical infrastructure” by a foreign actor is growing.

He likened daily cyber attacks to the “alarming activities” that U.S. intelligence agencies detected before al Qaeda staged the most devastating extremist attack on the U.S. homeland on Sept. 11, 2001.

“The system was blinking red. Here we are nearly two decades later and I’m here to say the warning lights are blinking red again,” he said.

Coats said the U.S. government has not yet detected the kinds of cyber attacks and intrusions that officials say Russia launched against state election boards and voter data bases before the 2016 election.

“However, we fully realize that we are just one click away of the keyboard from a similar situation repeating itself,” Coats continued.

At the same time, he said, some of the same Russian actors who meddled in the 2016 campaign again are using fake social media accounts and other means to spread false information and propaganda to fuel political divisions in the United States, he said.

Coats cited unnamed “individuals” affiliated with the Internet Research Agency, the St. Petersburg-based “troll factory” indicted by a federal grand jury in February as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian election meddling.

These individuals have been “creating new social media accounts, masquerading as Americans and then using these accounts to draw attention to divisive issues,” he said.

China, Coats said, is primarily intent on stealing military and industrial secrets and had “capabilities, resources that perhaps Russia doesn’t have.” But he said Moscow aims to undermine U.S. values and democratic institutions.
…

Read More

Finland is a natural choice for the upcoming summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The Nordic country, which shares a long border with Russia, has a history of neutrality between Moscow and Washington. Finland has also hosted several sensitive U.S.-Soviet summits, as VOA’s Bill Gallo reports from Helsinki.
…

Read More

British detectives investigating the poisoning of two people with a military grade nerve agent said Friday that a small bottle found in the home of one of the victims tested positive for Novichok, a lethal substance produced in the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Dawn Sturgess, 44, and Charlie Rowley, 45, were sickened on June 30 in a southwestern England town not far from Salisbury, where British authorities say a Russian ex-spy and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok in March. 

Sturgess died in a hospital on Sunday. Rowley was in critical condition for more than a week, but has regained consciousness.

The Metropolitan Police said the bottle was found during searches of Rowley’s house Wednesday and scientists confirmed the substance in the bottle was Novichok. Police have interviewed Rowley since he became conscious. 

Police are still looking into where the bottle came from and how it got into Rowley’s house. They said further tests would be done to try to establish if the nerve agent was from the same batch that was used to poison Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia. 

More than 100 police officers had been searching for the source of Rowley and Sturgess’ exposure in the town of Amesbury, where they lived, and Salisbury, where the Skripals were poisoned.

The Skripals survived and were released from the Salisbury hospital before Rowley and Sturgess were poisoned and taken there. British authorities took the father and daughter to a secret protected location.

British police said earlier they suspected the new victims had handled a container contaminated with Novichok and had no reason to think Rowley and Sturgess were targeted deliberately. 

Assistant Police Commissioner Neil Basu, Britain’s top counterterrorism officer, told local residents this week that Novichok could remain active for 50 years if it kept in a sealed container. He said he could not guarantee there were no more traces of the lethal poison in the area.

Basu said Friday that cordons would remain in place in some locations to protect the public despite the apparent breakthrough in the case. He would not provide more information about the bottle found in Rowley’s home. 

“This is clearly a significant and positive development. However, we cannot guarantee that there isn’t any more of the substance left,” Basu said. The continued blocking off of areas would “allow thorough searches to continue as a precautionary measure for public safety and to assist the investigation team.”

Britain’s Foreign Office said Friday that the U.K. has asked the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to collect samples for analysis at its labs. The organization has the power to assign blame for chemical weapons use.

The Novichok saga began in March when the Skripals mysteriously fell ill on a park bench in Salisbury. They were found to have been poisoned with Novichok. 

Prime Minister Theresa May blamed the Russian government for the attack, which the Kremlin has vehemently denied. The case led the United States and other countries to expel a large number of Russian diplomats.

Public health officials said the risk of exposure to the public is low, but advised people not to pick up any strange items.
…

Read More

As Finnish citizens await the arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin for their historic summit in Helsinki on Monday, they have reason to contemplate their own nation’s complex relationship with their powerful eastern neighbor.

Sandwiched between Sweden and Russia, Finland is often referred to as a nation “between East and West,” both for its geographic situation and the balancing act it performed during the Cold War, when it maintained a careful neutrality.

