Following a meeting between U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton and President Vladimir Putin this week, the White House announced that President Trump will sit down with his Russian counterpart for their first formal summit on July 16 in Helsinki, Finland. While both presidents Trump and Putin have repeatedly emphasized the need for improved ties, there are a host of contentious issues—such as the invasion of Ukraine and subsequent U.S. sanctions, Russia’s interference in U.S. and European elections, and the Syrian civil war—that could derail the effort to improve the bilateral relationship. USIP’s Bill Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine, discusses what issues will be on the table when the two leaders meet and the potential ramifications of the summit.

President Donald Trump during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7, 2017. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)
President Donald Trump during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7, 2017. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

What major issues do you expect to be on the table when U.S. President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin meet in mid-July? Will be there be any glaring issues they avoid?

First of all, summits are more likely to produce good results when they are well prepared. Mr. Putin is not our friend—he has invaded his neighbors and meddled in elections in Europe and the United States—so we should not expect favors, just the opposite. Preparation is important. Second, if Mr. Putin wants to rejoin the community of civilized nations and abide by the norms, standards and agreements that have kept the peace among major powers in Europe for nearly 70 years, then he should agree to withdraw from Ukraine. This should be a clear decision—restore sovereignty to Ukraine in its internationally recognized borders and the United States will remove the economic sanctions imposed on Russia in response to its invasion of Crimea and Donbas. Beyond that, Mr. Putin should commit that Russia will never again interfere in the elections and other democratic processes of other countries.

Both leaders have frequently called for improved U.S.-Russian relations. How can Washington and Moscow improve the bilateral relationship? What pitfalls could lead to a worsening of relations following the summit?

There could be clear benefits from improved communication between the U.S. and Russia: both sides should want to avoid the tensions and expense of an arms race, whether involving nuclear, cyber or space weapons. Both sides should also want to eliminate the proliferation of these weapons. Both sides want to avoid accidents or miscalculations that could lead to military confrontations. A range of issues should be discussed with the Russians, but the aggression against Ukraine and the consequent sanctions make these negotiations nearly impossible for now. The summit could agree that the Ukraine issue would be discussed in the United Nations Security Council where a solution involving a U.N. peacekeeping force and an interim international administration for Donbas could be agreed. Discussions of the other important issues could then begin.

Coming on the heels of the NATO summit on July 11-12, how will European allies view the Trump-Putin meeting?

The strength of the NATO alliance is its solidarity, commitment to common values, and pooling of resources. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, NATO has refocused on its earlier mission and has taken consistent and progressively stronger steps to strengthen deterrence against further Russian aggression, especially against NATO member states—particularly East Europeans and Baltic states. NATO allies will want to be reassured that this solidarity and unity of purpose vis-à-vis Russia is reinforced by all NATO heads of state meeting with Mr. Putin.


Related Research & Analysis

Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Amendments: Scare Tactics or Real Shift?

Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine Amendments: Scare Tactics or Real Shift?

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Moscow has relied on nuclear coercion and compellence to shape Western decision-making. On November 19, 2024, President Vladimir Putin approved amendments to Russia's nuclear doctrine, signaling a lowered threshold for nuclear first use. While the 2024 amendments introduce new details to possible scenarios for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, they do not constitute a significant departure from previous doctrine.

Type: Analysis

Can India Advance Peace in Ukraine?

Can India Advance Peace in Ukraine?

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Since the start of Russia’s war in Ukraine, India has worked to protect its strategic relationship with Russia while maintaining its burgeoning ties with the United States and Europe. India’s balancing act was on display earlier this year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Russia in July and made a historic trip to Ukraine the following month. Modi has portrayed a neutral stance on the Ukraine war and positioned India as a key player in any potential peace process.

Type: Question and Answer

Donald Jensen on the War in Ukraine’s Trajectory

Donald Jensen on the War in Ukraine’s Trajectory

Friday, January 3, 2025

As Ukraine considers the “politically loaded” question of whether to lower the age of military mobilization, Putin increasingly sees the war “not just as a land grab, but as a civilizational battle between Russia and the West,” says USIP’s Donald Jensen, adding: “We should not think that the war is anything close to being settled.”

Type: Podcast

Ukraine: The Inflection Point in the China-Russia Axis

Ukraine: The Inflection Point in the China-Russia Axis

Thursday, December 19, 2024

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has catalyzed a profound shift in global power dynamics: the deepening of the partnership between China and Russia. This relationship, while rooted in history, represents a significant departure from previous patterns of cooperation. China-Russia ties have evolved from a transactional relationship of convenience to a more durable strategic alignment, while continuing to fall short of a full-blown military alliance. This development challenges traditional Western assumptions about the limits of authoritarian cooperation and may signal the emergence of a new model of international partnership.

Type: Analysis

View All Research & Analysis