Actor Based Analysis of the Trump-Putin Summit

Similar Posts

The historic Helsinki Summit between the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin and the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump has been concluded after two closed-door gathering and one press opportunity. Yet, the outcome of the summit is still being echoed since the one-hour long press conference included key clues of what was deliberated in chambers.

In this context, it is acceptable to state that the “panic”, “worry”, “anger”, “frustration” and “new quest” expressed by power centres/countries such as; the European Union, Germany, United Kingdom of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland, Iran as well as China is ought to expedite and escalate. Thus, the Helsinki Summit marks a new period and has contributed to the process by “deepening” and “widening” the uncertainty around the world. Perceptibly, a quest for reconstructing the existing equipoise-equation has begun.

This development is equivalent to shuffling the cards in a manner similar to the system of complex alliances that came to the fore in the process leading to the First World War. It is apparent that this overly lubricious and elusive alliance which is visualised as a necessity of realist policy will not contribute to world peace. Hence what intentions do actors, especially the US and Russia have and what consequences could it provoke? For this, it is fundamental to briefly analyse the process from the perspective of the actors in question.

The US-Russia Dimension…

Certainly, the new strategy implemented by Washington is relevant to this process. Moreover, with Trump the US has become unpredictable. On the other hand, with Trump the “uncertainty strategy” adopted by the US is equivalent to is power vulnerability or at least leads to such perception.

Up until yesterday, the US which aspired to institute a global hegemonic power by itself, has once again declared its search for a partner in Helsinki. This pursuit had become apparent in the last days of the Bush administration, further developed by Obama and matured with Trump.

By this means, it is worth mentioning that the US has yet to achieve the desired result in its pursuance for cohort between China and the Russian Federation regarding a controlled dipole or multipolar process.  So, what is the US still striving for?

Herein five main goals of the US confront us: 1) Partitioning of the anti-US bloc within itself; 2) Isolating and encircling China. (In view of this, adding the Turkish-Russia-Iranian triad to its rank is vital); 3) Reorganising and consolidating influence over its own bloc by the means of an “opposing cabal”; 4) Actualising the Greater Israel Project; 5) Enacting the new Yalta Order.

Therefore, to succeed three actors; namely Russia, Turkey and Iran are vital to US interests. However, this also deciphers the idea of pacifying and drawing Iran into its axis by the means of approaching Turkey and endowing relations with Russia. The ignorance of the Russian threat —which has escalated with the Crimean-East Ukraine conflict— by the US and Trump shying away from criticising/warning Russia supports the above-mentioned determination.

Herein, it is vital to emphasise that Russia, under current circumstances is the most ideal and appropriate partner for the US. As a matter of fact, there is no other option since China rejected the same proposal during Obama’s last term.

Russia (if the situation is true) will occasionally be in the spotlight as an actor of the “Greater Israel Project-GIP”. In this case, the US will achieve a new milestone in its “Greater Middle East Project-GMEP” that it has put into practice in line with GIP. Given the recent traffic between Russia and Israel, the agenda of these rounds is more or less known. At the very least, the absence of Russia in the Astana Rounds will factually terminate the process.

Thereby, the summit in question has two exultant victors: Russia and Israel. It is understood that the US which prioritises Israel’s security has successfully added Russia to this endeavour.

On the other hand, Russia which has built its reputation based on “anti-US” and “brute force” and thus became a centre of attraction seems to have made gains too. However, this privilege can be easily consummated. A serious miscalculation could lead to mislaying Turkey and Iran as well as the European Union and the UK, causing Russia to be a problematic actor!

The EU-UK Dimension…

First, with the Helsinki Summit, the gap between the US and EU ha gotten deeper. Trump’s depiction of Germany and the EU as “occupied, captive, hostile state” reveals the current atmosphere in transatlantic relations.

The UK, which itself is in the process of leaving the EU and is trying to establish closer links with the US is chafed of the process and could pursue a more deliberate approach. The recent “reversal” in the Brexit process is probably due this actualisation. Therefore, reactions to Trump could lead to a cohesive European front or push the EU to forge closer ties with Russia.

To put it more concretely, the actors have three options available to them: 1) Making a choice between the US and Russia; 2) Verging another actor such as China; 3) Putting an end to the hostilities among them and instituting their power centre as soon as possible.

The Turkish Dimension…

The search for reconciliation between Trump and Putin could reduce the “preference” pressure for Turkey for a while. However, it could have more grave consequences too, since it is yet unknown how the two have shared the Middle-East. Moreover, the point that needs special attention is of course this undisclosed part. Nonetheless, if the situation is as it is, then a new era in Turkey-Russia-Iran relations is about to begin.