Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1598261611-scaled

Putin May Turn Against Trump in 2020

Putin's investment doesn't appear to be working out as he may have hoped.

Analysis | Washington Politics

It is well known that Russian President Vladimir Putin supported Donald Trump and opposed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. It is still debated whether or not Putin’s intervention affected the election result.

It is often just assumed that Putin will support Trump again in 2020. But he just might not. In fact, Putin may well seek to undermine Trump’s campaign this year.

Trump’s positive statements about Putin both during the 2016 presidential campaign and afterward may have led Putin to believe that Trump would be more willing to cooperate with Russia than either Obama was after Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea or Clinton would have been had she been elected president. But if this was Putin’s expectation, he has been sorely disappointed.

In their very first conversation after Trump became president, Putin suggested that the two leaders agree to extend the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) which is due to expire in February 2021—a move that Putin may well have considered something to be only practical, sensible, and even uncontroversial. But after having to put Putin on hold to ask his aides what New START even was, Trump came back on the phone to say, “No,” because he was sure that the treaty was somehow unfair to the U.S. As the expiration deadline approaches, Putin has continued to press Trump to renew it, only to be rebuffed. Since Putin sees the treaty’s extension as sensible for both sides, he regards Trump’s refusal to do so as irrational at best and indicative of a desire to expand America’s nuclear arsenal at worst.

Further, despite Putin’s hopes that Trump would reduce the Obama-era economic sanctions against Russia, Congress in 2017 (when Republicans controlled both houses) enacted more sanctions. While Trump said he disapproved, he signed the bill anyway—which was not reassuring to Putin. Nor is Putin likely to believe that Trump really could not control a Republican-dominated Congress insofar as Russia is concerned.

In addition, Putin expected that Trump—unlike Obama—would recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea. Trump, however, has not done so and does not appear likely to. Moreover, unlike Obama, Trump has sent military assistance to Ukraine, which is fighting against Russian-backed separatist forces (and even the Russian Army itself) in eastern Ukraine. In the U.S. and Ukraine, there has been a scandal about how Trump delayed this aid in the hope of getting the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. For Putin, though, what is scandalous is that Trump has sent any military aid at all to Kiev.

And most recently, Trump’s ordering the killing of Iranian General Soleimani in Baghdad could raise serious problems for Putin. As commander of the Qods Brigade, Soleimani oversaw the effort by Iranian and Shi’a militia forces in Syria to support the Assad regime. At a minimum, Soleimani’s death risks disrupting this. And if the U.S.-Iranian conflict escalates so much that Tehran is no longer able to act as effectively in Syria, this will confront Putin with having to deploy more Russian forces to Syria to take up the slack. With Russia mainly concentrating on the air war, it has been able to avoid large-scale Russian casualties which would be highly unpopular with the Russian public. But if Soleimani’s death eventually leads to a lesser, or just less effective, Iranian presence in Syria, Russia may have to compensate by increasing its own—and thereby risk suffering increased casualties—in order to protect Assad against opposing forces that will take heart from the  Soleimani’s demise.

In all of these instances—and more—Trump’s positive words about Putin have not prevented the U.S. from undertaking actions that Putin considers harmful to Russia. And the fact that this has occurred repeatedly must have raised Putin’s concerns that Trump is either too weak to be useful no matter how many positive things he says about Russia, or that Trump’s pro-Russian statements are meant to lull Moscow into not responding too harshly after repeated anti-Russian actions in the hope that the latest one will be the last.

Either way, Trump may have outlasted his usefulness to Moscow as far as Putin is concerned. In 2016, Putin may have believed that while Clinton was hostile to Russia, Trump was friendly. Now, he may feel cheated. (Indeed, the joke that some of my contacts in Moscow make is that Putin is so disillusioned with Trump that, “he wants his money back.”) If, then, Moscow sees Trump as more hostile than friendly, as well as reckless and unpredictable, Putin may conclude that Trump has betrayed him. The Russian leader is highly likely to seek revenge.

Yet even if Putin turns against Trump in 2020, there is no reason to believe that whatever propaganda and influence campaigns Moscow unleashes will actually serve to help the Democrats or hurt Trump. Indeed, for the Trump base, Moscow’s turning against their hero may even reassure them that Trump is not so beholden to Putin as they may have secretly feared no matter all their loud proclamations to the contrary.

Still, nobody should be surprised if, during the course of the 2020 presidential election campaign, WikiLeaks or a similar organization manages to get hold of and publish Trump’s tax returns, details about his confidential business deals, or even certain videotapes. What the Russian intelligence services might find especially amusing would be to release (in an at least somewhat indirect way) even further information than the U.S. government has about Trump’s strong-arming Ukraine over investigating the Bidens.

And why would Moscow do this? Because when it comes to Trump, Putin is no longer amused.


Analysis | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.