The rhetorical fallout from the summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Helsinki suggests that good U.S.-Russian relations are a zero-sum game: When the leaders of the two countries get along, relations are good. But when they don’t, relations are bad. Recent history suggests that successful summits rely not on one-on-one interactions, but on collective efforts.
We need mutually beneficial relations between nations and their populations, not only their leaders.
Contrary to Trump’s insistence, current U.S.-Russian relations are not the “worst ever.” One need only recall events of the past 60 years — the Cuban missile crisis, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S.-led boycott of the Moscow Olympics — to comprehend the harsh realities of Cold War politics. These crises were resolved not by two individual leaders, but by collective wisdom and expertise.
Despite the severity of 1960-1980 era, we witnessed some of the most enduring and impactful advances toward nuclear disarmament. Accords such as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) I and II were negotiated and signed.
Such developments occurred not because the leaders of our countries enjoyed close, friendly relations, but often in spite of it. Both governments and, more importantly, their people fully understood — and continue to understand — that maintaining positive, productive bilateral relations between our two nuclear superpowers, both possessing robust and diverse spheres of political, social and cultural influence, was not merely desirable, but essential. Even during the height of the Cold War, when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had amassed nuclear stockpiles, substantive talks between the two countries continued.
These conversations slowly but steadily increased the numbers of individuals from the private and public sectors interacting with one another in an environment of cooperation and collaboration. Summits, after all, can occur in the classroom and at the kitchen table.
The Helsinki summit, in this regard, was less of a step forward in further developing U.S.-Russian relations in the global sense than it was a single private conversation. It was a staged opportunity to provide the optics of stronger relations between the two countries without providing any of the necessary substance. The absence of immediate records of the substance of the talks and, consequently, of any evidence of progress in forwarding a new era of bilateral exchange and collaboration leaves one wanting some tangible results that relations between the two countries — not just between the two presidents — were stronger.
My 40-year relationship with Russia began when I was a student. I am a beneficiary of several of the agreements and organizations that emerged as a result of the more meaningful engagement of U.S.-Russian delegations, both of the Cold War and the post-Soviet periods. My first entry into the then-Soviet Union in 1979 was, coincidentally, through Helsinki, as participant of a program. It was through this eight-week encounter with the Russian language, culture, society and people that I was moved to become a scholar of Russian literature and Russia. Since that time, I have logged more than five years in the country and have been transformed as a person through my contact with Russian scholars, writers, politicians, students, filmmakers and so many others who have had a profound impact on me and my way of seeing the world. Perhaps in some small way, I and the thousands of other U.S. citizens who have traveled to, visited and worked in Russia have affected their lives, as well.
None of my Russian colleagues were surprised by the format or negligible impact of the Helsinki summit. Putin’s penchant for unilateral negotiation without the benefit of consensus is well known to them. Most Russians I know say they would like to see increased contact with the U.S.
Moving forward, we would all benefit from a return to a more citizen-to-citizen oriented diplomacy much like that of the Gorbachev era that increased contact between our countries, not only in a summit setting, but also in bilateral exchanges and initiatives. Putin and Trump should seek tangible agreements for increased cooperation at all levels in a transparent and well-informed manner. Such an approach to diplomacy would benefit not only the leaders of our countries, but also their constituencies.