That stance was designed to “resolve the latent conflict between ideological ties and strategic realities,” wrote Max Jakobson, one-time Finnish ambassador to the United Nations, in his book Finland: Myth and Reality.

Finland, he says, is “a Western country ideologically and culturally, as well as part of the Western economic system.” But that leaning is overlaid with layers of complexity due to its location and history with Russia.

For roughly a century before it declared independence in 1917, Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy in the Russian empire, subject to the differing approaches of various Russian monarchs. Emperor Alexander II (1818-81) ruled as a moderate who encouraged liberal institutions in Finland; today, he is remembered with a well-regarded statue in Helsinki’s Senate Square.

Later leaders, in contrast, tried to Russify Finland and insisted that its internal administration must not “conflict with the interests and honor of Russia.”

EU member, not NATO

A Finnish-Soviet Friendship Treaty dissolved with the collapse of the Soviet Union and Helsinki became a member of the European Union in 1995, an act that puts Finland squarely in the Western camp. But the majority of Finns still are uninterested in joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), at least in part for fear of antagonizing their neighbor to the east.

In an apparent nod to cordial relations, Russia’s Putin visited Helsinki for Finland’s centennial celebration last year; the event was marked by pictures of him and Finnish President Sauli Niinisto sightseeing aboard a steamboat en route to dinner and a ballet performance.

On the other hand, Finland has lodged, on average, more than one land mine per meter along the nations’ 1,300-kilometer border. In the words of Pekka Toveri, brigadier general and defense attache at the Finnish Embassy in Washington, if you come to Finland you had better be invited.

“Finland doesn’t have a defense force,” Toveri told an audience at The Institute of World Politics earlier this year. “Finland is a defense force.”

“We are the most capable defense force in Northern Europe,” supported by a conscription policy and a readily deployable 280,000-strong wartime army, he added. “We have a capable neighbor, sometimes not so aggressive, sometimes a little bit more aggressive, but it’s always there, and you have to be prepared for that.”

Winter War and beyond

The world witnessed Finland’s vigilance and will to independence in the Winter War that started with a Soviet invasion in November 1939. Directed by Finland’s legendary Marshall Carl Gustaf Mannerheim, world skiing champion Pekka Niemi and others of his countrymen led squads on skis that penetrated the Soviet front lines and inflicted severe casualties. In the end, Finland lost more territory than the Stalin-led Soviet government had initially demanded, but it taught its “capable neighbor” the cost of fighting the Finns.

In recent surveys, Toveri said, 78 percent of Finns still say the country should resist any attack, “even if the end result is uncertain.”

Analysts say Finland’s history with Russia may offer lessons for the United States heading into the Trump-Putin summit.

“Finland has always been very clear-eyed about Russia,” said Erik Brattberg, a native of Sweden who heads the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based global think tank. “At the same time, Finland has kept a ‘businesslike’ relationship toward Russia.”

Brattberg warned that continuing to view Finland as a neutral country could lead to a “false narrative.” Even though Helsinki has been chosen to host the summit, Finland “is firmly part of the West and a deep partner of U.S. and NATO” and a strong proponent of a rules-based order among states.

“That’s why Finland is supportive of maintaining sanctions against Russia over the issue of Crimea. They would not like to have Crimea be recognized as part of Russia, as that would undermine the type of rules-based order — things like national sovereignty, territorial integrity — that a small country with a long border facing Russia, like Finland, ultimately depends on,” he said.

Great powers, smaller states

Kirsti Kauppi, Finland’s ambassador to the United States since 2015, said in an interview it is not “sustainable” for the large countries to think they can set the rules of international relations.

“We think that we need broad-based cooperation, that small and medium-sized countries also have a lot to contribute and a lot at stake,” Kauppi said.

Kauppi called for closer cooperation not only between the United States and Finland, but also between Washington and the European Union and the Nordic region generally: “The world is broader than the transatlantic community, certainly, but the basic link between the U.S. and the EU is extremely important in terms of how the international community takes shape.”

Urho Kekkonen, Finland’s president from 1956 to 1982, once acknowledged that small states have little power to influence the course of international events. But, he said, “Great Powers possessing the means of destroying the world bear the responsibility for the maintenance of peace,” while “smaller states can and must constantly remind them of this responsibility.”
…

Read More